28 February, 2009

‘Freedom of expression should be used with great responsibility’

Communication festival ‘Article 19’ begins‘Blogging on the Internet needs to be regulated’
Registrar of Manipal University G.K. Prabhu said on Thursday that freedom of expression was a powerful tool for journalists, but it should be used with great responsibility.
He was speaking after inaugurating “Article 19”, an international communication festival organised by the Manipal Institute of Communication (MIC) here.
Dr. Prabhu said that the freedom of expression had certain restrictions attached to it, and journalists should respect them.
Krishna Mariyanka, Director-Consultant of Aikya Global, said that the field of communication carried with it a tremendous responsibility. At present, blogging on the Internet was uncontrolled. Some form of regulation was required to make it responsible. The Supreme Court had recently observed that bloggers would be held responsible for the content of their blogs. Bloggers should focus on issues, he said.
Director of the Manipal Institute of Communication M.V. Kamath said the attack by a fringe group on some girls at a pub in Mangalore recently was wrong. President of Sri Rama Sene Pramod Muthalik did not know what Indian culture was. “Harmony among various communities is the defining feature of our country. Mr. Muthalik is insulting the culture of this country,” he said.
Student coordinator of the event Elvin Jacob delivered introductory remarks.
Prahlad Kakkar, a pioneer in the advertisement industry, conducted a workshop for the participants.
Some of the participants presented papers on “Media and web entrepreneurship” and “Revitalising the newspaper business” at the Manipal Media Students’ Convention, which is also a part of “Article 19”.
Source:- http://www.hindu.com/2009/02/28/stories/2009022854981500.htm

NO SUPERSEDING :CLB wants four directors on Maytas Infra :One Of Them To Be Chairman

The Company Law Board on Friday suggested appointment of four independent directors on the board of Maytas Infra, including a chairperson, which was accepted by the Raju-family controlled company but opposed by the government.“I would appoint four persons on the board of Maytas Infra. Out of the four, one would be appointed as chairman. Let the appointed board take its course,” CLB chairman S Balasubramanian suggested during the hearing on the government’s plea to supersede the company’s existing board.
While this was accepted by the counsels representing Maytas Infra, the government counsel opposed the suggestion, pleading for sacking of the existing board. “The central government has no faith in the present management of the company. They themselves are denying any fraud in the company and now deciding who should be appointed on the board of the company,” the government counsel argued. Maytas Infra, listed on the stock exchanges, has seen resignations by its directors, following the confession by Satyam’s disgraced founder B Ramalinga Raju of cooking up the company’s books.
While RC Sinha, the non-executive director and chairman, resigned on January 9, the company’s CEO and director PK Madhav resigned on January 19. Of the three independent directors — CS Bansal has resigned, while CS Mohan passed away in November last year.
RP Raju is now the only independent director on the company’s board. And while Teja Raju continues as vice-chairman, the company had on January 30 appointed B Narasimha Rao (v-p contracts and claims division and head, corporate affairs) as a director.
Balasubramian refused to take any immediate decision on sacking the existing board and asked the government to furnish evidence supporting their demand. “You want to supersede at this stage, I disagree... Show me the material evidence. I want to see it before taking any decision. I have to follow principles of law and cannot go merely on allegations... Tell me incidences, how company is suffering? How they are not discharging their duties? How it has affected the public interest...,” the CLB chairman said.
IL&FS — that also holds a stake in Maytas Infra as Satyam promoter family pledged shares to them — suggested while the existing directors of Maytas should be allowed to continue, they should not be allowed to vote. “Let them contribute with their experience, but not vote,” said Ashok Desai, former Attorney General and senior advocate who appeared for IL&FS. However, this was opposed by the counsels of the Maytas Properties saying it would amount to indirectly superseding the board.
Source:- The Times of India 28 Feb. 09 Delhi P.27

