University teachers protest against UGC

Teachers from a number of universities under the banner of the Federation of Central Universities Teachers' Associations took out a protest march from Mandi House to Jantar Mantar here on Thursday, protesting against the allegedly negative service conditions outlined by the University Grants Commission.

A delegation of teachers, including Delhi University Teachers' Association members, met Union Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal and submitted a memorandum of demands.

Some of the demands included withdrawal of requirement of a certain number of publications for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor under the Career Advancement Scheme owing to lack of research infrastructure in colleges and existing heavy burden of teaching.

Alleging that there was no transparency in the quantification of teaching and research activities in the form of academic performance indicators and performance based appraisal system, the teachers demanded the disbanding of the Internal Quality Assurance Cell.

The delegation further pointed out the problems and inconsistencies involved in the allotment of scores for publications in foreign and referred journals.

Demands were put forward for making changes in promotion based regulations besides establishing parity in the pay of professors and removing other aberrations in pay scales.

India's greenhouse gas emissions rise by 58% between 1994 and 2007

India's greenhouse gas emissions rise by 58%

Energy sector responsible for over half of India's rise in emissions, says a new government report

India's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions rose by 58 per cent between 1994 and 2007 with the energy sector contributing over half of the emissions, a new government report said.

But India's emissions per unit national wealth (or gross domestic product), a measure of GHG intensity, declined by 30 per cent during this period, the report showed.

India released its last emissions estimate in 1994. Minister for environment and forests Jairam Ramesh, who released the new report yesterday, said India was the first developing country to release 'updated' estimates.

India's emissions are up from 1.2 billion tonnes in 1994 to 1.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2007.

The country now ranks fifth globally in total GHG emissions, behind the United States, China, the European Union and Russia in 2007. The emissions of the United States and China are four times that of India in 2007.

India's energy sector contributed 58 per cent of emissions followed by industry with 22 per cent and 17 per cent by agriculture.

In November 2009, ahead of the international climate summit in Copenhagen, India announced it would reduce its 'GHG emission intensity' — amount of gases released per unit growth in national wealth — by 20–25 percent between 2005 and 2020.

Ramesh said India would continue to improve its methods for emission estimates, bridge data gaps and develop country-specific GHG emission estimate models.

In October 2009, India announced setting up a new climate research centre and building climates satellites to improve data collection

• From SciDev.net, part of the Guardian Environment Network
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 12 May 2010 15.06 BST

No one can, and should, sit as a judge in his own cause

The following is the text of the open letter from Justice D V Shylendra Kumar to public about corruption in judiciary. Please follow the title link to see the online version at Deccan Herald.

----- -------- ---------- --------- ---------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ------------

Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures

By Justice D V Shylendra Kumar

No one can, and should, sit as a judge in his own cause

I had never imagined that I will be getting back to you so soon. But we are not living in normal times and even high court judges like me are driven to a state of despair and helplessness and are being compelled to approach the masters in our constitutional scheme ie the citizens of our country, time and again. Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary remedies and I am testing one such remedial measure. The judicial system in our country has been shrouded in mystery, and secrecy as is perhaps the position elsewhere in the world and judges are expected to maintain distance, aloofness and should be inaccessible to the common people outside their office and outside normal course of judicial function, which is performed only in the court halls. Well, I am a little different, I am not averse to take issues to the people of this country, I am not averse for inviting the people of this country to express their reactions and opinions to the happenings even within judiciary and particularly when, in-house corrective measures fail and I have a very strong feeling that things are going radically wrong even within the judicial system. I am now confronted with such an extraordinary situation and as a judge of the High Court of Karnataka, I feel morally and constitutionally compelled to take certain steps and measures which can better the situation, improve the situation and at any rate at least arrest the negative developments. In the wake of the news that the chief justice of Karnataka High Court is not sitting on the Bench and will not be discharging judicial function until notified otherwise having been very extensively covered in the press and other media today morning, I naturally expected that the chief justice will gracefully proceed on leave and will henceforth desist from exercising any functions which are part of the duties and responsibilities of a chief justice of the high court and even if one should not proceed on leave, I expected the chief justice not to exercise any authority and act on the administrative side of the high court which power and authority is a very important incidental function of the chief justice of the high court. While it may not be necessary to go into all the details of the powers and functions exercised by the chief justice of a high court on the administrative side, for the present purpose it is suffice to inform you that the chief justice, exercises vast and important powers on the administrative side also. If a person exercising such vast powers on the administrative side is a suspect person, is a person under cloud, is a person whose past conduct and exploits does not inspire the confidence of the people and can possibly misuse and abuse the powers of a chief justice on the administrative side also, then it is highly desirable that the chief justice of the high court is prevented from exercising and using his powers on the administrative side also. Administration After I read the news items which had been prominently covered by the press, that the chief justice of our high court, will not henceforth exercise any judicial functions till notified otherwise, I was curious to know as to whether the chief justice is exercising powers on the administrative side and to learn about the same, I had called R B Budihal, registrar general of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore over the phone, to ascertain the position. I was shocked and surprised to know that the chief justice has continued to exercise his power and authority on the administrative side, though he is not, now discharging his duties on the judicial side. I immediately felt this is a strange and extraordinary situation and unless corrected immediately things may continue to deteriorate. To work out the modalities, I was of the sincere opinion that all judges of the high court, should sit together, discuss the matter and take a collective decision to prevail upon the chief justice to refrain from discharging any administrative duties also, and for such purpose sent a communication to Budihal, to circulate a letter amongst my colleagues apprising them of the meeting of the judges to take place at 11 am on Saturday, Dec 19, to take a decision in this regard. I learnt on the evening of Dec 17, from Budihal, that the chief justice before whom the matter was placed for orders, has declined permission for the meeting to take place on Saturday. Now, this development is the cause for my present communication. This kind of response from the chief justice, to a proposal to hold a meeting of all judges of the high court to discuss an issue involving the conduct of the chief justice himself and is definitely not a matter over which the chief justice should take a decision by himself, has only confirmed my worst fears that the chief justice may even now continue to abuse and misuse his powers (including the power to recommend the names of persons to be appointed as judges of the high court after eliciting the views of his colleagues in the collegium) even when he is no more discharging his duties as chief justice of the high court. In fact, grace and propriety require that a file containing a proposal of this nature, should have been directed to be placed before any other judge of the high court for orders, if at all an order is needed. Well grace, propriety and good conduct are definitely not the strong points of our chief justice. Well, I will work out a way. But the point here is, that the people of the state and the country should be aware of such developments and also react to the same. It is for this purpose, I am posting this communication on the net. Your response may be aired in public and also sent to justdvskumar@gmail.com. I may get back to you as and when further developments take place and as and when the situation so warrants. No one can and should sit as a judge in his own cause — even the chief justice of a high court. (The author is a sitting judge of the Karnataka High Court)

Ex-CJI K G Balakrishnan appointed NHRC Chairman

New Delhi Former Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan has been appointed as Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission.

65-year-old Balakrishnan, who retired on May 12, will be the sixth chairperson of the Commission and will have a tenure of five years.

President Pratibha Patil gave her approval to his appointment after recommendation by a Parlimentary committee, headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, sources said on Thursday.

The post had been lying vacant since May 2009 after the retirement of Justice Rajendra Babu. Justice G P Mathur, member of the Commission, had been functioning as its acting Chairperson since then.

Balakrishnan, born on May 12, 1945 at Thalayolaparambu in Kottayam district of Kerala, was the Chief Justice of India from January 2007 to May this year.

He began his legal career in 1968 when he was enrolled as an Advocate of the Kerala Bar Council.

He was appointed as a Munsif in the Kerala Judicial Service in 1973. However, he resigned from the service later and resumed his practice as an advocate in the Kerala High Court.

In 1985, he was appointed as a judge of the Kerala High Court. He was later transferred to Gujarat High Court in 1997.

He became the Chief Justice of the High Court of Gujarat in 1998. He was later made Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in 1999.

