The Indian government’s recent electric vehicle (EV) policy is struggling to attract foreign manufacturers due to stringent local sourcing requirements and investment norms. Announced on June 2, 2024, the policy permits companies to import a limited number of electric cars at a concessional import duty of 15 percent. However, the initiative has faced significant challenges, including a domestic value addition (DVA) mandate of 25 percent, which has deterred potential applicants.

Despite the launch of the portal for the Scheme to Promote Manufacturing of Electric Passenger Cars (SPMEPCI) on June 24, the government revealed that no applications had been submitted by July 16. A government official, speaking to Moneycontrol, highlighted that foreign manufacturers such as Volkswagen, Kia, and Mercedes are showing little interest in the program. The official remarked, “We are worried that the scheme is there but there are no applicants,” indicating a growing concern regarding the effectiveness of the initiative.

The SPMEPCI is designed to incentivize local production by requiring manufacturers to source at least 25 percent of parts and components locally within three years of commercial production and 50 percent by the end of five years. Additionally, companies must commit to a minimum investment of Rs 4,150 crore. Those who fail to meet these DVA norms face penalties, further complicating the attractiveness of the scheme.

The government is actively engaging with EV manufacturers to understand their concerns. The official noted, “We are examining what reasons are there. We have had two to three stakeholder consultations.” Key demands from industry players include considering past investments and reducing the DVA requirement. The official explained that if the DVA remains at 25 percent, companies might opt to pursue import routes instead of establishing local manufacturing operations.

Despite ongoing discussions, the government appears reluctant to modify the scheme significantly. “We are not considering any changes to the scheme; we are waiting, maybe they (EV makers) will change their mind,” the official stated, reflecting a cautious approach to stakeholder feedback.

While the SPMEPCI portal will remain open for applications until October 21, 2024, the lack of initial responses raises questions about the future of foreign investment in India’s EV sector. The government’s strategy to promote local manufacturing in the electric vehicle industry is critical to its broader goal of achieving sustainability and reducing carbon emissions.

As the deadline approaches, it remains to be seen whether foreign manufacturers will reconsider their position or if the government will make adjustments to attract participation. The success of the policy hinges on balancing local sourcing requirements with the interests of global automotive players, a challenge that will require careful navigation in the coming months.

Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar announced his resignation on July 23, 2025, citing health concerns as the primary reason for his decision. At 74 years old, Dhankhar previously spent four days in March at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Delhi due to cardiac-related ailments. He returned to public life following his hospital stay but has now chosen to prioritize his health based on medical advice.

The announcement came after a closed-door meeting between Prime Minister and senior ministers earlier in the day, suggesting that the decision may have broader implications than just health. Dhankhar’s tenure as Vice-President and chairman of the Rajya Sabha was relatively short, lasting less than three years.

Unexpected Resignation Sparks Speculation

The timing of Dhankhar’s departure raised eyebrows, particularly as he had just issued a statement regarding planned official travel to Jaipur shortly before his resignation. He was also present in Parliament when he revealed that he received a letter signed by over 50 Members of Parliament calling for the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma. This move caught the government off guard, as the letter included signatures from opposition MPs, which Dhankhar acknowledged and instructed the Secretary-General to address.

Speculation about political motivations behind his resignation has emerged, particularly regarding Dhankhar’s recent interactions with opposition leaders. He was seen meeting Mallikarjun Kharge of the Congress party and hosting Arvind Kejriwal for discussions, raising questions about his alignment within the political landscape.

Background and Political Career

Born in 1951 in Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Dhankhar comes from a farmer’s family in the Jat community. He began his legal career in 1979, becoming a prominent advocate in the Supreme Court and various High Courts, and served as President of the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association. Transitioning to politics in the 1990s, he was elected as a Lok Sabha MP from Jhunjhunu with the Janata Dal and later became Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs under the Chandra Shekhar government. In 2003, he joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

In 2019, Dhankhar was appointed the Governor of West Bengal, where he frequently clashed with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. He took office as India’s 14th Vice-President on August 11, 2022, known for his firm leadership style, which some described as partisan. His tenure was marked by notable political tensions, including an unprecedented impeachment motion filed by opposition parties in December 2024. Dhankhar expressed disappointment regarding this move, stating that he felt hurt by the opposition’s actions.

As Dhankhar steps down, the government now faces the challenge of electing a new Vice-President within the next 60 days. His resignation coincides with the start of an important monsoon session of Parliament, where significant discussions, including Operation Sindoor and the impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma, are on the agenda. In the interim, Harivansh, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, will assume Dhankhar’s responsibilities for the duration of the session.

The Election Commission will soon announce the schedule for the Vice-Presidential election, which will be conducted through a secret ballot involving only MPs from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. As political analysts speculate about potential candidates, the central question remains: who will the government select as the next Vice-President?

A ruling by the Madras High Court has overturned the collegiate education department’s decision to reject the appointment of 19 assistant professors at Loyola College, including a librarian. The court mandated that the authority must approve these appointments within three months, following a petition from the college challenging the prior order issued on January 27, 2023.