Calcutta HC judge to face impeachment

Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari has admitted a petition filed by 58 members of the House for impeachment of Calcutta high court judge Justice Soumitra Sen on grounds of financial misconduct.
With admission of the impeachment notice, a process has been initiated for forming a committee of three judges as required under the Judges Inquiry Act, sources said. The committee would comprise a SC judge, a HC judge and an eminent jurist. The MPs, drawn from BJP, CPM, CPI, NCP, RJD, TDP, AIADMK and JD(U) submitted a petition jointly signed by them to Ansari on February 20 for impeachment of Justice Sen on the grounds of misappropriation and misrepresentation of funds.
The petition, the first step in the process of impeachment, was based on the recommendation of CJI K G Balakrishnan to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for removal of Justice Sen. In the internal inquiry held by the CJI, Justice Sen was found to have indulged in a financial misconduct prior to his elevation to the bench. PTI
Source:- The Times of India 28 Feb. 09 Delhi P.16

Should right to property return?

PIL In SC Questions ’70s Move To Give It Statutory Status

Should right to property be made a fundamental right? The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Centre on a PIL, which said that the purpose for which right to property was relegated to a mere statutory right in the late 1970s is no longer relevant.
The PIL seeking restoration of the right to property in the third chapter of the Constitution, which enumerates the fundamental rights enjoyed by every citizen, argued that it was made a statutory right in 1978 to abolish large land holdings with zamindars and the rich, and their distribution among landless peasants.
Having achieved the purpose behind the legislative action in the late 1970s, the government should now initiate fresh measures to put ‘right to property’ back in the fundamental right basket, argued senior advocate Harish Salve on behalf of petitioner Sanjiv Kumar Agarwal of NGO ‘Good Governance India Foundation’.
He said what was done 30 years ago to address a particular issue, was now being abused by the government to strip farmers of their valuable land holdings for the purpose of acquiring vast tracts of land, including agricultural fields, for setting up SEZs.
Salve told a bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam that the situation was grave and needed urgent remedial action.
The bench issued notice to the Union law ministry seeking its response to the PIL, which challenged the constitutional validity of the 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978, on the ground that it was violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The petition, filed through advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan, stated that in the recent past acquisition of agricultural land depriving poor farmers of their only means of livelihood has given credence to the necessity for a fresh debate on making right to property as a fundamental right again.
Though the 1978 constitutional amendment was to permit government to acquire land for public purpose without being dragged to courts by big zamindars, the alteration of the status of the right to property never intended to harm small landholders, the petition stated.
But, in the last decade, in the garb of purported public purpose, land was being snatched away from the poor and underprivileged and handed to rich multinational companies and builders without offering sufficient compensation, the PIL alleged.
Source:- The Times of India 28 Feb. 09 Delhi P.16

SC double whammy for Maya

Gets Rap For Inquiry Into Police Recruitment Scam & Demolition Drive
The Mayawati government’s initial success run in judiciary met with some reverses on Friday as the Supreme Court questioned its decision to set up a DGP-level inquiry into alleged scam in recruitment of 20,000 constables before sacking all of them.
It also virtually reversed its earlier interim order green lighting the state’s decision to pull down unsafe government buildings in Lucknow and renovating others, mainly for the purpose of expanding Ambedkar park. But the SC’s interim order appears to have come too late as the government, armed with the earlier clearance, has completed most of the demolition work and fresh constructions.
The orders came from different benches. While constable recruitment scam was posted before a bench comprising Justices D K Jain and R M Lodha, the stay on further demolition came from a bench comprising Justices B N Agrawal and G S Singhvi.
The bench of Justices Jain and Lodha was critical of the manner in which the Mayawati government had instituted a DGP-level inquiry committee. ‘‘By what authority was such a committee constituted? Could the DGP do this,’’ were the questions posed by the bench to UP counsel, senior advocate P P Rao and additional advocate general Shail Kumar Dwivedi.
The counsel said additional DGP Shailja Kant Mishra had gone into the alleged irregularities in the recruitment and acting on his report, the government had cancelled the appointments made in violation of rules and regulations.
The UP government had challenged the decision of the Allahabad HC quashing the government’s order appointing the Mishra committee and ordering CBI probe into it. Before the SC, the CBI had expressed inability to take up the probe citing heavy workload and the politics involved in it. Last year, the apex court had stayed another order of the Allahabad HC stalling the Mayawati government’s decision to renovate or demolish dilapidated government bungalows and buildings in Lucknow for expansion of Ambedkar park.
The HC had passed the restraint order on the government on a PIL filed by NGO Gomti Nagar Jan Kalyan Maha Samiti, which alleged that the government’s decision, which followed arbitrary changes to the Lucknow Master Plan, could spell disaster for the city’s greens.
Topping the list of demolitions is 13A Mall Avenue bungalow, which the urban development department had declared unsafe.
The petitioner before the HC had alleged that the state wanted to demolish it as the ruling BSP wanted to convert it into a memorial for party founder Kanshi Ram.
Source:- The Times of India 28 Feb. 09 Delhi P.14