In 2000, he was elevated as the Judge, Supreme Court. He was appointed as the Chief Justice of India in January 14, 2007.

wife gets bail in hubby torture case

KOLKATA: Calcutta high court on Tuesday granted anticipatory bail to a woman accused of beating up her husband. The breather came with conditions for Rina Dhar, a resident of Siliguri. She has been told not to leave the jurisdiction of Siliguri police station without the court's permission and to meet the investigating officer in the case three days a week.

Rina's husband, Debashish Dhar, a central excise and customs inspector posted in Siliguri, had filed a police complaint alleging that his wife and in-laws have been physically and mentally torturing him since February 2008 and that they had forcibly taken money from him after the marriage. He said that the torment had driven him to try to commit suicide in June 2008 but he was saved by a neighbour.

The joint commissioner, central excise, Siliguri, also filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission in October 2008 over the issue. The commission directed the Darjeeling SP to probe the matter. When the SP did not act, Debashish moved Calcutta high court, alleging police inaction. The court directed Dhar to move the Darjeeling chief judicial magistrate.

The Darjeeling Court then directed police to investigate the case and, if necessary, arrest Rina. She then filed for anticipatory bail.

Rina's counselMilon Mukherjee pleaded before a division bench of Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee and Justice RaghunathRay that it was merely a case of marital quarrel and pleaded that the court grant Rina anticipatory bail so that relations between the couple does not worsen.

StatecounselPradip Ray opposed the petition, but the court granted the accused anticipatory bail considering that the petitioner was a woman.

Read more: wife gets bail in hubby torture case - Kolkata - City - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata-/wife-gets-bail-in-hubby-torture-case/articleshow/6290100.cms#ixzz0wSRVZc6f

Chief Justice of India writes to PM recommending removal of Mr. Justice Soumitra Sen, Judge of the Calcutta High

This is the text of the letter written by Chief Justice of India, K.G.Balakrishnan to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recommending removal of Mr. Justice Soumitra Sen, Judge of the Calcutta High Court.

Chief Justice Letter to PM

Dear Prime Minister,

I write this to recommend that the proceedings contemplated by Article 217(1) read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution be initiated for removal of Mr. Justice Soumitra Sen, Judge, Calcutta High Court.

2. Mr. Justice Soumitra Sen was a practising advocate of Calcutta High Court before he was appointed as a Judge of that High Court, with effect from December 3, 2003. In Civil Suit No. 8 of 1983, filed by Steel Authority of India Limited against Shipping Corporation of India Limited and Ors., Calcutta High Court vide order dated April 30, 1984 appointed him as a Receiver to make an inventory of certain goods which had been imported and then rejected by Steel Authority of India Limited and to sell those goods and hold the sale proceeds to the credit of the Suit. After preparation of inventory and sale of the goods, the Receiver was directed to deduct 5 % of the sale price towards his remuneration, keep the balance in a separate bank account in a bank of his choice and to hold the same free from lien or encumbrances, subject to further orders of the Court.

3. Justice Soumitra Sen was also appointed as a Special Officer by Calcutta High Court in another case (an Appeal arising out of C.P. No. 226 of 1996). In that case (C.P. No. 226 of 1996), the High Court had directed payment of Rs. 70,00,000/- to the workers of Calcutta Fans, a company in liquidation and Mr. Justice Soumitra Sen, then a practising Advocate, was appointed as a Special Officer to disburse that amount to the workers, S.B. Account No. 01SLP0013400 was opened by him for that purpose and the amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- meant for disbursement for workers was deposited in that account on February 7, 1997. A sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- from Special Officer's account was invested by Justice Soumitra Sen with a company M/s. Lynx India Ltd., which, later on went into liquidation.

4. On March 7, 2002, Steel Authority of India Limited (Plaintiff) wrote a letter to the Receiver asking him to furnish information and detailed particulars about the sale proceeds received by him and the amount of interest which had accrued thereon. The Receiver did not supply the information sought by the Plaintiff. Thereupon, the Plaintiffs filed an application (GA No. 875/2003) for direction to the Receiver to handover the sale proceeds and render true and faithful account of all the moneys held by him. No affidavit was, however, filed by the Receiver inspite of the notice being served on him. When the application came-up for hearing before a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, the Receiver, who, by that time been elevated to the Calcutta High Court, did not come forward to assist the Court either by filing an affidavit or by giving information through any lawyer or recognized agent, despite service of the copy of the application on him.

