October 12, 2010 11:39 IST
When 14-year-old Suhas Gopinath started Globals Inc ten years ago from a cyber cafe in Bengaluru, he didn't know that he had become the youngest CEO in the world.
Today, Globals is a multi-million dollar company with offices in the United States, India, Canada, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Singapore and the Middle East and has 100 employees in India and 56 abroad.
Among the several honours that have been bestowed upon this young man, the most prestigious is the invitation to be a member of the Board of the ICT Advisory Council of the World Bank..
In 2007, the European Parliament and International Association for Human Values conferred 'Young Achiever Award' on him. He was also invited to address the European Parliament and other business dignitaries assembled in the EU Parliament. He is also recognised as one of the 'Young Global Leaders' for 2008-2009 by the prestigious World Economic Forum.
Suhas is the youngest member ever in the World Economic Forum's history. The other members include the Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio, musician A R Rahman, Prince of Brunei, etc.
In this interview from his office in Bengaluru, Suhas Gopinath talks about his decade long journey and his dreams for the future.
Read on . .
http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/oct/12/slide-show-1-meet-the-worlds-youngest-ceo.htm
Sunday, October 31, 2010
India among the world's most corrupt nations!
Rediff.com, October 26, 2010 20:16 IST
India continues to be among the world's most corrupt nations. In fact, it has fallen further in the transparency index to be ranked at 87 among 180 nations.
While in 2008, India was at the 85th position, it was ranked at 84 in 2009. Even countries like Rwanda (66), Ghana(62), Namibia (56) and Botswana (33) are ahead of India in terms of transparency.
Countries which are perceived to have the highest levels of public-sector corruption are also those plagued by long-standing conflicts, which have torn apart their governance infrastructure.
With governments committing huge sums to tackle the world's most pressing problems, from the instability of financial markets to climate change and poverty, corruption remains an obstacle to achieving much needed progress, according to Transparency International's 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), a measure of domestic, public sector corruption.
India continues to be among the world's most corrupt nations. In fact, it has fallen further in the transparency index to be ranked at 87 among 180 nations.
While in 2008, India was at the 85th position, it was ranked at 84 in 2009. Even countries like Rwanda (66), Ghana(62), Namibia (56) and Botswana (33) are ahead of India in terms of transparency.
Countries which are perceived to have the highest levels of public-sector corruption are also those plagued by long-standing conflicts, which have torn apart their governance infrastructure.
With governments committing huge sums to tackle the world's most pressing problems, from the instability of financial markets to climate change and poverty, corruption remains an obstacle to achieving much needed progress, according to Transparency International's 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), a measure of domestic, public sector corruption.
The world's least corrupt nations
Rediff.com, October 28, 2010 08:28 IST
Denmark along with two other countries have been ranked as the world's least corrupt countries.
With a score of 9.3, Denmark has consistently topped the Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. The country has a strong tradition of openness to global trade and investment, and transparent and efficient regulations are applied evenly in most cases.
Denmark also boasts an efficient, independent judiciary that protects property rights, and the level of corruption is extraordinarily low, according to the Index of Economic freedom.
Three countries share the first position in the Transparency Index. New Zealand shares the same score of Denmark at 9.3. New Zealand is known for its efforts to ensure transparent, competitive, and corruption-free government procurement. Stiff penalties against bribing government officials or accepting bribes are strictly enforced.
Singapore also tops the Transparency Index with a high score of 9.3. The government enforces strong anti-corruption laws. It is a crime for a citizen to bribe a foreign official or any other person, within or outside of Singapore.
Denmark along with two other countries have been ranked as the world's least corrupt countries.
With a score of 9.3, Denmark has consistently topped the Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. The country has a strong tradition of openness to global trade and investment, and transparent and efficient regulations are applied evenly in most cases.
Denmark also boasts an efficient, independent judiciary that protects property rights, and the level of corruption is extraordinarily low, according to the Index of Economic freedom.
Three countries share the first position in the Transparency Index. New Zealand shares the same score of Denmark at 9.3. New Zealand is known for its efforts to ensure transparent, competitive, and corruption-free government procurement. Stiff penalties against bribing government officials or accepting bribes are strictly enforced.
Singapore also tops the Transparency Index with a high score of 9.3. The government enforces strong anti-corruption laws. It is a crime for a citizen to bribe a foreign official or any other person, within or outside of Singapore.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Lal Bahadur Shastri - Meeting in Tashkent 1966
A Russian documentary about the Taskent meeting of 1966.