TARIFF TIFF :TV channels & Trai slug it out in court

Satellite channels and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on Friday slugged it out in the Supreme Court over the tariff that consumers pay to watch programmes on TV through cable, conditional access system (CAS or set-top box) and direct to home (DTH).
TRAI was peeved at a recent order of Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) allowing TV channels to offer bouquets, forcing consumers to watch, and pay for, what they had not bargained for.
The satellite channels said it was wrong on TRAI’s part to club all classes of consumers — DTH, CAS and cable — and take a view that all were being made to suffer. Senior advocate K K Venugopal said that 96% of TV viewers got to see the programmes through cable network or CAS and paid very little.
TRAI’s counsel Harish Salve told a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam that till TRAI worked out fresh rates, the tariff should be put back to the 2004 level. This invited vociferous protests from the TV channels.
Finding it difficult to pass the right kind of interim order that could be acceptable to both sides, the Bench asked TRAI and the TV channels to sit together and arrive at an agreement on the tariff that should be applicable to consumers till the regulatory body took a fresh look at the mechanism.
It asked them to report back to the court on next Friday, when interim orders would be passed putting in place a temporary tariff structure that would operate till TRAI came out with its recommendations.
Source:- The Times of India 28 Feb. 09 Delhi P.14

HC to rescue of eleven barred from boards

Just three days before the commencement of Class XII Board exams, 11 students who were barred by the CBSE from appearing in the exam have got relief from the Delhi High Court which has directed that admit cards and roll numbers should be issued to them immediately.
The students from Daisy Dales Senior Secondary School in south Delhi were barred from appearing in the examination on the ground that they had not passed all the subjects in class XI while they were studying in different schools before joining their present institution.
Accepting the plea of students that they would lose one year in case they were not allowed to appear in the examination, justice S Ravindra Bhat directed the CBSE to issue them admit cards and roll numbers.
‘‘Prima facie, the court is of the opinion that the position of CBSE is such that a re-test under examination bye-law may not be feasible... So, it has been directed to permit the students to appear in the examination,’’ the court said.
The students had informed HC that after clearing class XI papers from various schools, they moved to Daisy Dales Senior Secondary School for class XII in 2008. The students had filled the examination forms in September last year by annexing the documents sent to them by their previous schools and initially, the CBSE accepted them too, their lawyer added. But later CBSE informed the school that these 11 students were not eligible.
Source:- The Times of India 28 Feb. 09 Delhi P.6

