27 March, 2008

14 years in courts, 1 hour to walk free



The Times of India 27 March,2008 P. 1 The Times of India

Mumbai: The much hyped but much delayed special courts, which the Maharashtra government set up last year to try 1992-93 riots cases, disposed of the first case on Tuesday: a man accused of stealing two cans of groundnut oil 14 years ago was acquitted.


Metropolitan magistrate R C Bapat Sarkar took a little over an hour to acquit Abdul Ghaffar, whose case was one of the ‘‘priority’’ cases specially selected by the government to be tried in the new courts. Ghaffar (45), a sherbet seller on Mohammed Ali Road, was arrested in May 1993 for ‘‘breaking into’’ and ‘‘stealing’’ two cans of oil from a godown near his house in December 1992. ‘‘Dozens of us were rounded up during those days and charged with offences ranging from theft to murder depending on our ‘look’,’’ Ghaffar said during a break from work at his house near Suleman Usman Bakery. ‘‘I was in custody for two and a half months. They beat me up and tortured me in ways that I cannot tell you,’’ he added.


Ghaffar was charged under Sections 380 (robbery) and 454 (trespass) of IPC. His trial began at the Mazgaon magistrate’s court. ‘‘My date would come up every two weeks. I’d go to court, sign my name, and then be told that the case was adjourned. I’d return home by evening, a day’s earnings lost,’’ said Ghaffar.


For the past two years, there was no hearing and Ghaffar was told by police that his case had been put in the dormant file. Cops had no proof to nail ’93 case accused Mumbai: The special court set up last year by the Maharashtra government to try the 1992-93 riot cases disposed of their first case on Tuesday. Abdul Ghaffar who was arrested in 1993 for “stealing” two cans of groundnut oil, was acquitted by metropolitan magistrate R C Bapat Sarkar.


A few days ago, Ghaffar got summons asking him to appear in a new magistrate’s court at Fort, he said. With no lawyer, the sherbet seller sat in the courtroom all of Tuesday morning. Human rights activist and lawyer Shakil Ahmed of ‘‘Nirbhay Bano Andolan’’, which seeks justice for riots victims, had dropped in at the courtroom to see which of the specially selected cases was going on. ‘‘While the real culprits — politicians and policemen — escape prosecution, ordinary people like Ghaffar have been made to do the rounds of courts for 14 years for minor offences and with no evidence,’’ said Ahmed.


The lawyer then read the case papers and argued Ghaffar’s case before magistrate Bapat Sarkar. Of the three witnesses on record — two were cops and the third, the pancha — said in his statement that he did not know why the police had caught him and that he knew nothing about the case. The police had no evidence to link Ghaffar to the two cans they claimed to have recovered. The magistrate acquitted him. ‘‘I’m just glad that it’s all over. We never wanted to get mixed up with the police. We are only concerned about our family and giving our four children a good education,’’ said Naseem, Ghaffar’s wife.

With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

Man strips to get PF money

27 Mar 2008, 0215 hrs IST , TNN
VADODARA: A 41-year-old man, tired of running from pillar to post for his provident fund (PF), took Gandhigiri to new heights on Wednesday morning. Just like a character in 'Lage Raho Munnabhai', he stripped in the PF office at Akota to register his protest. The ploy worked. Senior officials have also suspended a clerk for delays and promised him the money before April 15. Indravadan Patel had been coming from Atali village to the PF office since January for his Rs 50,000. But officials would ask him to come back another day with one document or another. Patel claimed that an employee had asked for Rs 1,000 bribe which he paid after borrowing from a friend. "When I came to submit a form to redeem the money on January 1, I was asked to submit birth certificates of my sons. I submitted them on January 3 and was assured that I would get the money on February 2," said an agitated Patel, who worked for nine years in a private firm in Karjan that shut down last year. "On February 22, my application was rejected. It was sent back to the company which revised the form and returned it to the PF office again. I was then asked to submit my wife's birth certificate, bank statement and experience certificate." On Tuesday evening he was told to come on April 10. By then, Patel had lost his patience. He came to the PF office on Wednesday and stripped down to his underwear. "I had to sell my wife's jewellery and borrow money to sustain my family. These people have no heart." He admitted that he was not only inspired by Munnabhai but also Pooja Chauhan, the woman in Rajkot who had stripped and walked the streets in Rajkot to protest. The police have booked him for indecency in public but Patel has filed a police complaint against PF officials for mental harassment. Regional PF officer MP Sinha immediately suspended clerk Nagendra Kumar. "His claim is due for settlement before April 15. I will ensure that he gets his dues," he said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Man_strips_to_get_PF_money_in_Vadodara/articleshow/2902788.cms

Delhi HC asks govt for report on TV programming code

Business Standard New Delhi March 27, 2008 P. 3
The Delhi High Court today asked the government to provide an action-taken report on television programming and advertising code that the latter presented to the court earlier on a public interest litigation (PIL) on obscenity in the media. The action-taken report has to be submitted in four weeks.
The broadcast media industry is viewing the development with caution as the government’s note on the content code and self-regulation guidelines for TV channels does not include the suggestions made by two major private television channels’ representative bodies — the News Broadcasters’ Association (NBA) for news channels and the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) representing the interests of the general entertainment and niche channels.
Worried that it may not have a say in the self-regulation guidelines, the NBA appeared in the court today and said it has been preparing its self regulation code and redressal mechanism details, which it would like to present to the government.
“We told the court that we have been pushed aside and our suggestions must be on record with the ministry as our interests are very different from those of the entertainment channels,” said an NBA spokesperson. The court asked the association to send its recommendations to the government in a week.
Meanwhile, the IBF has also written to the ministry objecting to the exclusion of its suggestions in the code and sought a meeting with Information and Broadcasting Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi.
In its letter to the minister, IBF president Jawahar Goel has said that the content code and self-regulation guidelines must be arrived at after consultations with the body.
“Only one of our recommendations was mentioned and it was quoted out of context. It showed us in a bad light. Our 17-page document and suggestions on the redressal system were not annexed,” said an IBF spokesperson.
In the annexure attached to the affidavit placed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in the PIL, I&B Secretary Asha Swarup stated that the recommendations of the IBF could not be included as they were not acceptable.
“Keeping in mind public sensitivities, the structure of IBF draft has not been followed as they have suggested airing of top frontal nudity, unacceptable in the Indian context,” her note states.
The note adds that NBA’s recommendations could not be included as it did not meet the deadline for sending it. After several meetings with the broadcasters between 2005 and 2007, the NBA was given a deadline of January 2008. “A further request was made to extend the date up to February 21, but nothing has been heard from them so far.”
“…Therefore now, after considering all the responses received in favour of and against the draft guidelines, it has been decided to submit the report of the main committee constituted for reviewing programme and advertising codes prescribed under the Cable and Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995, and the rules framed thereunder and the guidelines for certification of films prescribed under the Cinematograph Act 1952. The report is enclosed for kind consideration of the government,” the note states.
The news channel heads did not wish to go on record on the issue but maintained that the matter was serious. “If the current guidelines come into force, news channels will not be able to do any investigative reporting,” said the COO of a Hindi news channel.
With Thanks from the Buisness – Standard
Copy Right rests with the Buisness-Standard
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