5. The High Court, then proceeded to summon the purchaser of goods as well as various bank officials and vide order dated 10th April, 2006 noted that the Receiver had collected in all, a sum of Rs.33,22,800/- from the purchaser of goods and the amount thus collected had been kept by the Receiver in S.B. A/c No. 01SLPO632800 with Standard & Chartered Bank (erstwhile ANZ Grindlays Bank) and Account No. 9902 with Allahabad Bank, Stephen House Branch, Calcutta and was later on withdrawn and diverted by him. Drafts amounting to Rs. 28,72,800/- were encashed in Account No. 01SLPO632800 with Standard & Chartered Bank and drafts of Rs. 4,50,000/- were encashed in Account No. 9902 of Allahabad Bank. The High Court found that Demand Drafts amounting to Rs. 28,72,800/- were encashed in S.B. Account No. 01SLPO632800 with Standard Chartered Bank. On April 19, 1995 and May 6, 1995 a sum of Rs. 8,73,968/- was withdrawn from S.B. Account No. 01SLPO632800 to invest in an FDR, which, later on, along with accrued interest (total amounting to Rs. 10,91,011.49) was brought back by encashment on 22nd May, 1997. Another sum of Rs. 11,92,909.92 was also brought back in that account on 22nd May, 1997. A sum of Rs. 22,83,000/- was transferred, on the instructions of the Receiver, from that account to S.B. A/c No. O1SLP0813400 (the account opened by him as Special Officer in case of Calcutta Fans) in the same bank on 22nd May, 1997.

6. The entire amount in the bank accounts was gradually withdrawn by the Receiver so as to reduce the balance to Rs. 811.56 in S.B. A/c No. O1SLPO813400 and Rs. 2,340.08 in S.B. A/c No. O1SLPO632800 as on May 31, 1999. Both the Accounts were closed on March 22, 2000 and May 21, 2002 respectively.

7. The learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court concluded that the Receiver had converted and appropriated, prima facie, the said amount, lying in his custody, without authority of the Court and the act & conduct of the erstwhile Receiver was nothing short of criminal misappropriation. The learned Judge noted that the Receiver having been entrusted with the money by the Court and being an Officer of the Court, was required to keep it in a S.B. Account and ought not to have withdrawn the same without specific leave of the Court. The Court felt that the Receiver had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the Court and therefore had to make good of the losses suffered for his act.

8. The learned Judge, after adjustment of the amount deposited by the Receiver during the pendency of the application, directed him to deposit Rs. 52,46,454/- which included interest on the amount appropriated by him. Pursuant to the above-referred order of Calcutta High Court, Justice Soumitra Sen (the erstwhile Receiver) deposited money in terms of the Order of the Court. In all, a total sum of Rs. 57,65,204/- was deposited by him.

9. Reports appeared in newspapers concerning the conduct of Justice Soumitra Sen in the above-noted matter. The then Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court withdrew judicial work from him and wrote a letter dated 25th November, 2006 to my learned predecessor bringing the matter to his notice for appropriate action.

10. On 1st July, 2007 I sought a comprehensive report from the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court along with his views about Justice Soumitra Sen. On 12th July, 2007 Justice Soumitra Sen called on me, on advice of his Chief Justice and verbally explained his conduct. He sent his report to me on 20th August, 2007.

11. After depositing the money, Justice Soumitra Sen filed an application bearing No. GA 3763 of 2006 praying for recalling/withdrawing/deleting the observations made against him in the order dated 10th April, 2006. The application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 31st July, 2007. An Appeal was filed by the mother of Justice Soumitra Sen challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31st July, 2007. Vide order dated 25th September 2007 a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court noted that the erstwhile Receiver had complied with direction of the Court by depositing the entire amount, besides a substantial amount towards interest. The Division Bench felt that the scope and ambit of the application No. GA 875/2003, filed by Steel Authority of India Limited, did not contemplate any enquiry into the personal accounts of erstwhile Receiver. The Division Bench noted that the parties to the Suit never made any allegation of misappropriation by the Receiver and that the Receiver had never refused to discharge his obligation to refund the money held by him. The Division Bench did not find any material to say that the erstwhile Receiver utilised any amount for his personal gain and felt that the observations/remarks against the erstwhile Receiver were uncalled for and unwarranted. The Division Bench was of the view that the learned Single Judge had travelled beyond the scope and ambit of the application filed by the Plaintiff. The Division Bench directed the Department to delete all The observations made against the erstwhile Receiver in the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10th April, 2006.