27 February, 2009

Retd SC judge to head panel on TN clashes

Retired Supreme Court judge B N Srikrishna will head a judicial panel appointed by the apex court on Thursday to probe the violence that escalated after the February 19 clash between lawyers and police inside Madras high court premises.
The Supreme Court said no armed police would enter the HC premises without prior permission of the Chief Justice and ordered that the police station inside the high court would remain shut though the state would continue to depute police personnel to provide security to the judges and the HC.
The first task at hand for Justice Srikrishna would be to identify police officials who ordered armed personnel to barge into the HC premises and brutally assault lawyers and submit a report to the apex court within two weeks.
To facilitate a fair probe, a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal ordered transfer of four senior cops out of Chennai in addition to already transferred JCP Ramasubramanium. The others who would be shifted out are JCP Sandeep Rai Rathore and three DCPs — Sarangan, Prem Anand Sinha and Panneer Selvam.
The role of top cops — commissioner of police K Radhakrishnan, ADGP T Rajendran and senior IPS officer A K Vishwanathan — would also be under the scanner of the Justice Srikrishna panel.
The Bench did everything to accommodate most of the demands of TN advocates. It allowed the two committees, already constituted by the HC, to go ahead with its task of assessing damages to lawyers’ vehicles and the HC courtrooms during the police action on February 19. Appearing for the state, solicitor general G E Vahanvati said the Karunanidhi government was willing to put Rs 15-20 lakh each on two accounts — one for treatment of injured lawyers and other to compensate damaged cars.
After passing orders to soothe the ruffled sentiments and hurt ego of the lawyer community, the court asked one thing in return — withdraw the strike — but ended up disappointed as the lawyers hedged on the issue. ‘‘We have to go back to the members, apprise them and then decide on the issue of calling off the strike,’’ was the best they could assure the Bench.
HC sought special police station in 07
If the CJI was angry over the excesses on lawyers by police and had wondered how a fullfledged police station was functioning from within the Madras HC premises, the Tamil Nadu government turned the tables on him. Appearing for TN, solicitor general G E Vahanvati read out a judgment of the HC in 2007 asking the state to set up a two-storey police station within its precincts, which it directed could not be reduced under any circumstances. TNN
Source:- The Times of India 27 Feb. 09 Delhi P. 10

Omar vows to rid J&K of forces Act

Responding to growing calls to defang soldiers who patrol the Valley with special powers and legal immunity, chief minister Omar Abdullah on Thursday announced that his government has started the process to revoke the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and Disturbed Areas Act in the state. ‘‘The troops and security forces will be sent back to the barracks soon,’’ he said.
Omar’s announcement came in reply to an assembly debate on the withdrawal of AFSPA initiated by PDP MLAs with party leader Mehbooba Mufti, who charged the National Conference-led government with ‘‘perpetuating a reign of terror in Kashmir’’ and called for the repeal of AFSPA saying, ‘‘This must stop.’’
Imposed in July 1990 during governor Jagmohan’s rule, AFSPA was intended to remain in effect for a short period to help security forces quell militancy. But surprisingly, even though National Conference came to power in 1996 under Farooq Abdullah, AFSPA was not even debated leave aside removed. Farooq also appeared to ignore the direction of the SC in 1998 which stressed on the need for a review of AFSPA every six months. Instead, Farooq urged the NDA-led Centre (NC was then an ally) to impose AFSPA in Jammu in 2001, to which it agreed.
However, the state government can only recommend withdrawing the act in the state and the final decision rests with the Union home ministry.
A defence spokesperson in Srinagar, when asked to comment, said, ‘‘This is a political decision. The Army has no comments to make.’’
The immediate trigger for the debate was the death of two youths in Sopore last week. With passions and protests running high, the demand for removing AFSPA gained momentum. CPM state secretary M Yousuf Tarigami called for the immediate implementation of M A Ansari Working Group’s recommendations, which called for scrapping of AFSPA and Disturbed Areas Act in J&K without delay. ‘‘The action would have exceptionally positive impact on ground,’’ Tarigami said.
Without naming Mufti, Tarigami said the patron of the same party, that played a key role in 1990 in enacting the same law in Parliament, was calling for its removal. Mufti Mohammed Sayeed was the Union home minister in 1990 when the law was extended by Parliament to cover J&K.
After relinquishing power as CM in 2005, Mufti demanded the revocation of AFSPA in J&K. The abrogation of the draconian law also became part of the PDP’s manifesto.
SOPORE FALLOUT
  • Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act passed by Parliament on September 11, 1958 to tackle insurgency in Northeast
  • Under AFSPA, Army in disturbed areas in J&K and N-E has the power to: — Fire upon or use force even if it causes death — Arrest without warrant & with use of ‘necessary’ force — Enter, search any premise
  • Soldiers get immunity from prosecution and lawsuits
Source:- The Times of India 27 Feb. 09 Delhi P. 10