Follow the title link to watch the video.
Follow the title link to watch the video.
Friday, October 22, 2010
This day (22 Oct) 67 years back Netaji's Provincial Govt declared war on the US and Britain
On 21st Oct 1943 the Provincial Govt of Azad Hind was proclaimed and in a mid-night declaration on 22-23 Oct, Netaji's Provincial Govt declared war on Great Britain and the US.
History followed this legendary man and his men in uniform thereafter .... but not too far could it follow...., for, after 17 Aug 1945 whatever happened to Netaji could hardly be recorded by any historian. While historical texts about Netaji stopped at the airfield of Taihoku declaring the mortal death of the immortal soul in a plane crash on 18 Aug, the mortal being ventured on a new chapter of history unknown.
And today, three generations of researchers, investigators and curious citizens of Free India attempting to rewrite the history by collecting, organizing, analyzing and joining together thousands of pieces of evidences gathered from around the world. Interestingly all the successive Governments of Free India since independence chose to distance themselves from the country's greatest freedom fighter and preferred to guard their classified files on the first person of the first Free India Government keeping them in a buried 'black box'.
History followed this legendary man and his men in uniform thereafter .... but not too far could it follow...., for, after 17 Aug 1945 whatever happened to Netaji could hardly be recorded by any historian. While historical texts about Netaji stopped at the airfield of Taihoku declaring the mortal death of the immortal soul in a plane crash on 18 Aug, the mortal being ventured on a new chapter of history unknown.
And today, three generations of researchers, investigators and curious citizens of Free India attempting to rewrite the history by collecting, organizing, analyzing and joining together thousands of pieces of evidences gathered from around the world. Interestingly all the successive Governments of Free India since independence chose to distance themselves from the country's greatest freedom fighter and preferred to guard their classified files on the first person of the first Free India Government keeping them in a buried 'black box'.
Gender laws in favour of women?
5 October 2010
nivedita choudhuri
The Union minister of law and justice has been saying on many occasions that laws will be made gender neutral in the next four years. Mr Veerappa Moily, recently replying to a debate in the Rajya Sabha, said male chauvinism and dominance should disappear and that men should never allow women to be degraded and looked down upon. However, the existence of a number of laws that are tilted heavily in favour of women makes the layman wonder if gender neutrality means looking after the interests of women (read wives) only and ignoring totally the welfare of men.
Take for instance the anti-dowry law – Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code – which has reportedly been misused by many women to lodge false or exaggerated complaints against their husbands and in-laws, accusing them of cruel behaviour. Implemented in 1983, Section 498A is a criminal law.
A case filed under this section is non-bailable (one has to appear in court to get bail), non-compoundable (the complaint cannot be withdrawn) and cognisable (the police has to register and investigate the complaint). The law says, “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
This was meant to be a special law to get more convictions, but the opposite has happened because there are too many false complaints. Many women use the law to blackmail their husbands, allege activists of the Save Indian Family Foundation, a group that fights the misuse of laws targeted at men.
The false complaints can be filed due to many reasons. Sometimes, a wife wants her husband to sever ties with his family or stop giving money to his parents. If he does not comply with her demands, she slaps a false case against him alleging harassment for non-payment of dowry, allege the activists.
Men also find it unfair that their family members are arrested in the event of the wife naming them in the FIR. Anybody named in the FIR is arrested. It can even be the man’s parents, who live in a different town. The frivolity of the complaints was driven home by a recent newspaper article which reported that a wife was ready to slap a dowry harassment case against her father-in-law who had demanded fish curry for dinner. The wife, who was in no mood to cook fish curry, thought it would be easier to punish her ‘errant’ father-in-law by slapping a dowry harassment case on him.
Another law that is allegedly being misused is The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. This law assumes that all victims of domestic violence are women and it does not give a man a chance to complain or seek justice if he is being harassed or abused by his wife. It also assumes that wives are always honest and truthful. Therefore, proof and evidence to support the allegations of abuse are not required.
Due to the lack of social support and legal protection, many male victims of domestic abuse are taking their lives every day, allege SIFF activists. False cases are severely hampering the personal and professional lives of the most productive section of the Indian population.
Moreover, the so-called “women protection’’ laws are causing more harm than good to women. In every false case, at least two women, a mother-in-law and a sister-in-law, are accused. Minor girls, married and unmarried sisters, ailing mothers and even aged grandmothers have been sent behind bars based on mere allegations and subjected to long-drawn trials before being declared innocent.