Riz case: HC wants details of body found on tracks

The Times of India 27 March,2008 P. 13 The Times of India Delhi

Kolkata: Calcutta high court on Wednesday directed the West Bengal government to submit more details on the condition of Rizwanur Rahman’s body at the time of its recovery from the railway tracks near Patipukur. The state will now have to file a supplementary affidavit with Form 48 of the Police Regulations of Bengal, by April 1. Form 48 contains details of a corpse recovered by the police in an unnatural death case.
This document has the details, such as the identity of the dead person, his or her age, exact location where the body was found, possible cause of death and records of the informant. Though it is mandatory to fill this form and send it to a magistrate for an inquest, no copy has been attached to the affidavit in opposition submitted by the state government earlier. The issue regarding the form assumed significance recently, after Rahman’s family members told the court that GRP had registered the age of the man — whose body was found on the rail tracks on September 21, 2007 — as 55 years. They had claimed that the body found on the tracks was not of Rizwanur’s.
On Wednesday, Justice Dipankar Datta wanted to know from senior counsel Samaraditya Pal why GRP had recorded the age of a 30-year-old man as 55. Pal, representing Kolkata Police officers indicted by CBI for abetting Rizwanur’s suicide, said the matter shouldn’t be taken into account as such things happened in a hurry.
With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

GM brinjal battle goes to HC

Greenpeace Seeks Data On Field Trials; Firm Says It’s Trade Secret

The Times of India 27 March,2008 P. 13 The Times of India Delhi

New Delhi: It’s a classic case of commercial interest vs public interest which could set an important precedent. Genetically modified brinjal — expected to be the country’s first edible GM crop — could find its way to your plate soon.
But first, Delhi high court will have to decide whether the company conducting its field trials can keep data on health and environment safety tests out of the public domain on the grounds that the information is a “trade secret”.
The data in question comprises toxicity and allergenicity studies and was submitted by Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co Ltd (Mahyco), a subsidiary of multinational Monsanto, to the department of biotechnology for regulatory clearances.
A representative of environmental watchdog Greenpeace sought access to the data under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Currently, open-air field trials of GM brinjal are being conducted in the fields of 11 public sector institutions. It is expected to hit the market by 2009, with Indians being the first global consumers of this transgenic crop.
While Greenpeace says disclosure is in public interest, Mahyco has moved high court seeking quashing of the order passed by the Central Information Commission last year ordering the department of biotechnology to release data on the safety tests.
The company has argued that the data contains immense patentable information and should be considered its intellectual property.
In its petition, it has also said that the CIC order violates the government’s obligations under TRIPS. The CIC order came after the department of bio-technology turned down Greenpeace’s plea for data on the grounds that the information it sought included “commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party”.
Besides brinjal, Greenpeace also sought bio-safety data on GM bhindi, mustard and rice. However, the CIC found merit in the Greenpeace argument that the data would not be used for commercial purposes and was sought to ascertain the risks that transgenic crops pose, particularly when open-air field trials are being conducted across the country.
The second time around, the department of biotechnology did not deny access but said the data could not be provided as it ran into thousands of pages.
The Central Information Commission heard a second appeal on November 22, 2007. The Commissioner, after going through the Environmental Protection Act (1986), noted that ‘‘genetically engineered organism or cells are recognised by the government as an item potentially hazardous to public heath. “It automatically follows that full compliance with these rules is a matter for public interest”.
Mahyco subsequently moved Delhi high court which passed an interim order in December 2007 staying the CIC order till the next hearing of the case on April 23. GREEN VS PURPLE GM brinjal, which has not been tested anywhere in the world before, will be India’s first edible transgenic crop It has the same Cry1Ac gene from Bacillus thuringiensis as cotton, which makes it tolerant to fruit and shoot borers, pests which attack it throughout its life cycle. It is being tested at 11 locations under the supervision of the Indian Institute of Vegetable Research at Varanasi. This is a major departure from large-scale trials of cotton which were conducted on farmers’ fields .

With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

Ministers, MPs scuttle move on anti-graft device


The Times of India 27 March,2008 P. 1 The Times of India Delhi

New Delhi: The government has failed to agree on a ‘‘competent authority’’ to decide on the prosecution of lawmakers. A difference of opinion between UPA managers prompted the Centre to drop a proposal in this regard. Sources said a discussion to decide on the ‘‘empowered office’’ that would take a call whether a political leader should be chargesheeted turned into a debate, with a section of the participants suggesting that ‘‘prosecution sanction’’ be limited to the ‘‘official work’’ of an MP, MLA or MLC in the legislatures.
It triggered a strong resentment among ministers, who felt that this would expose them to frivolous charges as a bulk of their work involves interventions on behalf of the citizens. Many of them said there was still no need for sanction to try a legislator in a criminal case but the ‘‘sanction shield’’ was required for corruption cases to let him work without fear. Anti-graft act silent on sanction authority New Delhi: Differences between UPA managers has led to the government dropping a proposal to decide on a competent authority to prosecute lawmakers. The seemingly radical suggestion to do away with the ‘‘sanction shield’’ has turned out to be a spoiler: it has put paid to an attempt to make Prevention of Corruption Act complete in itself by identifying authorities to decide on the fate of MPs or MLAs facing corruption charges.
PCA is silent on this front, although ‘‘competent authorities’’ are named for other ‘‘public servants’’. As an interim arrangement, presiding officers of legislatures decide on an investigating agency’s request to chargesheet an elected leader. A GoM, looking into a set of amendments to PCA, has decided to leave the issue of ‘‘competent authority’’ for the future even as it sealed other proposals. Ironically, the sudden call to remove the ‘‘sanction shield’’ for the lawmakers flies in the face of other proposals quietly assented by the same GoM. It has decided to extend the safety of prosecution sanction to retired public servants. More so, the GoM has decided against letting CBI decide suo motu on moving applications in courts for attachment of tainted property of a public servant.
The Centre had proposed to designate, under section 19 (1) of PCA, President as the ‘‘c ompetent authority’’ to decide on sanctions for MPs and governors for MLA/MLCs. It is mandatory to seek the opinion of speakers. The two offices were to be an interesting change in many ways. The office of the speaker gives ‘‘manoeuvring’’ space as this ‘‘neutral’’ office is generally occupied by a nominee of the ruling party. There is enough cloud over their role to put them above suspicion.
With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