26 February, 2009

Hosts liable only for own content on Net

While internet users may face libel for what they write themselves, the “intermediaries” who host such content are liable only if they are consciously complicit to the offence or fail to remove the offending material immediately after it is brought to their notice by the authorities.
This is evident from the amended Information Technology Act, which came into effect barely 20 days ago. Hence, when the Supreme Court rebuffed this week an internet user’s plea to quash criminal action, it steered clear of making any observations about the corresponding liability of intermediaries.
The new Indian law is in keeping with the international trend of limiting the liability of intermediaries to situations where they act as “publishers” (with scope to moderate or edit the content) rather than as “distributors” (aggregators of information like libraries and book shops).
Accordingly, the amended section 79, which was in the Bill that was passed by Parliament in December 2008, says that where the intermediary in effect acts as no more than a distributor, he “shall not be liable for any third party information, data or communication link made available or hosted by him.”
Section 79 provides that the intermediary is exempt from liability in all cases where:
  • the function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted;
  • the intermediary does not (i) initiate the transmission, (ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and (iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission;
  • the intermediary observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf.
An ‘‘intermediary’’ has been defined in the amended law as “any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online auction sites, online market places and cyber cafes.”
The elaborate safeguards for intermediaries contained were drafted in the wake of the industrywide scare spread by the 2004 DPS-MMS scandal, which led to the arrest of the CEO of auction site baazee.com where a CD containing the salacious clip was offered on sale by a user.
Conversely, section 79 says that the immunity against criminal liability shall not apply in cases where “the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced whether by threats or promise or otherwise in the commission of the unlawful act.”
But the police had sought to justify the CEO’s arrest by accusing him of taking too long to remove the CD from the auction site. Now the amended section 79 stipulates that the intermediary is liable to criminal action where “upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that any information ... the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove ... that material’’.
Source:- The Times of India 26 February 2009 P.16 Delhi

All official ‘secrets’ aren’t secret: Court

In a major boost to freedom of press, a Delhi court has ruled that the publication of a document merely labelled ‘‘secret’’ shall not render the journalist liable under the colonial relic, Official Secrets Act 1923 (OSA).
Additional sessions judge Inder Jeet Singh discharged journalist Santanu Saikia in a case booked against him by the CBI 10 years ago for publishing the contents of a Cabinet note on divestment policy. The CBI case had raised eyebrows because it was not uncommon for the media to do stories on the basis of Cabinet papers despite their being classified secret.
The court’s liberal interpretation lessens the scope for misuse of the OSA Act by the official machinery.
OSA REDEFINED
Court says for Official Secrets Act to apply, disclosure of an ‘official code’ or ‘password’ has to be established
Secret document or report dealing with routine affairs not comparable with those containing info concerning national security
‘Archaic Act being used to harass journalists’
Relying on a 1996 Supreme Court verdict in the case of Sama Alana Abdulla vs State of Gujarat, additional sessions judge Inder Jeet Singh said that the test of whether a certain disclosure compromised a secret depended on whether an ‘‘official code’’ or ‘‘password’’ had been divulged in terms of section 5.
The court’s ruling makes a sharp distinction between a secret document or report dealing with day-to-day routine affairs and one containing information on the sensitive issue of national security. ‘‘The qualifying word secret has to be read in respect of an official code or password’’ ASJ Singh clarified, for OSA to be applicable and not just because it says ‘‘secret’’.
The main ground on which the court discharged Saikia was that the publication of the disinvestment document was unlikely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or the security of the state or friendly relations with foreign states. The court also recalled the circumstances in which CBI booked journalist Santanu Saikia under OSA in 1999 after a three-year in-house probe to find out how the secret document on disinvestment had been leaked just a day before a Cabinet meeting. Although the prolonged probe yielded no result and the CBI made no recovery from Saikia, a case was registered against him.
On his part Saikia, who argued the case himself in court, pointed out how an archaic Act — framed to nab spies — was being used to harass a journalist in the 21st century. He also argued that in the age of the RTI Act where courts and commissions are broadening the ambit of official documents accessible to citizens, a news report on divestment could in no way be seen as an offence inviting penalties as strict as those prescribed under OSA.
Source:- The Times of India 26 February 2009 P.1 Delhi