Unreasonable and easily misused laws like Section 498A IPC and the Domestic Violence Act are creating a situation of fear and mutual distrust and adversely affecting inter-personal relationships between men and women in society. There is fear psychosis among men, who are increasingly finding it difficult to repose faith in women or marriage.
Despite the public outcry over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the Domestic Violence Act, the government is not ready to make the proposed Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill gender neutral. It presupposes that women are always victims of harassment in offices and does not take into account the fact that a woman employee can be every bit as abusive and sadistic as a male. Such laws violate the essence of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Of course, the prime motivation in filing false cases is money. There are scores of cases, allege SIFF activists, where the wives threaten to go to the police or courts if they are not given hefty sums of money as “settlement’’. Sometimes, the clinching factor is the property and assets of their in-laws which the wives covet. What better way to usurp it all than foist false cases on one’s in-laws and then demand a king’s ransom. The proposed Bill against sexual harassment, if not made gender neutral, is likely to encourage the extortion “culture’’.
Though the sufferings of men and their families are increasing, the Indian government still thinks that it’s women who need protection. It is continuing to turn a blind eye to these harassed men, who have to spend the best years of their lives running around in courts to proclaim their innocence. But, can anything better be expected in a country which ranks a lowly 84th in the Corruption Perceptions Index?
The writer is a freelance contributor
nivedita choudhuri
The Union minister of law and justice has been saying on many occasions that laws will be made gender neutral in the next four years. Mr Veerappa Moily, recently replying to a debate in the Rajya Sabha, said male chauvinism and dominance should disappear and that men should never allow women to be degraded and looked down upon. However, the existence of a number of laws that are tilted heavily in favour of women makes the layman wonder if gender neutrality means looking after the interests of women (read wives) only and ignoring totally the welfare of men.
Take for instance the anti-dowry law – Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code – which has reportedly been misused by many women to lodge false or exaggerated complaints against their husbands and in-laws, accusing them of cruel behaviour. Implemented in 1983, Section 498A is a criminal law.
A case filed under this section is non-bailable (one has to appear in court to get bail), non-compoundable (the complaint cannot be withdrawn) and cognisable (the police has to register and investigate the complaint). The law says, “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
This was meant to be a special law to get more convictions, but the opposite has happened because there are too many false complaints. Many women use the law to blackmail their husbands, allege activists of the Save Indian Family Foundation, a group that fights the misuse of laws targeted at men.
The false complaints can be filed due to many reasons. Sometimes, a wife wants her husband to sever ties with his family or stop giving money to his parents. If he does not comply with her demands, she slaps a false case against him alleging harassment for non-payment of dowry, allege the activists.
Men also find it unfair that their family members are arrested in the event of the wife naming them in the FIR. Anybody named in the FIR is arrested. It can even be the man’s parents, who live in a different town. The frivolity of the complaints was driven home by a recent newspaper article which reported that a wife was ready to slap a dowry harassment case against her father-in-law who had demanded fish curry for dinner. The wife, who was in no mood to cook fish curry, thought it would be easier to punish her ‘errant’ father-in-law by slapping a dowry harassment case on him.
Another law that is allegedly being misused is The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. This law assumes that all victims of domestic violence are women and it does not give a man a chance to complain or seek justice if he is being harassed or abused by his wife. It also assumes that wives are always honest and truthful. Therefore, proof and evidence to support the allegations of abuse are not required.
Due to the lack of social support and legal protection, many male victims of domestic abuse are taking their lives every day, allege SIFF activists. False cases are severely hampering the personal and professional lives of the most productive section of the Indian population.
Moreover, the so-called “women protection’’ laws are causing more harm than good to women. In every false case, at least two women, a mother-in-law and a sister-in-law, are accused. Minor girls, married and unmarried sisters, ailing mothers and even aged grandmothers have been sent behind bars based on mere allegations and subjected to long-drawn trials before being declared innocent.
Unreasonable and easily misused laws like Section 498A IPC and the Domestic Violence Act are creating a situation of fear and mutual distrust and adversely affecting inter-personal relationships between men and women in society. There is fear psychosis among men, who are increasingly finding it difficult to repose faith in women or marriage.