12. On 10th September, 2007 I had asked Justice Soumitra Sen to furnish his fresh and final response to the judicial observations made against him. After seeking more time for this purpose he furnished his response on 28th September, 2007 requesting that he may be allowed to resume duties in view of the order of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court.

13. Since I felt that a deeper probe was required to be made into the allegations made against Justice Soumitra Sen, to bring the matter to a logical conclusion, I constituted a three Member Committee consisting of Justice A.P. Shah (Chief Justice, Madras High Court), Justice A.K. Patnaik (Chief Justice, High Court of Madhya Pradesh) and Justice R.M. Lodha (Judge, Rajasthan High Court), as envisaged in the 'In-House Procedure' adopted by Supreme Court and various High Courts, to conduct a fact finding enquiry, wherein the Judge concerned would be entitled to appear and have his say in the proceedings.

14. The Committee submitted its report dated 1st February, 2008, after calling for relevant records and considering the submission made by Justice Soumitra Sen, who appeared in-person before the Committee. The Committee inter alia concluded that:

(a) Shri Soumitra Sen did not have honest intention right from the year 1993 since he mixed the money received as a Receiver and his personal money and converted Receiver's money to his own use:

(b) There has been misappropriation (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds since:

i. he received Rs. 24,57,000/- between 25th February 1993 to 10th January, 1995 but the balance in the Account No. 01SLPO632800 on 28th February, 1995 was only Rs. 8,83,963.05.

ii. a sum of Rs. 22,83,000/- was transferred by him from that account to Account No. 01SLPO813400 and, thereafter, almost entire amount was withdrawn in a couple of months reducing the balance to the bare minimum of Rs. 811.56, thus, diverting the entire sale proceeds for his own use and with dishonest intention.

c) he gave false explanation to the court that an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was invested from the account where the sale proceeds were kept, whereas, in fact, the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was withdrawn from Special Officer's Account No. 01SLPO813400 and not from 01SLPO632800, in which the sale proceeds were deposited;

d) mere monetary recompense under the compulsion of judicial order does not obliterate breach of trust and misappropriation of Receiver's funds for his personal gain;

e) the conduct of Shri Soumitra Sen had brought disrepute to the high judicial office and dishonour to the institution of judiciary, undermining the faith and confidence reposed by the public in the administration of justice.

In the opinion of the Committee misconduct disclosed is so serious that it calls for initiation of proceedings for his removal.

15. A copy of the Report dated 6th February, 2008 of the Committee was forwarded by me to Justice Soumitra Sen and in terms of the In-House procedure, he was advised to resign or seek voluntary retirement. Thereupon, Justice Soumitra Sen made a detailed representation dated 25th February, 2008 seeking reconsideration of the decision of his removal and sought a personal hearing. On 16th March, 2008 a Collegium consisting of myself, Justice B.N. Agrawal and Justice Ashok Bhan (Seniormost Judges of Supreme Court) gave a hearing to Justice Soumitra Sen and reiterated the advice given to him to submit his resignation or seek voluntary retirement on or before 2nd April, 2008. However, vide his letter dated 26th March, 2008 Justice Soumitra Sen expressed his inability to tender resignation or seek voluntary retirement.

In view of the foregoing, it is requested that proceedings for removal of Justice Soumitra Sen be initiated in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Constitution.

With warm regards,

Yours sincerely

(K.G. Balakrishnan)

Hon'ble Dr. Manmohan Singh,

Prime Minister of India,

7, Race Course Road,

New Delhi-110011.