SC stalls Green India project

New Delhi, February 25,2009The Supreme Court today restrained the Centre from transferring about Rs 10,000 crore collected as compensation from business enterprises and agencies for allowing projects in forest areas to the Consolidated Fund of India. The fund was for utilisation for a Green India project and allocation to states for afforestation works.
A Forest Bench, headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, ordered that the fund should continue to remain with the ad hoc Compensatory Afforestation Management and Planning Agency (CAMPA) that has been set up at its initiative.
The agency would “scrutinise” the 23 site-specific afforestation proposals already received from various states and submit its proposals to the court in six weeks, the Bench said.
Other states could also submit similar proposals within four weeks to the CAMPA for its perusal, the apex court said. The court would then release funds to the states and Union Territories, depending upon its recommendations.
The order came after amicus curiae Harish Salve objected to the Green India programme to be implemented by the Centre and the transfer of the fund, first to the Consolidated Fund and then to public account.
The two proposals were envisaged in the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Bill, 2008, that was in the process of securing Parliamentary approval despite serious objections raised by the Standing Committee. The bill would make the SC plan “stand on its head” as the fund was meant to be given to the same states from where it was collected, counsel Salve contended. Differing with Salve’s contention, Solicitor General GE Vahanvati, however, did not oppose the apex court’s order for keeping the fund with the CAMPA.
Salve said it was unfortunate that the funds had remained unutilised for four years despite the Supreme Court order. Under the court-envisaged plan, Himachal Pradesh alone would be able to earn Rs 25 crore as interest on its share, which was three times higher than its annual plan allocation of Rs 8 crore for afforestation.
Source:- http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090226/nation.htm#9

Reformed militant to move SC

Ludhiana, February 25,2009Militant Ranjit Singh Gill, alias Kuki, who had returned to the mainstream is a bitter man today. With the Delhi High Court upholding his life-term, Kuki is unhappy with the Punjab and Delhi governments for not taking up his case properly.
Kuki said he would move the Supreme Court (SC) as he had spent 16 years in jail.
Stating he was a law-abiding citizen and would surrender before the court, Kuki lamented that the pardon committee headed by New Delhi Chief Minister Shiela Dikshit did not give him a hearing.
“My application was put up to her twice. But it was deferred though Additional Sessions Judge, RK Jain, who heard my case, had complimented me on my good behaviour,” said Kuki.
He is the son of eminent agriculture scientist Dr Khem Singh Gill, a Padma Bhushan awardee and former Vice-Chancellor of Punjab Agricultural University.
Kuki said the Punjab government too did not try to take up the matter with Dikshit. “Had anyone helped me, I would have contributed a lot to society by staying out and helping people in need,” said Kuki, who is pursuing his MSc in Plant Breeding and Genetics at PAU.
For the past five years, when he was out on parole, he had been taking out peace marches condemning terror attacks worldwide. Of late he had even started delivering lectures to different schoolchildren on the importance of peace and human values in life.
Kuki had married Sarabjit Kaur five years ago. The couple has not planned children. They are waiting decision on the appeal.
His wife, almost in tears after getting the news, said they had faith in judiciary. She urged politicians to have time to help a person trying to return to the mainstream.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090226/punjab.htm#10