Despite the public outcry over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the Domestic Violence Act, the government is not ready to make the proposed Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill gender neutral. It presupposes that women are always victims of harassment in offices and does not take into account the fact that a woman employee can be every bit as abusive and sadistic as a male. Such laws violate the essence of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Of course, the prime motivation in filing false cases is money. There are scores of cases, allege SIFF activists, where the wives threaten to go to the police or courts if they are not given hefty sums of money as “settlement’’. Sometimes, the clinching factor is the property and assets of their in-laws which the wives covet. What better way to usurp it all than foist false cases on one’s in-laws and then demand a king’s ransom. The proposed Bill against sexual harassment, if not made gender neutral, is likely to encourage the extortion “culture’’.
Though the sufferings of men and their families are increasing, the Indian government still thinks that it’s women who need protection. It is continuing to turn a blind eye to these harassed men, who have to spend the best years of their lives running around in courts to proclaim their innocence. But, can anything better be expected in a country which ranks a lowly 84th in the Corruption Perceptions Index?
The writer is a freelance contributor
Thursday, October 21, 2010
RTF Campaign’s Statement on PM’s Rebuke to SC For Overreach Into Policy Formulation
RTF Campaign’s Statement on PM’s Rebuke to SC For Overreach Into Policy Formulation
In Economics, Indian society/culture, Politics and Government, Poverty in India on September 8, 2010 at 9:28 PM
STATEMENT ON THE PM’s OBSERVATION ON THE SUPREME COURT, MADE IN EDITORS’ CONFERENCE ON 6th SEPTEMBER, 2010
The Right to Food Campaign is shocked at the Prime Minister’s statement made to the editors’ conference on 6th September, 2010, stating that the Supreme Court must not interfere with policy. We are glad that the PM has finally spoken up on the food issue, as it has ended up further confirming that this Government is so completely anti-poor. We believe that when within a democracy, people use their rights which have been enshrined in the Indian Constitution – the right to life, right to freedom of speech and expression as well as right to approach courts -, the Head of the Indian Executive, does not want the fundamental right of the people to be realised, and worse, he interferes with their right to get justice!. We condemn his comments that are likely to have a cascading effect down the bureaucratic chain and may lead to questioning of judicial intervention.
While we agree that ideally the role of the Courts in policy making should be limited but the citizens have a right to approach the Supreme Court in situations like the present scenario when the Executive has failed to ensure that the rights of people are protected. The Government has failed to ensure that
nobody ever goes to sleep hungry,
mothers don’t have to teach their children how to live with hunger,
hunger and starvation never happens,
not a single grain is wasted due to poor management of the food economy,
malnutrition in tribal and dalit children is prevented and deaths of infants due to malnutrition never happens,
no woman suffers from anemia,
the old and the vulnerable, the destitutes are not left to die lonely deaths,
children are provided with midday meals in school and under six children in anganwadi centres of the ICDS,
Dalit children get a meal with dignity and that there is no discrimination in the appointment of Dalit and Tribal cooks in the mid day meal scheme.
food is available in the market at affordable prices
It is indeed ironic that while the same Prime Minister treated the delay in preparations for the Commonwealth Games as an emergency, the response to the hunger situation in the country is yet to come.
The PUCL, Rajasthan filed a case (Civil Writ Petition 196/200) in the Supreme Court in 2001 demanding accountability from the state for persisting hunger and starvation in the country. The initial order in this case clearly lays out the perspective with which the Supreme Court has been intervening on this matter by stating that, “The anxiety of the Court is to see that the poor and the destitute and the weaker sections do not suffer from hunger and starvation. The prevention of the same is one of the prime responsibilities of the Government – whether Central or the State. How this is to be ensured would be a matter of policy which is best left to the government. All that the Court has to be satisfied and which it may have to ensure is that the foodgrains which are overflowing in the storage receptacles, especially of FCI godown, and which are in abundance, should not be wasted by dumping into the sea or eaten by rats. Mere schemes without any implementation are of no use. What is important is that the food must reach the Hungry.” (Order dated 20th August 2001).
The fact that this Case has been continuing for nine long years in spite of more than 50 operative orders by the Supreme Court and more than 10 reports filed by the Supreme Court Commissioners shows the failure of successive Governments in eradicating hunger and starvation from the country.