Bhajan Lal disqualified under anti-defection law

The Times of India 26 March,2008 P. 17 The Times of India

Chandigarh: Pulling down the curtains on a bizarre political drama in Haryana, Vidhan Sabha speaker Raghbhir Singh Kadian on Tuesday announced the disqualification of veteran Congress rebel and former chief minister Bhajan Lal as MLA from Adampur assembly constituency. Ironically, it was Bhajan Lal who had drafted Kadiyan into state politics 10 years ago.
Coming within a week of a similar verdict in the case of Bhajan Lal’s loyalists Dharam Pal Malik and Rakesh Kamboj, the speaker’s decision formalised the former Haryana strongman’s dissociation with the Congress.
The speaker ruled in response to the disqualification petition moved by Congress MLAs Ramesh Gupta, Jitender Malik and Shadi Lal Batra against Bhajan Lal, Ramesh Kamboj, and Dharampal Singh Malik. In his 57-page judgment announced on Tuesday afternoon, the speaker elaborated at length on proceedings that took place until Tuesday afternoon.
But although the disqualification proceedings have ended, the decision is bound to give a new twist to politics in Haryana. Unaware of the political implications of the sacking of Bhajan Lal, an upbeat petitioner, Batra, termed it an example for those who break party discipline.
‘‘Right from the day we filed the petitions, we had been asking them (the sacked MLAs) to clear their stand on issues related to their association with the Congress. Had Bhajan Lal done so, I would have withdrawn the petition. It’s not only his case, I would plead against anybody working against the party,’’ said Batra, the petitioner MLA.

With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

Bank, 2 staffers to be booked in bus repossession case

The Times of India 26 March 2008 P. 11 Delhi

Taking a strong view of an alleged forcible repossession of a bus financed by the ICICI Bank, a city court has ordered registration of an FIR against the bank and two of its employees and five unknown persons. In the order, the court also issued notices to the SHO of Vasant Kunj and the concerned ACP. Metropolitan magistrate Praveen Singh, while ordering SHO of Vasant Kunj police station to register the FIR, in the order said: ‘‘The police was bound to register an FIR which it had failed to do. Let the notice be issued to the SHO, Vasant Kunj as well as ACP concerned for reply on why a contempt reference should not be made to the honourable high court.’’
The court also directed the SHO to file the investigation report in the case by on April 8. In the matter, a complaint was lodged through his counsel M R Singh Sisodia by Ravinder Singh Mann, CEO and managing partner of a Delhi-based firm Balaji Services, alleging that one of his CNG buses, out of 21 buses which were financed by the ICICI Bank, was forcibly repossessed. According to the complaint, Mann was paying all the instalments which were being encashed through post-dated cheques. Later, Mann mentions in the complaint that two officials of the bank had come to his office and ‘‘demanded more post-dated cheques by saying that some of the cheques given by the applicant earlier are not traceable.’’
On this Mann is said to have told the officials that in such a case, a letter or an affidavit was required to be given from the head office of the bank.’’ According to Mann, on March 1, 2008, one of his buses was forcibly repossessed from Ghitroni area, here, by a group of seven people. It has also been alleged that the driver and the supervisor were kept under illegal detention and the driver was forced to sign a proforma. Both were finally released on March 3, 2008 ‘‘after issue of dire threats.’’
According to Mann, a complaint was then filed with the Vasant Kunj police station and also DCP south-west, but no action was taken. Mann was then forced to move the court on March 12. The court was furious with the police that rather than registering an FIR they were conducting a preliminary equiry. Charudatt Deshpande, spokesperson for ICICI Bank, told Times City: ‘‘We have not received the order as yet. The customer was given 16 vehicles and in all cases he was a chronic defaulter. Two of the vehicles were repossessed and we have followed due process of law. If we receive any court order we would be able to react based on facts.’’

With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

24 March, 2008

Wife-beating cases: Maha amends law to allow out-of-court settlement

The Times of India 19 March 2008 P. 19 Delhi

Fifteen years after cruelty to wives was introduced as a serious offence in India with no provision to enable the wife to withdraw her complaint, the Maharashtra government has decided to amend the law to allow for an out-of-court settlement.
The state government’s decision is significant because only last week the Bombay HC held exactly the opposite — that a wife could not withdraw charges of cruelty against her husband or opt for an out-of-court settlement. The full bench had added that such cases could at best be quashed, but sparingly so, by HCs. Cruelty to wife is a cognisable, non-bailable offence under Section 498-A of the IPC that attracts up to three years in jail and a fine.
Last month, Maharashtra asked the Centre to approve its decision to amend 498-A and make it ‘compoundable’ — in other words, to allow the wife to withdraw her charges against her husband and in-laws and mutually settle the case out of court.
The state is hopeful that the Centre will approve the amendment soon since there is a precedent: Andhra Pradesh has permitted wife-beating cases to be mutually settled by husband and wife.
Maharashtra, a state known for its progressive legislations, has decided that ‘‘mutual settlement’’ ought to be permitted so that ‘‘genuine cases’’ are not deprived of an early closure, said a law department official. ‘‘The most flimsy cases are filed,’’ he said. ‘‘One slap has also resulted in a 498-A case’’.
The state said in its note to the Centre that there were cases where the couple patched up after a complaint was lodged and the husband arrested. Despite their patching up, however, the criminal proceedings continued.
With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

Degree is better than diploma: SC

The Times of India 18 March2008 P. 13 Delhi

It may be universal knowledge that a ‘degree’ is a higher educational qualification than a ‘diploma’, but it required the Supreme Court to clarify this distinction to the Maharashtra government and the Bombay high court.
This ruling will also help those passport seekers whose travel documents have been stamped with ECR (emigration clearance required) by authorities for submitting post-graduation degree copies instead of the specified graduation certificate. The Maharashtra government rejected the candidature of a few applicants, who possessed degrees in agriculture, on the ground that they did not have the basic qualification — a diploma in agriculture — stipulated in the advertisement for the posts of ‘gram sevak’. The rejected candidates, who were registered in employment exchanges as being either graduates or post-graduates in agriculture, moved the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court challenging a decision of the Gondia zilla paris-had executive officer not to issue them letters for interview in 2001.
The petitioners argued that as they possessed qualifications higher than what was required, they should have been called for interview. Countering this, the state government’s stand was that they did not have the basic qualification, that was a diploma certificate. It said the candidates would have been considered for interview had they possessed a diploma in addition to the bachelor’s or postgraduation degree in agriculture. The HC upheld the contention of the state. They appealed in the SC against the HC decision.
Setting aside the HC order, an apex court bench comprising Justices A K Mathur and Lokeshwar Singh Panta said: ‘‘In our view, the interpretation given by the HC is wrong and there are no two opinions in the matter that a diploma is a lower qualification than a degree. Once a candidate possesses a degree, then he has to be given preference as against a candidate who possesses a diploma,’’ the bench said and directed the state government to make the appointments in accordance with law.
With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