Govt withdraws quota bill

New Delhi, February 25 2009
Under pressure from allies, the UPA has withdrawn the controversial Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation in Posts and Services) Bill, 2008, that seeks to keep 47 institutes of national importance outside the quota purview. The bill was listed for consideration and passing in the Lok Sabha today but it did not come up.
Explaining the UPA’s change of mind, Minister of State in the PMO Prithviraj Chavan said the government needed to consult the National Commission for Scheduled Castes before bringing the bill to the House. “We sought legal advice on the matter after commission chairperson Buta Singh sought a presidential reference. The Law Ministry replied today saying a consultation with the commission is necessary,” Chavan said.
The move comes days after the MPs stormed the Lok Sabha demanding the government to drop the clause that rules out job quota in 47 institutes, including IITs and IIMs. While the BSP demanded withdrawal of the bill, others, including the BJP, SP, RJD and the LJP wanted suitable amendments - a proposal the government agreed to. The possibility of the bill not being passed in this session was earlier reported in these columns.
Interestingly, on February 20 Parliamentary Affairs Minister Vayalar Ravi had even said the government would bring the amended bill. Today, however, he was in a tight spot - left alone to explain the development. He dismissed the MPs’ apprehensions saying the government was not withdrawing the bill and was just “keeping it under consideration.”
The UPA’s stance was, however, not taken lying down. The MPs strongly objected to the move today and sought copies of the comments made by Buta Singh. The House also reminded the government of how it had pushed the bill in the Rajya Sabha last December.
Source:- http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090226/nation.htm#2

25 February, 2009

What is more important: Doing what is right or what is legal?

Deepak Miglani

No one is above the law. However, Government of India loses hundreds of crores annually because people take advantage of the loophole of law. Many accused are not convicted because of the loophole of law. If we set the bar high, obeying the law will be natural. Mangers do the right thing; leaders do things right. Recent events in our country have revealed that many peoples don’t pay their taxes or at best, pay what they feel like and when they feel like, and get away with it, because they did not break the law. Isn’t something radically wrong here? We always try to find out the means to save the taxes. We generally do not disclose the actual income. Some times doing the right thing violates the law because law is not up to date. We have to do work with in the ambit of law. Help to needy person is right if this we help the criminal, that help is wrong. So maintaining the equilibrium between What is right and what is legal is necessary for smooth functioning of society. Both things are important. Doing the right thing and legal is part of the same coin.

04 February, 2009

Dogs having a field day at SC!

New Delhi, February 3 2009
From stray dogs to pedigree varieties that sashay at dog shows, the canine family seems to be having a field day of late, that too at the Supreme Court.
Within days of an NGO obtaining an SC stay on the Mumbai civic body chasing and killing stray dogs that are a nuisance, a dog farm today approached the apex court and obtained permission for fielding its dogs at the prestigious shows conducted by the Kennel Club of India.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan today allowed the petitioners, KS Nagaraj Shetty and N Kaplana Shetty of Karnataka, to exhibit their dogs till February 16 at the dog shows of Kennel Club.
One R Gopinath, claiming to be a dog lover who attends the club’s dog shows, had secured an interim injunction from a Chennai court against the petitioners, expressing the fear that the appellants’ dogs might cause “irreparable injury”.
The Shettys, owners of Agrani Kennels, obtained a stay from the Madras High Court, which however vacated it later. The Shettys then came to the apex court.
When senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi made a mention about the petition, the CJI, perhaps with the street dogs case fresh in his mind, made a remark: “I thought, we deal with law here,” prompting the courtroom to burst into laughter.
According to the petition, the dogs of Agrani Kennels have won the “Dog of the Year” award for three consecutive years, from 2004-2007.
Source:- http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090204/nation.htm#9