The Prime Minister must realise that people are forced to approach the Courts when there is such abdication of responsibility by the elected Government and it is the democratic function of the Supreme Court to respond to such appeals for protection of rights provided in the Constitution. Had the government made its own policy on universalisation of ICDS, there would be no need for the order of December 2006 directing governments to set up anganwadi centres in all habitations and to reach out to all young children. Similarly, had the government made its own policy to prevent deaths of homeless persons during the severe winter, the Supreme Court would not have had to ‘interfere’ and direct states to provide shelters to homeless people (January 2010). Had the government dealt with the leakages in PDS, then there would be no reason for the Supreme Court to set up a Central Vigilance Committee to look into the functioning of PDS and suggest reforms (July 2006). Had the Government ensured that there was no corruption in the supply of food for children, the Supreme Court would not have to say that private contractors must be banned from supply for nutrition supplements (October 2004). Had the Governments ensured that their own policy of providing 35kgs of foodgrains per month for BPL families was implemented, there would be no need for the Supreme Court to give the order that the entitlement of BPL families to 35kgs a month must be protected (January 2008).
These are just to name a few instances where the Court has had to intervene to protect peoples’ right to food since 2004 when the UPA I came into power.
The Prime Minister must realise that boasting about being the second fastest growing economy in a context where two thirds of our women are anemic, half the children are malnourished, almost one-third of adult men and women have a low body mass index, our malnutrition rates are higher than in some of the war-torn countries of Africa and India ranks 66 out of 88 countries by the Global Hunger Index, is like the Emperor Without Clothes.
In a situation where we are concerned about insufficient production of foodgrains, declining production of pulses and stagnant oilseed production, to suggest to the editors that the only way to ensure poverty alleviation is “for more people to be taken out of agriculture” is blasphemous. The Prime Minister’s concern seems to be more towards expanding the reach of the corporates rather than protecting the livelihoods of more than 60% of our population who depend on agriculture.
The Prime Minister ought to understand the spirit in which the Supreme Court’s remark on distributing foodgrains was made. Letting grains rot when there are so many people in the country who are hungry is immoral and cannot be justified.
The Right to Food campaign reiterates that the excess grains lying with the FCI must be immediately distributed by expanding the AAY to include all the vulnerable groups such as landless labourers, small and marginal farmers, slum dwellers, daily wagers in rural and urban areas, etc identified by the Government of India as per its own order on AAY issued in 2004 and by universalizing the PDS in at least the 150 poorest districts (that were identified for the National Food for Work Programme).
Further, we must move towards a Universal Public Distribution System along with putting in place mechanisms for incentivising agriculture, decentralised procurement, local storage, inclusive distribution and criminalizing neglect relating to hunger as it is no different from abetting homicide. In a context where the tax foregone (waived) by the Central Government on Corporate Income Tax, Personal Income Tax, Excise and Customs was Rs.5,02,299 crores in 2009-10 (79.54% of the aggregate tax collection); there can be no excuse to not spend on a universal PDS.
We are,
the Steering group of the Right to Food Campaign
Annie Raja (National Federation for Indian Women), Anuradha Talwar (New Trade Union Initiative), Arun Gupta (Breast Feeding Promotion Network of India), Arundhati Dhuru (National People’s Movement of India), Ashok Bharti (National Confederation Of Dalit Organisations), Anjali Bhardwaj and Nikhil Dey (National Campaign for People’s Right to Information), Asha Mishra and Vinod Raina (Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samiti), Colin Gonsalves (Human Rights Law Network), Kavita Srivastava (People’s Union for Civil Liberties), Mira Shiva and Vandana Prasad (Jan Swasthya Abhiyan), Paul Diwakar (National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights), Subhash Bhatnagar (National Campaign Committee for Unorganized Sector workers), and V.B. Rawat
In Economics, Indian society/culture, Politics and Government, Poverty in India on September 8, 2010 at 9:28 PM
STATEMENT ON THE PM’s OBSERVATION ON THE SUPREME COURT, MADE IN EDITORS’ CONFERENCE ON 6th SEPTEMBER, 2010
The Right to Food Campaign is shocked at the Prime Minister’s statement made to the editors’ conference on 6th September, 2010, stating that the Supreme Court must not interfere with policy. We are glad that the PM has finally spoken up on the food issue, as it has ended up further confirming that this Government is so completely anti-poor. We believe that when within a democracy, people use their rights which have been enshrined in the Indian Constitution – the right to life, right to freedom of speech and expression as well as right to approach courts -, the Head of the Indian Executive, does not want the fundamental right of the people to be realised, and worse, he interferes with their right to get justice!. We condemn his comments that are likely to have a cascading effect down the bureaucratic chain and may lead to questioning of judicial intervention.