‘Sniffer dog evidence not ground for conviction’

NOT GOOD ENOUGH?
The Times of India 18 March2008 P. 9 Delhi

Human emotions and a canine’s ability to trace the culprit cannot be the grounds for courts to fasten guilt on an accused, ruled the Supreme Court while acquitting an Assam engineer, who was convicted of murdering his wife and adopted daughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. What distressed the apex court was that the engineer had to remain in jail for four years due to the folly of the trial court and the high court, which convicted him for the double murder relying on such insignificant circumstantial evidence.
The Assam police had slapped murder charges against Dinesh Borthakur, who claimed to have discovered the bodies on coming back home from office on May 25, 1999. Though doctors opined that the girl was strangulated, they were not sure whether the engineer’s wife Mala died due to consumption of poison or by strangulation, which could also be due to suicide.
The trial court, after examining the evidence, held Dinesh guilty of the double murder on the ground that the sniffer dog stayed near him and that his conduct was not natural as he did not exhibit any emotions or sadness despite the fact that a shocking incident had occurred. The Gauhati HC had dismissed his appeal against conviction.
Dealing with the case, an apex court Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari said: “While the services of a sniffer dog may be taken for the purpose of investigation, its faculties cannot be taken as evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt of an accused.” Quoting a 1969 SC judgment, the Bench said: “Since it is manifest that the dog cannot go into the box and give his evidence on oath and consequently submit itself to cross-examination, the dog’s human companion must go into the box and report the dog’s evidence and this clearly is hearsay. Second, there is a feeling that in criminal cases, the life and liberty of a human being should not depend on canine inference.”
Examining in detail the lack of expression of emotions by Dinesh after the discovery of the bodies, the Bench said no hard and fast rule, having universal application with regard to the reaction of a person in a given circumstance, could be laid down. “One person may lose equilibrium and balance of mind, but another may remain a silent spectator till he is able to reconcile himself and then react in his own way,” said Justice Sinha, writing the judgment for the Bench. “Thus, merely because Dinesh did not cry or weep on witnessing the bodies of his wife and daughter cannot be made the basis for forming his guilt,” he said.

With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

HC to rescue of blind PCO owner, tells AIIMS to restore his licence

The Times of India 18 March2008 P. 7 Delhi
Castigating AIIMS for hankering after more license fee, the Delhi High Court has quashed its decision to remove a visually challenged man working as an STD booth operator inside AIIMS campus since 1994, when he was allotted the booth, because he couldn’t pay the hiked fee. A division bench of Justice A K Sikri and Justice Vipin Sanghi also ordered the Centre and AIIMS authorities to frame guidelines for allotment of shops to disabled persons on the Institute’s premises keeping in mind the needs of the disabled. Expressing anger over the way a blind booth operator was dispossessed of his shop by the Institute authorities after cancelling his licence, HC said, ‘‘The government or the local authorities have not framed the requisite schemes in favour of persons with disabilities for preferential allotment etc.’’ Quashing the August 12, 2004 public notice inviting tender by the AIIMS authorities for running the STD booth, the Court directed it to frame a scheme within six months and said that the Disability Act is in force for the past 12 years but the government had failed to comply with the provisions. The Court allowed the plea of petitioner Sanjay Jha, who has been running the shop for past 14 years, and said his contract be renewed by fixing a reasonable licence fee on the basis of an ‘objective yardstick’. ‘‘Disability provisions warrant a different approach and cannot be tied down by such audit objections on mode of license fee,’’ the two judges observed. Jha, who is visually impaired, said he was allotted the shop on AIIMS premises in 1994 on an 11-month contract basis but that has been regularly renewed at a higher licence fee. However, in August 2004, the AIIMS management had issued a public notice inviting applications for the allotment of premises and removed him from the booth, he alleged.
With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

HC debars IA union from striking work

The Times of India 18 March2008 P. 7 Delhi

After threatening to disrupt air services on Tuesday, the erstwhile Indian Airline’s union has been debarred by the Delhi High Court from striking work on Tuesday. The union, however, maintains that the strike has only been deferred to April 4, when they will meet the labour commission and the Air India management. About 18,000 employees of Air India were expected to join the strike, involving workers from all rungs in the organisation, including pilots.
Justice SN Aggarwal stayed the proposed plan of these employees to go on strike on Tuesday, claiming the new merger between Indian Airlines and Air India happened without settling pending arrears of the employees.
HC acted on a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against Indian Commercial Pilots Association who were spearheading the strike call on Tuesday. The suit was filed by National Aviation Company of India pleading that the strike be prohibited as it would prevent the smooth functioning of Air Transport Service. Justice Aggarwal agreed with counsel for the Aviation company — Lalit Bhasin, Ratna Dwivedi and Rajeshwari Shukla — that if the employees are allowed to strike work it would paralyse functioning of air transport service. The advocates alleged that the strike was illegal as reconciliatory efforts were still on before the concerned authorities.
HC also directed the local SHO to ensure protesting employees don’t hold any Dharna within a radius of 100 metres inside and outside premises of IGI and Safdarjung Airport. The union had a meeting with the chief labour commissioner (CLC) on Monday where the CLC asked the union to talk further with the management and sort out the issues. ‘‘We will submit our demands which we should be able to do in the next two to three days. The management has also been asked to give its version and reactions to the CLC. If nothing comes out, we will have to weigh our options,’’ said JB Kadiyan, general secretary of Air Corporation Employees Union.

With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

17 March, 2008

RBI may ban hiring of recovery agents: Minister

The Times of India 12 March 2008 P 26 Delhi

The Reserve Bank could ban hiring of loan recovery agents by banks, which had been penalized by courts for use of coercive methods.
The ban could be permanent if the banks continue to use “abusive recovery practices”, minister of state for finance Pawan Kumar Bansal said. RBI would consider imposing a temporary ban for engaging recovery agents on those banks in case of which strictures have been passed/penalties have been imposed by a High Court/Supreme Court with regard to abusive practices followed by their recovery agents, he said.
The Minister said the RBI has taken up the complaints regarding the use of coercive practices by recovery agents with the concerned banks for appropriate action. “In case of any violation of...guidelines by a bank, appropriate regulatory action is taken by RBI,” he said.
RBI has already issued instructions to commercial banks and non-banking financial companies clearly stipulating that “their agents should not resort to intimidation or harassment of any kind, either verbal or physical, against any person in their debt collection efforts,” Bansal said. The guidelines also stipulate that the recovery agents would not humiliate publicly or intrude upon the privacy of the debtors, their family members, referees and friends, make threatening and anonymous calls or make false and misleading representation.
As per the banking code, Bansal said “the collection policy of the bank (should) be built on courtesy, fair treatment and pursuasion...in consonance with the law”.