MEDICAL BILLS:Dependants, who are major, entitled to reimbursement: HC

Chandigarh, February 3 2009
In a judgment benefiting almost all Haryana government employees, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that their children, who are major, yet dependent on them, are entitled to medical reimbursement.
The significant directions have been issued in the case of a former Haryana government employee RSD Bansal. From the appeal, it transpired that then Sirsa-based retired treasury officer Bansal’s son, doing his post graduation from Panjab University, Chandigarh, was admitted to the PGI with multiple injuries on head and fractured forearm on January 14, 1977, after meeting with an accident on the varsity campus.
Bansal claimed reimbursement of medical bill amounting to Rs 37, 285.30 on account of the injuries suffered by his son in the accident. But his claim was rejected on the ground that his son had attained the age of majority at the time of accident and was no more a minor.
Dissatisfied with the order, he filed a petition before the high court. The Single Judge allowed the petition vide the impugned judgment. During the hearing of the appeal filed by the State of Haryana, an additional advocate-general referred to latest instructions dated October 18, 2007. The instructions made it clear that minor children after becoming major, but still unemployed were entitled to reimbursement of the medical bill, subject to the condition that their parents submit an affidavit to the drawing and disbursing officer. They were required to state in the affidavit that their wards or dependants were not gainfully employed anywhere.
After hearing the arguments, the Bench observed: We have perused the judgment of the Single Judge carefully and are of the considered opinion that the children, who have attained the age of majority, but are still dependent on their parents and are not gainfully employed anywhere, are entitled to get medical reimbursement for the medical treatment which they have undertaken…..
Before parting with the order, the Judges observed: It is made clear that respondent RSD Bansal is fully entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred for the treatment of his son Sanjay Bansal. The petition, as such, was disposed of on these terms.
Source:- http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090204/haryana.htm#1

Law caged: Appeals outlast jail terms

Chitleen K Sethi
Chandigarh, February 3 2009
For thousands of convicts lodged in various jails in Punjab and Haryana, the long wait for the outcome of their appeals pending in various higher courts might just outlive their sentence, if not them.
Information gathered from these jails under the Right To Information Act has brought forth an alarming number of cases where convicts are languishing in jails with their appeals for acquittal pending. Some of these convicts are almost through with their sentence while most others have been in jail for over five years. Others have completed more than half of their sentence period.
Harjinder Singh, presently lodged in Central Jail, Bathinda, was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, and he has already spent over six years behind the bars. While his appeal is pending to be heard, he is due to be released on September 25.
Another inmate Harphool Singh, too, has completed over eight years of his 10-year sentence. In the same jail, Jaswant Singh and Chanan Singh have completed over seven years of their 10-year term. The jail has 26 life convicts, including those sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Appeals filed by many of them are pending in the High Court.
The situation is even worse at Hoshiarpur district jail where 37 of the 55 convicts facing imprisonment for six years and above, including one with a life term, are awaiting their appeals to be taken up from the last about five years. For some, the period is more than half of their sentence.
“The question that looms large over our criminal justice system is how will the state compensate those languishing in jails if some of the convicts are acquitted by the higher courts?” asks advocate HC Arora, who gathered the information under the RTI Act.
Gopi, a female convict languishing in Borstal jail, Haryana, for over four years was sentenced to five-year imprisonment and her appeal is pending in the court of sessions judge, Gurgaon. Her jail-mate Veena was sentenced to eight years and has been there for four-and-a-half years while her appeal is pending in the High Court. Vidhya, another inmate, was sentenced to seven years and has completed more than half of her sentence. Of the total 51 female convicts here, 37 have their appeals pending, some for even over eight years.
The true picture of the appalling situation was revealed in November 2007 when Justice KS Grewal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was deciding an appeal filed by a convict, Mohinder Singh. Grewal was apprised during the hearing that the appellant had already died. The appeal was taken up four years after Mohinder’s death and he had completed his term before he passed away.
Then, Justice Grewal had asked Punjab, Haryana and UT to prepare a data of all the persons convicted by courts under their territory and whose appeals were pending in the High Court so that priority be given to those convicts. But, the three governments reportedly expressed their helplessness in doing so.
Arora points out that while there is no legislation enacted by the Indian government for giving compensation to persons erroneously convicted by trial courts, India had acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, which provides for compensation to the convict in case of miscarriage of justice.
Source:- http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090204/main8.htm