While we agree that ideally the role of the Courts in policy making should be limited but the citizens have a right to approach the Supreme Court in situations like the present scenario when the Executive has failed to ensure that the rights of people are protected. The Government has failed to ensure that
nobody ever goes to sleep hungry,
mothers don’t have to teach their children how to live with hunger,
hunger and starvation never happens,
not a single grain is wasted due to poor management of the food economy,
malnutrition in tribal and dalit children is prevented and deaths of infants due to malnutrition never happens,
no woman suffers from anemia,
the old and the vulnerable, the destitutes are not left to die lonely deaths,
children are provided with midday meals in school and under six children in anganwadi centres of the ICDS,
Dalit children get a meal with dignity and that there is no discrimination in the appointment of Dalit and Tribal cooks in the mid day meal scheme.
food is available in the market at affordable prices
It is indeed ironic that while the same Prime Minister treated the delay in preparations for the Commonwealth Games as an emergency, the response to the hunger situation in the country is yet to come.
The PUCL, Rajasthan filed a case (Civil Writ Petition 196/200) in the Supreme Court in 2001 demanding accountability from the state for persisting hunger and starvation in the country. The initial order in this case clearly lays out the perspective with which the Supreme Court has been intervening on this matter by stating that, “The anxiety of the Court is to see that the poor and the destitute and the weaker sections do not suffer from hunger and starvation. The prevention of the same is one of the prime responsibilities of the Government – whether Central or the State. How this is to be ensured would be a matter of policy which is best left to the government. All that the Court has to be satisfied and which it may have to ensure is that the foodgrains which are overflowing in the storage receptacles, especially of FCI godown, and which are in abundance, should not be wasted by dumping into the sea or eaten by rats. Mere schemes without any implementation are of no use. What is important is that the food must reach the Hungry.” (Order dated 20th August 2001).
The fact that this Case has been continuing for nine long years in spite of more than 50 operative orders by the Supreme Court and more than 10 reports filed by the Supreme Court Commissioners shows the failure of successive Governments in eradicating hunger and starvation from the country.
The Prime Minister must realise that people are forced to approach the Courts when there is such abdication of responsibility by the elected Government and it is the democratic function of the Supreme Court to respond to such appeals for protection of rights provided in the Constitution. Had the government made its own policy on universalisation of ICDS, there would be no need for the order of December 2006 directing governments to set up anganwadi centres in all habitations and to reach out to all young children. Similarly, had the government made its own policy to prevent deaths of homeless persons during the severe winter, the Supreme Court would not have had to ‘interfere’ and direct states to provide shelters to homeless people (January 2010). Had the government dealt with the leakages in PDS, then there would be no reason for the Supreme Court to set up a Central Vigilance Committee to look into the functioning of PDS and suggest reforms (July 2006). Had the Government ensured that there was no corruption in the supply of food for children, the Supreme Court would not have to say that private contractors must be banned from supply for nutrition supplements (October 2004). Had the Governments ensured that their own policy of providing 35kgs of foodgrains per month for BPL families was implemented, there would be no need for the Supreme Court to give the order that the entitlement of BPL families to 35kgs a month must be protected (January 2008).
These are just to name a few instances where the Court has had to intervene to protect peoples’ right to food since 2004 when the UPA I came into power.
The Prime Minister must realise that boasting about being the second fastest growing economy in a context where two thirds of our women are anemic, half the children are malnourished, almost one-third of adult men and women have a low body mass index, our malnutrition rates are higher than in some of the war-torn countries of Africa and India ranks 66 out of 88 countries by the Global Hunger Index, is like the Emperor Without Clothes.
In a situation where we are concerned about insufficient production of foodgrains, declining production of pulses and stagnant oilseed production, to suggest to the editors that the only way to ensure poverty alleviation is “for more people to be taken out of agriculture” is blasphemous. The Prime Minister’s concern seems to be more towards expanding the reach of the corporates rather than protecting the livelihoods of more than 60% of our population who depend on agriculture.
The Prime Minister ought to understand the spirit in which the Supreme Court’s remark on distributing foodgrains was made. Letting grains rot when there are so many people in the country who are hungry is immoral and cannot be justified.
The Right to Food campaign reiterates that the excess grains lying with the FCI must be immediately distributed by expanding the AAY to include all the vulnerable groups such as landless labourers, small and marginal farmers, slum dwellers, daily wagers in rural and urban areas, etc identified by the Government of India as per its own order on AAY issued in 2004 and by universalizing the PDS in at least the 150 poorest districts (that were identified for the National Food for Work Programme).