With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

14 March, 2008

Cash transactions of Rs 1 cr-plus must take e-route

The Economic Times 11 Mar. 08 Tuesday P 18 Delhi

IN A step that will force most of the money moving around the country on to the electronic platform, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has made it mandatory for all payments above Rs 1 crore, between the entities it regulates, to be routed electronically. At present, there are three modes of electronic payments that are available; real-time gross settlement (RTGS) system, national electronic fund transfer (NEFT) system and the electronic clearing service (ECS). They work as an alternative for the physical mode where cheques are cleared by banks after being processed at a central clearing house.
The latest diktat covers all banks, primary dealers (PDs) and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs). In addition, the central bank has also mandated that all payments of Rs 1 crore and above in RBIregulated markets such as the money market, government securities market and foreign exchange market, be routed electronically. A deadline of April 1, 2008 has been set for both migrations.
RBI had placed a draft proposal for the same on its website on February 18, and invited comments from stakeholders. It has decided to go forward with the implementation, after it found the proposal to be acceptable. On the day the proposal was mooted by the central bank, RBI deputy governor V Leeladhar had said, “If this system works out well, it will give other regulators the confidence to issue similar guidelines.”
According to RBI, these systems have been put in place to ensure the ‘safety and security of the payment system’. There are a large number of bulk payments which are made through paper instruments, and banks face attendant risks of routing such payments which have to under go the process of a clearing cycle.

With thanks from The Economic Times
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

It’s official, banks won’t charge you for ATM use

The Economic Times 11 Mar. 08 Tuesday P 18 Delhi

Free Use Of Third-Party ATMs To Come Into Effect From April 2009, Banks To Share Transaction Cost

IN JUST over a year from now, bank customers can freely use their ATM cards to withdraw cash from any ATM installed by various commercial banks across the country. For now, they can access any of the 32,000-odd ATMs of various banks free of transaction charge for balance enquiry. Also with immediate effect, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has barred banks from charging any fees for customers using their own banks’ ATMs and cut charges on withdrawal from third-party ATMs to Rs 20 per transaction.

With RBI issuing a diktat that the cost of using third-party ATMs can’t be passed on to consumers, banks will have to work out some kind of a transfer-pricing structure to defray the costs of those banks that have made huge capital expenditure. ATM service providers say that banks will have to work out the cost of each ATM transaction and net out the charges they have to pay each other based on their network usage.
Since RBI has not got into the details of how the costs will be shared, banks will have to decide amongst themselves a middle path where banks are not completely discouraged from installing new ATMs and yet banks without any network are not fleeced. In a circular issued to all commercial banks and RRBs, RBI said, “The (ATM) charges levied on the customers vary from bank to bank and also vary according to the ATM network that is used for the transaction. Consequently, a customer is not aware, before hand, of the charges that will be levied for a particular ATM transaction while using an ATM of another bank. This generally discourages the customer from using the ATMs of other banks. It is, therefore, essential to ensure greater transparency.”
The central bank went on to say that in countries such as the UK, Germany and France, bank customers have access to all ATMs in the country free of charge, except when cash is withdrawn from white label ATMs or from ATMs managed by non-bank entities. “There is also a move, internationally, to regulate the fee structure by the regulator from the public policy angle. The ideal situation is that a customer should be able to access any ATM installed in the country free of charge through an equitable cooperative initiative by banks,” the circular said. The service charges for the following types of cash withdrawal transactions may be determined by banks themselves. The central bank has clarified that these guidelines do not apply to cash withdrawal with the use of credit cards and for cash withdrawal in an ATM located abroad.

With thanks from The Economic Times
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

Indian courts and foreign arbitration awards

Contributed by Madhavi Goradia Divan

The Economic Times 11 Mar. 08 Tuesday P 17 Delhi

Indian judiciary ought to support globally accepted dispute resolution mechanism on arbitration awards

IN a recent judgement, the Supreme Court of India held that a foreign arbitration award recognised and upheld by the foreign court where it was sought to be enforced, is nevertheless, amenable to challenge in an Indian court. This judgement adopts a strained interpretation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and throws into grave doubt our commitment to international commercial arbitration. It is likely to affect pending and future transactions and impact India’s credibility in the international market.
Let us examine the case in some detail. Venture Global, an American Corporation, entered into a joint venture with Satyam, an Indian company to incorporate a new company in which each held a 50% equity share. The agreement provided for resolution of disputes by arbitration. When disputes arose, Satyam invoked the arbitration clause with the London Court of International Arbitration. An award was passed in Satyam’s favour directing Venture Global to transfer shares to Satyam. Satyam moved a petition in the United States District Court in Michigan seeking enforcement of the award. Venture Global resisted the petition, claiming that the award was in violation of Indian laws, in particular, the FEMA, 1999. The objections were, however, rejected and the US Court upheld the award.
In the meantime, Venture Global filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Secunderabad, to quash the award. An injunction was passed in favour of Venture Global, restraining Satyam from effecting a transfer of shares. Satyam successfully challenged the order and also succeeded in having the suit filed by Venture Global dismissed. An appeal by Venture Global was rejected by the High Court on the ground that the award was a foreign award and could not be challenged under the Arbitration Act. The appeal before the Supreme Court by Venture Global was resisted by Satyam on several grounds: * That no suit could lie to set aside a foreign award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. * That an action to set aside a foreign award would lie before the competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made, a principle internationally recognised. * That an application under Section 34 in Part-I of the Act under which a domestic award can be set aside, could not apply to a foreign award which would be governed by Part-II of the Act. A foreign award could not be challenged in India but its enforcement could be resisted under Section 48, under Part-II. * That Venture Global had availed of the opportunity to oppose enforcement of the award in the United States and having failed there, could not take its chances before the courts in India.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ruled that a foreign award was amenable to challenge under Section 34 on a construction that Part I of the Act applies to foreign awards. It was only in a case where the parties specifically chose to exclude the application of Part I of the Act that such challenge would not be available.
This ruling could have disastrous consequences for international commercial agreements and foreign awards passed thereon by opening up the floodgates for challenge. The object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is based on the New York Convention, is to facilitate international commerce and business, to ensure finality of foreign awards and to minimise judicial interference, particularly when awards have been passed by international commercial experts. This judgment has the contrary effect. It is also somewhat ironical that the award, having been upheld in the United States on the application of the Indian party, was reopened at the instance of an American party , who having failed in its own home country, managed to get an ex-parte injunction in an Indian District Court !
Over the last few years, the Supreme Court has delivered a series of judgments which amount to a serious inroad into arbitral autonomy. Indian district courts do not have the expertise to deal with complex commercial dealings, much less to sit in judgment over awards passed by international commercial experts, who the parties have chosen to repose their faith in. Not to mention that our courts are hopelessly overburdened with arrears and are hardly in a position to take on new challenges.
The Indian judicial system with its notorious delays and deficiencies has been internationally regarded as a deterrent to doing business in India. At a time when India is experiencing an unprecedented economic growth, the legal system must shake off that image and assist in inspiring global confidence in India by supporting and respecting an internationally accepted dispute resolution mechanism. Instead, given the recent judicial pronouncements, international arbitrations are going to be left to the mercy of district judges in India.
(The author is an advocate, Supreme Court )
With thanks from The Economic Times
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