Justice C. Kumarappan issued the order while addressing Loyola College’s claims regarding the recruitment process. The college argued that it had submitted proposals for the positions in 2019 and 2020, which fell within the sanctioned strength of 149 teaching and 59 non-teaching posts. It further contended that it received official sanction for 32 posts through various government orders dated January 8, 2021. As a minority institution, Loyola College maintained that it was not required to seek prior government approval to fill these sanctioned positions.

The collegiate education department opposed the college’s plea, stating that the proposals failed to comply with the requirements set forth in the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976. However, the court noted that established judicial precedents confirmed that minority institutions do not need to obtain prior permission for filling sanctioned posts.

In light of these findings, the court concluded that the reasons for rejecting the proposals were not legally tenable. Consequently, Justice Kumarappan quashed the department’s order, emphasizing that the college’s right to appoint staff was protected under existing legal frameworks.

This decision is expected to have significant implications for the staffing and operational capabilities of Loyola College, a well-known institution in Chennai, as it moves forward with the approved appointments.

The Select Committee of the Lok Sabha has presented a comprehensive report on the Income Tax Bill, 2025, identifying 32 critical issues that could impact clarity and fairness in the proposed legislation. The extensive report, spanning 4,574 pages, was submitted on February 13, 2025, by Committee Chairperson Baijayant Panda. Introduced by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, the Income Tax Bill aims to replace the Income Tax Act of 1961 entirely.

The Committee’s examination of the draft legislation has highlighted numerous areas requiring improvement. It has raised alarms about vague definitions and inconsistencies that could burden both taxpayers and administrators.

Need for Simplification and Clarity

A significant focus of the report is the necessity for clearer definitions throughout the bill. The Committee has advocated for revising the definition of “capital asset” in Clause 2(22) to be more aligned with recent amendments in the Finance Act, particularly regarding securities held by foreign investors. Additionally, the concept of “infrastructure capital company” was criticized for its complexity, with the Committee suggesting that the definition of “infrastructure facility” be directly included in the bill for better self-containment.

Other definitions, including those for “micro” and “small” enterprises, “parent company,” and “co-operative bank,” were also scrutinized. The Committee urged a more precise articulation to prevent potential misinterpretation.

Enhancing Fairness in Deductions

The report outlines several recommendations aimed at improving the fairness of income computations and deductions. For instance, it calls for explicit language in Clause 22 regarding the standard 30% deduction on income from house property, emphasizing that this should be applied after municipal taxes are deducted. The Committee also proposed that pre-construction interest deductions be available not only for self-occupied properties but also for those that are rented out.

Furthermore, clarity was sought in the realm of scientific research deductions, with the Committee advocating for a revision to specify when approvals are necessary. Similarly, the report highlighted the need to restore the term “adjusted gross total income” in clauses related to donations to avoid unintended tax benefits.

Support for Small Taxpayers and NPOs

The panel’s recommendations include provisions that could significantly benefit small taxpayers. It criticized the current requirement that mandates low-income individuals to file an income tax return solely to claim refunds for tax deducted at source (TDS). The Committee suggested removing this stipulation to prevent unnecessary legal repercussions for non-filing.

Special attention was given to non-profit organizations (NPOs), particularly those with dual religious and charitable objectives. The Committee recommended reintroducing the “religious-cum-charitable” category for exemptions on anonymous donations. It also emphasized using “income” instead of “receipts” for tax purposes, aligning with the principle of taxing actual income.

Addressing Legal Loopholes and Ensuring Continuity

The report calls for a careful redraft of certain clauses to maintain legislative intent. This includes revisions related to the computation of capital gains, the carry-forward of losses, and the eligibility for refunds when one person’s income is included in another’s. A notable concern was the proposed change of “shall” to “may” in penalty clauses, which could grant authorities undue discretion in non-compliance cases.

On the issue of tax avoidance, the Committee expressed support for the General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) but insisted on reinstating the phrase “in the circumstances of the case” to ensure assessments consider the specific context.

Modernization and Administrative Efficiency

In its recommendations, the Committee has also emphasized the need for modernizing administrative processes. This includes extending the compliance window for non-resident liaison offices from 60 days to eight months and removing fixed application fees in advance ruling cases to allow for greater flexibility.

Furthermore, the Committee approved Clause 536, which repeals the 1961 Act, with suggestions to ensure a clean consolidation of references, thereby preserving continuity through savings clauses.

Experts in the field have recognized the significance of these recommendations. Sandeep Jhunjhunwala, M&A Tax Partner at Nangia Andersen LLP, stated that the report aims to enhance legal clarity and taxpayer equity while facilitating a smooth legislative transition.

Rohinton Sidhwa, Partner at Deloitte India, noted that the amendments are corrective measures intended to fix drafting errors from the initial public comment draft. He pointed out that the provisions are now aligned with the original act.

Looking Ahead

The Select Committee’s 32 recommendations provide a roadmap for refining the Income Tax Bill, balancing the need for simplification with necessary safeguards. Whether the government will adopt these recommendations in full or in part remains uncertain, but their potential implications for individuals, businesses, and civil society are significant.

As the legislative process continues, the focus will be on ensuring that the final version of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, reflects a coherent and fair taxation framework for all stakeholders involved.