Further, we must move towards a Universal Public Distribution System along with putting in place mechanisms for incentivising agriculture, decentralised procurement, local storage, inclusive distribution and criminalizing neglect relating to hunger as it is no different from abetting homicide. In a context where the tax foregone (waived) by the Central Government on Corporate Income Tax, Personal Income Tax, Excise and Customs was Rs.5,02,299 crores in 2009-10 (79.54% of the aggregate tax collection); there can be no excuse to not spend on a universal PDS.
We are,
the Steering group of the Right to Food Campaign
Annie Raja (National Federation for Indian Women), Anuradha Talwar (New Trade Union Initiative), Arun Gupta (Breast Feeding Promotion Network of India), Arundhati Dhuru (National People’s Movement of India), Ashok Bharti (National Confederation Of Dalit Organisations), Anjali Bhardwaj and Nikhil Dey (National Campaign for People’s Right to Information), Asha Mishra and Vinod Raina (Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samiti), Colin Gonsalves (Human Rights Law Network), Kavita Srivastava (People’s Union for Civil Liberties), Mira Shiva and Vandana Prasad (Jan Swasthya Abhiyan), Paul Diwakar (National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights), Subhash Bhatnagar (National Campaign Committee for Unorganized Sector workers), and V.B. Rawat
Human Rights Act has anomalies: HC
PTI | 05:09 PM,Sep 07,2010
Madurai, Sept 7 (PTI) Highlighting some anomalies and shortcomings in the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, the Madras High Court today expressed the hope that lawmakers will enact appropriate amendments to make it "workable".Justice S Nagamuthu of the Madurai bench said sections 2(d) and 30 of the Act were vague. A conjoint reading of these two provisions may lead one to believe that all offences committed by public servants relating to human rights shall be tried only the human rights courts.Nagamuthu made the observation while disposing of a batch of petitions by police personnel and other public servants questioning the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission, including slapping of fine, against them.He said provisions of the IPC would reflect that most of the penal provisions could be brought within the ambit 2(d) of the HR Act. "If this section is so understood, it will automatically oust the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal courts against public servants," the judge said."For example, if a policeman meted out cruelty to his wife and committed an offence under Sec 498-A of the IPC or if the father of a public servant commits suicide due to abetment by a public servant, such cases may have to be tried only by human rights courts. Surely this position would not have been intended by the lawmakers." He said the HR Act was silent as to whether HR courts can try the non-public servants along with the public servants for the commission of offence by all of them as a group. This anomaly also should be addressed.Observing that NHRC's recommendations were not binding on any party, including the government, Nagamuthu said neither the accused nor the victim could approach the high court challenging the NHRC's order until the government took a decision either to accept or reject it.
Madurai, Sept 7 (PTI) Highlighting some anomalies and shortcomings in the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, the Madras High Court today expressed the hope that lawmakers will enact appropriate amendments to make it "workable".Justice S Nagamuthu of the Madurai bench said sections 2(d) and 30 of the Act were vague. A conjoint reading of these two provisions may lead one to believe that all offences committed by public servants relating to human rights shall be tried only the human rights courts.Nagamuthu made the observation while disposing of a batch of petitions by police personnel and other public servants questioning the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission, including slapping of fine, against them.He said provisions of the IPC would reflect that most of the penal provisions could be brought within the ambit 2(d) of the HR Act. "If this section is so understood, it will automatically oust the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal courts against public servants," the judge said."For example, if a policeman meted out cruelty to his wife and committed an offence under Sec 498-A of the IPC or if the father of a public servant commits suicide due to abetment by a public servant, such cases may have to be tried only by human rights courts. Surely this position would not have been intended by the lawmakers." He said the HR Act was silent as to whether HR courts can try the non-public servants along with the public servants for the commission of offence by all of them as a group. This anomaly also should be addressed.Observing that NHRC's recommendations were not binding on any party, including the government, Nagamuthu said neither the accused nor the victim could approach the high court challenging the NHRC's order until the government took a decision either to accept or reject it.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Dads can mother
It's tough to find a Mrs Kramer in real life. Or so many Indian fathers, who want primary custody of their minor child, would say. These dads contest the general view that mothers are best suited for the caregiver's role, and want the law to be open about the fact that in many cases the father may be a better custodian.