The indigenous question of patents and pricing

The Economic Times 11 Mar. 08 Tuesday P 17 Delhi

INDIAN drug companies have been faring dismally, as opposed to their counterparts headquarterd in the US and Europe as far as high-end drug discovery is concerned. The situation is not any different in core drug discovery—read invention, of new chemical entities (NCEs) with confirmed commercially relevant therapeutic value and tolerable toxicity.
This is despite recent years’ hype about Indian pharma companies’ licensing out some molecules at clinical and pre-clinical stages of development to foreign drug companies and R&D institutes. Most of these licensing deals have come a cropper because these drug molecules have failed to pass through the later stages of clinical development. The results have almost invariably been abandonment of these molecules by foreign companies which licensed the molecules in.
The government has been supporting the R&D ventures of private pharma companies in some ways. In recent years, publicly funded institutions like CDRI, IICT, CCMB, CBT etc. under the CSIR as well as other premier institutes like NIPER have been partnering with private companies, with greater willingness. These partnerships mostly comprised peripheral research activities but included some new molecule development activities and frontier research (like genomics and stem cells) also.
Fiscal incentive (150% weighted deduction of R&D spend on computing income tax liability) has been another kind of government support. Then there are many schemes which essentially allow pharma companies to avail of public funds for R&D, although these funds have deplorably small sizes when gauged in the context of the colossal funding requirements for core and high-end R&D.
Partly for the dearth of finances, drug majors in India are now focusing on second-rung research activities like new delivery systems. One form of government support for drug R&D has been an assertion in the drug policy that drugs begotten from indigenous R&D would be spared price control for the first five years in the market. Some companies have already benefitted from this measure. However, an issue has now emerged.
The government has now made it clear that it would introduce a system of premarketing negotiation of the prices of patented drugs. What is being said is the government would ensure that prices of medicines that would get patent protection in India would be sold cheaper than their lowest “international price.” Sources say the Canada model, which guarantees the lowest price for a patented drug anywhere in the world, is likely be emulated here. (Of course, purchasing power difference between the two countries would be factored in). The guidelines are being framed.
The issue mentioned above is that wouldn’t the new system be at odds with the present policy of giving five-year exemption from price control for drugs begotten from indigenous R&D?. Why should there be a special intellectual property dispensation for Indian companies? Is such differentiated treatment compatible with the WTO’s TRIPS agreement? Already, the western governments decry Indian patent law for its alleged TRIPS-minus nature. However, a sizeable section of experts across the globe, including those in the WTO’s own World Intellectual Property Organisation disagrees with the western governments’ stance.
These experts extend their allegiance to India’s Patent Act, including the most contentious provision of Section 3(d) which seeks to enhance the standards of patenting.Although India has gained considerable international approbation for its courageous defence of the patent law that is strictly TRIPS-compliant without being TRIPSplus, there is now a concern that the differential treatment for Indian companies would undermine this support base. The contention is that existing incentives like low cost funds and income tax relief are tenable schemes to sour indigenous R&D but not a differential pricing of patented drugs. Anybody listening?

With thanks from The Economic Times
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

SC spikes Saurashtra Stock Exchange plea

The Economic Times 11 Mar. 08 Tuesday P 8 Delhi

THE Supreme Court on Monday dismissed an appeal of the Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (SKSE), challenging withdrawal of its recognition by the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Sebi). The apex court upheld Sebi’s power to withdraw recognition of stock exchanges. A bench comprising Justice SH Kapadia and Justice BS Reddy dismissed the SKSE’s plea.
The exchange said the central government had conferred power on Sebi to withdraw recognition of stock exchanges. The board cannot delegate this power to its members. However, Sebi counsel Pratap Venugopal said exercise of powers by whole-time members of the marker regulator is not only under section 5 of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 but also under section 11 read with section 19 of the Sebi Act, 1992. It is also in consonance with the government notification of 1994 which conferred such power on the board, said the counsel.
SKSE in its appeal had said: “The notification of 1994 does not say that the power under section 5 of SCR Act can also be exercised by any other member of the board. An objective regarding the notification clearly shows that the Centre never intended the power to withdraw recognition be left to any one member of the board.”

With thanks from The Economic Times
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

Seal all illegal premises not protected by MP 2021: SC

The Economic Times 11 Mar. 08 Tuesday P 2 Delhi
THE SUPREME Court on Monday asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to seal all illegal commercial premises in the capital’s unauthorised colonies, which are not protected by Master Plan 2021 and the Centre’s notification by June 30.

A bench comprising Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice P Sathasivam passed the direction and asked the civic agency to seal such premises by June 30. The court had earlier allowed desealing of commercial properties in around 1,500 illegal colonies which were exempted by the Centre’s notification issued on January 30.
The court, however, had said that desealing would be subject to the final outcome of its proceeding in which the constitutional validity of the notification was being examined. “Desealing would be subject to the undertaking given by the owners that they will abide by final orders of the court on the legality of the notification,” the court had said while granting interim relief to the traders.
According to the notification, notwithstanding any judgement, decree or court order, steps shall be taken by the concerned local authority, including desealing of unauthorised commercial establishments, to maintain status quo as on January 1 2006.

With thanks from The Economic Times
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

1,300 Cases Pending Against Lawmakers, Including Ministers

...but look what some in executive are busy with

The Economic Times 11 Mar. 08 Tuesday P 2 Delhi

THE CENTRE on Monday told Parliament that there are as many an as 1,300 cases pending against MPs and MLAs in various courts. They include cases being investigated by CBI against railway minister Lalu Prasad, who is being tried in relation with the fodder scam, and those against current and former UP chief ministers Mayawati and Mulayam Singh in disproportionate assets cases.

Union law and justice minister H R Bhardwaj told the Upper House on Monday in a written reply that as on March 31, 2007, there were 1,300 cases pending against legislators. The CBI reported that it was investigating around 65 such cases.

Mr Bhardwaj was quoting figures gathered by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, while studying electoral reforms. The committee, in the course of its work, found out the number of chargesheets filed against sitting MPs and MLAs in different courts of law by asking all state governments and UT s to provide requisite data. The information from the states that furnished it showed that 1,300 cases are pending against legislators in various courts, Mr Bhardwaj told the Rajya Sabha.

Other than RJD president Lalu Prasad, JMM chief Shibu Soren, who was in the Union cabinet earlier, is facing trial in a murder case. He was acquitted in the Chirudih massacre case recently. He was cleared of charges in the murder of his secretary by a Delhi court some time back.

BJP prime ministerial candidate L K Advani and senior leader Murli Manohar Joshi, both MPs, are being tried in the Babri Masjid demolition case. Among those in government, Union ministers M A A Fatmi, Jay Prakash Narayan Yadav and Mohammad Taslimuddin also have cases pending against them.

These ministers, along with party chief Lalu Prasad, have been targeted by the Opposition BJP for being tainted and the party has asked for their resignation from the government several times.

Other than these names, RJD MP Mohammad Shahbuddin and SP MP Atiq Ahmed have also made it frequently to the headlines in connection with several criminal cases.

With thanks from The Economic Times
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

Policy decision executive’s prerogative: SC...

The Economic Times 11 Mar. 08 Tuesday P 2 Delhi
Judiciary Has No Role Unless Fundamental Rights Are Violated, Rules Three-Judge Bench

The Supreme Court in a ruling delivered on Monday said that policy decision must be left to the government as it alone can decide which policy should be adopted. The scope of judicial interference is extremely limited in matters of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the government so long as infringement of Fundamental Right is not shown, said the apex court rejecting direction to the state of Uttar Pradesh to reconsider its decision carving out a new district of Baghpat in 1997.
A bench comprising Justice Arijit Pasayat, Justice C K Thakker and Justice L S Panta said: “The policy decision must be left to the government as it alone can decide which policy should be adopted after considering all relevant aspects from different angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the government so long as the infringement of Fundamental Right is not shown, courts will have no occasion to interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own judgement for the judgement of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the government the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the government”.
The court said, as rightly contended by counsel for the State of UP that in matters of policy decisions, the scope of interference is extremely limited.
Justice Pasayat writing the verdict said that the cabinet’s decision was taken nearly eight years back and appears to be operative. That being so, there is no scope for directing reconsideration, as was done in Ram Milan’s case, though counsel for the respondents (Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh and others) prayed that such a direction should be given.
The Cabinet in its meeting on January 10, 2000, after discussion had decided that new districts and divisions created in 1997 shall be continued as it is and with regard to them further steps as necessary regarding placing of Ordinance/Bill be taken.
On September 15, 1997, a notification was issued under Section 11 of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904. The then governor of the state had directed for the creation of a new district of Baghpat with effect from the date of publication of the notification. It was challenged in the Allahabad high court, seeking quashing of the notification and not to permit Baghpat district to continue. It was carved out from Meerut district.
Another petition was filed, challenging creation of District Sant Kabir Nagar. The division bench of the high court in 1999 delivered its verdict which is called as Ram Milan Sukla case. It quashed the notification of 1998, and directed a fresh consideration by the state government to reconsider the matter and decided whether there was any good administrative and financial grounds to issue such notification. If the state government again decides to continue Sant Kabir Nagar and other districts created by the previous government, then it must introduce a bill in the state legislature for this purpose, high court had said.
The court noted that another petition was filed in the high court challenging creation of Kausambi District. It was also decided with reference to the order passed by the high court in Ram Milan Shukla’s case.
With thanks from The Economic Times
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

MP may join Gujarat: SC likely to move out day-light murder case of Prof Sabharwal

The Economic Times 8 March 2008 P 3 Delhi

THE SUPREME Court on Friday indicated that the trial in the Prof H S Sabharwal murder case, allegedly involving ABVP leaders, could be shifted out of BJP-ruled Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra.

A bench comprising Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice P Sathasivam said, it would order the sessions court of Nagpur to complete the trial within eight months after all parties, including the accused and professor’s family, arrived at a consensus on the new place for conducting the trial.

“We would pass the order saying that the matter be referred to the session’s court of Nagpur which would decide which court would hear the matter. We would also direct to complete the trial within eight months,” the apex court said.

The court’s indication came while reserving its verdict on a petition filed by the slain professor’s son, Himanshu Sabharwal, seeking transfer of the trial outside Madhya Pradesh. It was also contended that independent public prosecutor be appointed to handle the case.

Senior advocate U U Lalit, appearing for one of the accused in the case, said, Nagpur would be a better option as it was a non-BJP ruled state and it was close to Ujjain where the trial was being held earlier.

The SC, however, said that it would be open to the sessions or district court of Nagpur to deal with the matter and the complainant and the Professor’s family could give the name of the public prosecutor to the judge who would hear the case.

The bench also made it clear that the order of the transfer of the case would not mean that it had gone into the merit of the allegation made by the family of the slain professor. The court, on July 11 last, had stayed the trial after allegations were made that the state government was trying to save the accused.

Voicing concern over the manner in which police officers, who reportedly were eyewitnesses to the killing of the Ujjain professor, turned hostile, the court had hoped that the case will not turn out to be another ‘Best Bakery’ case where all the witnesses turned hostile.

“What action have you taken against those police officers who retracted from their earlier statements. Would not the trial be a mockery if your police officers turned hostile,” the court had asked.

“Our anxiety is that every police officer will be given a clean chit. We have seen what happened in the Best Bakery case,” the court had observed.

Harbhajan Singh Sabharwal, a professor in Ujjain college, had died on August 26, 2006, after he was attacked by a group of students who were protesting against cancellation of election in the university.

The Professor had declared the student election null and void. Protesting his decision some students of Madhav College attacked him leading to his death.

With thanks from The Economic Times
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

Chhattisgarh delimitation challenged in apex court

The Economic Times 8 March 2008 P 2 Delhi

THE move to hold the next polls in Chhattisgarh under a redrawn electoral map has now been challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on Friday tagged a petition challenging validity of readjustments of constituencies in Chhattisgarh along with other similar petitions, and decided to hear them together. A bench comprising Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan and Justice RV Raveendran decided to hear the petition moved by Ms Renuka Singh, a former state minister belonging to the saffron camp, along with other similar pending petitions. The MLA from Costi constituency sought quashing of the decision determining fresh boundaries of constituencies in the state. She also sought direction from the apex court against the decision to disturb the constituencies reserved for SCs and STs in the state.
The Delimitation Commission has, in its report, recommended a reduction in the number of seats reserved for STs in the Chhattisgarh assembly from the present 34 to 29 in the 90-member House. The number of seats reserved for the tribals in the Lok Sabha will also, likewise, go down to three from the existing four. Worried about the fallout of the delimitation exercise on the Congress’ prospects in the upcoming assembly and Lok Sabha polls, former chief minister Ajit Jogi has launched a campaign to maintain status-quo in the state. Citing the Centre’s decision to stop the delimitat i o n process from going ahead in Jharkhand and the north-eastern states of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland, he has started exerting pressure on the Manmohan Singh government to put Chhattisgarh as well in this category.
A section of state BJP has also supported him in his stop-delimitation campaign. Advocate Sakesh Kumar appearing on behalf of the BJP MLA argued that creation of new boundaries of the constituencies in the state was illegal. Citing various district-wise data in the state, the petition said, “there has been systematic attempt to show an increase in the general population in the state at the expense of SC/ST population. This aspect of the matter has not been examined by any study and the Commission has based the change/shift of the constituencies on the basis of the wrong data”. It said that the deletion of ear-marked seats for SC/STs would not be within the domain of the commission. “Hence, the readjustment of constituencies is futile and illegal,” the petition said. “Since there is an embargo by reason of third proviso to Article 82 and third proviso to Article 170 (3) by 84th Constitution Amendment Act, 2002 which freezes the increase of total number of seats untill the publication of the first census after year 2026, the unilateral increase of seats from SC/ST is contrary to the scheme originally envisaged under Article 330 and 332(3) of the constitution” the petition said.

With thanks from The Economic Times
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

Sabarimala goes to 3-judge bench

The Economic Times 8 March 2008 P 2 Delhi
THE SUPREME Court on Friday referred the issue of granting entry to women at Sabarimala to a larger bench. A bench comprising Justice S B Sinha and Justice V S Sirpurkar referred the matter to a 3-judge bench to decide, saying substantial legal issue were involved.

The court, however, said that it was surprising that the state had changed its stand. “You did not appeal against the high court verdict,” the judges said. The Kerala high court had upheld the ban of females between 10 and 50 into Sabarimala.

The state government supported the entry after a petition was filed in the apex court challenging the ban order. The Kerala government, in an affidavit filed in the apex court, said: “It is not fair to disallow a section of women from entering Sabarimala temple and worshipping.”
“The denial of entry to women of a particular age group surely affects public right and it is a matter of public interest,” it had said seeking intervention of the court to set up a commission for suggesting whether it could be opened to women irrespective of age.
The affidavit came in response to the apex court notice issued on a petition filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association contending that barring females between 10 years to 50 years from entering the temple amounted to violation of Fundamental Rights and the restrictions should be quashed.

The petition also challenged validity of the provisions of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which legalises the ban.

With thanks from The Economic Times
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

08 March, 2008

BlackBerry, a security threat?

Rishi Raj, Vrishti Beniwal , Anandita Singh Mankotia
Saturday , March 08, 2008 Front Page THE FINANCIAL EXPRESS

New Delhi, Mar 7 2008 The popular BlackBerry email service offered by the top three mobile operators —Bharti Airtel, Reliance Communications and Vodafone Essar—faces the threat of being deemed illegal by the home ministry. Developed and marketed worldwide by Canadian firm Research In Motion (RIM), the BlackBerry service gives users access to e-mail through push technology on their mobile phones.
According to industry sources, the home ministry has insisted that such services be allowed only if they can be lawfully intercepted. In other words, the government should be able to tap the communication on grounds of security. Currently, communication through the BlackBerry service cannot be lawfully intercepted.
The matter came to light recently after Tata Teleservices Ltd (TTSL) sought permission to offer BlackBerry services. The company’s application to DoT was forwarded to the home ministry, which turned it down. “We have been told that the BlackBerry service does not have (scope for) lawful interception, maybe because it does not have a server in India,” said TTSL MD Anil Sardana.
“We are surprised that whereas other operators offer this service, we have not been allowed to do so,” Sardana added.
Industry sources said that earlier no such prior permission was required. Moreover, operators say that the BlackBerry service simply reformats mobile data, which can be lawfully intercepted anyway. RIM is in talks with the government over the issue.

With Thanks from the Financial Express
©All rights reserved with the Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai)Ltd.
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

02 March, 2008

Court upholds dismissal of teacher from service

The Hindu 2 March 2008

No sympathy for one who assaulted principal, say judges
A teacher has to be a role model to the society
One who physically assaults the principal is more like a goonda
Describing a school teacher who assaulted the principal as a ‘goonda,’ the Supreme Court on Friday upheld an order passed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan dismissing him from service.
Setting aside a Rajasthan High Court judgment quashing the dismissal order, a Bench of Justice H.K. Sema and Justice Markandey Katju said: “We regret our inability to uphold the judgment of the Tribunal as well as of the High Court.”
Writing the judgment Justice Katju said: “A teacher has to be a role model in the society. He is a ‘guru’ who sets an example for the students. A person who physically assaults the Principal of the Institution is, in our opinion, not fit to be a teacher.
He is more like a goonda. In our opinion, therefore, there was no good ground for the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment of removal awarded to the respondent. For the reasons given above, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the Tribunal and restore the order of removal passed against the respondent.” Serious injury
In the instant case
Satbir Singh Mahla was working as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Maths) in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Air Force, Suratgarh. On February 23, 1999 he physically assaulted the Principal, R.D. Shah, in his office room which caused serious injury on the right eye of Mr. Shah.
The next day he submitted a written apology. However, he was charge-sheeted and an inquiry was held and the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal from service on May 1, 2000.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur, reduced the punishment to withholding three increments for a period of five years with cumulative effect. On appeal from the Sangathan, the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order.
The present special leave petition is directed against that judgment and the apex court allowed the appeal accepting the contentions of S. Rajappa, counsel for the Sangathan that no leniency should be shown to such a teacher.

With Thanks from The Hindu
http://www.hindu.com/2008/03/02/stories/2008030259980900.htm
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

NHRC notice over death during delivery

The Times of India P 20 Ist March 2008 Delhi

The NHRC has taken suo moto cognizance of a case of death of a 27-year-old woman who was due to give birth to a child but refused admission at Swami Dayanand Hospital on the grounds that it was her fourth pregnancy. The incident was first reported by TOI on February 22.
A notice issued on Thursday by the four-member commission, headed by Justice S Rajendra Babu, directed that a copy of the report be sent to the hospital’s medical superintendent and to the MCD commissioner and demanded a status report within four weeks. ‘‘The contents of the press report, if true, raise serious issues of human rights violation of the poor woman,’’ noted the NHRC notice.
Hemanti, who was pregnant for the fourth time, was refused admission at the MCD hospital on February 16. Forced to deliver outside, she died after child birth. Following a departmental inquiry, the appointment of a senior resident gynaecologist was terminated. Two other doctors were handed show-cause notices. ‘‘We want a report from the authorities to know how such a thing was allowed to happen and what measures are being taken,’’ said an NHRC official, adding: ‘‘We may recommend interim compensation.’’
With Thanks from the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in