"A man can also multitask between domestic work, business and taking care of the family," says Bangalore-based stockbroker Kumar Jahgirdar, who has been fighting for primary custody of his 13-year-old daughter for almost nine years now. "Giving a father visitation rights, like spending one hour a week in the park or meeting the child in the mother's presence, are not fair," he adds. While such views have already formed support groups of fathers on the Internet, Jahgirdar has gone a step ahead. Last month, he founded Child Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP), an organisation that aims to "fight for a child's right to have access to both parents". Over 200 fathers are already said to have joined him.
Jahgirdar's initiative may strike a chord among many divorced fathers in India. "The courts are much more in favour of the mother," says Supreme Court lawyer Geeta Luthra. "But you cannot negate the father's role completely, especially in cases where the mother has gone abroad, or there are psychological reasons to be considered." The gender of the child is also often held significant by the court in granting custody of a female child to the mother. "But a girl child is safer with her father and a stepmother than with her mother and a stepfather," says Naveen (surname withheld on request), who counts himself "more fortunate than most". Naveen, who has had full custody of his 13-year-old daughter for three years now, believes his is a rare case. "I don't know any other single divorced father, whereas I know of many single mothers," he says.
Men like him feel that since mothers too are working outside home now, they aren't any closer to their children than fathers. "Ultimately, the most important thing is that both parents should be able to spend equal quality time with the child," says Jahgirdar, who, after reaching the Supreme Court twice, now gets to spend 110 days a year with his daughter, including weekends and vacations. The court denied him custody because there was no female member in his house. But now that Jahgirdar has got remarried, he has filed a fresh application. "Chetana (his ex-wife) has two small children from her second marriage, whereas we don't have any so far," he says. But isn't such a prolonged court battle unfair to the child? Jahgirdar maintains that his daughter has always taken a neutral stand. "She can't decide between her two eyes, no?"
That's probably the most unpleasant part of the whole affair. "If the child can decide, there is no need for the judge," says Jahgirdar. But then few cases can get as murky as a custody battle. "Sometimes, when the bickering gets too nasty, you have to bring in the child," admits Mehak Sethi, senior legal officer with Lawyers Collective, while conceding that it's a tough step to take. Suffering parents, however, get almost vitriolic on the question of asking a child to choose between the two. "Does the judiciary realise that its prime goal is to rule keeping in mind the welfare of the child and that children are not always the best judge of their welfare, especially minors and alienated children?" says an entry in the blog of a father fighting for his children's custody.
The child's happiness should indeed be the focus of all parties concerned. But embittered fathers feel that pro-women laws often blur the fact that the child may be better off with them. "Is there a ministry entirely for children?" asks Jahgirdar. "There is a ministry of women and child development. The focus should be on the child's welfare, and sometimes children can be nurtured outside a woman's shadow too."
Read more: 'Dads can mother' - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Special_Report/Dads_can_mother/articleshow/3285943.cms#ixzz12iTm6lWW
"A man can also multitask between domestic work, business and taking care of the family," says Bangalore-based stockbroker Kumar Jahgirdar, who has been fighting for primary custody of his 13-year-old daughter for almost nine years now. "Giving a father visitation rights, like spending one hour a week in the park or meeting the child in the mother's presence, are not fair," he adds. While such views have already formed support groups of fathers on the Internet, Jahgirdar has gone a step ahead. Last month, he founded Child Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP), an organisation that aims to "fight for a child's right to have access to both parents". Over 200 fathers are already said to have joined him.
Jahgirdar's initiative may strike a chord among many divorced fathers in India. "The courts are much more in favour of the mother," says Supreme Court lawyer Geeta Luthra. "But you cannot negate the father's role completely, especially in cases where the mother has gone abroad, or there are psychological reasons to be considered." The gender of the child is also often held significant by the court in granting custody of a female child to the mother. "But a girl child is safer with her father and a stepmother than with her mother and a stepfather," says Naveen (surname withheld on request), who counts himself "more fortunate than most". Naveen, who has had full custody of his 13-year-old daughter for three years now, believes his is a rare case. "I don't know any other single divorced father, whereas I know of many single mothers," he says.
Men like him feel that since mothers too are working outside home now, they aren't any closer to their children than fathers. "Ultimately, the most important thing is that both parents should be able to spend equal quality time with the child," says Jahgirdar, who, after reaching the Supreme Court twice, now gets to spend 110 days a year with his daughter, including weekends and vacations. The court denied him custody because there was no female member in his house. But now that Jahgirdar has got remarried, he has filed a fresh application. "Chetana (his ex-wife) has two small children from her second marriage, whereas we don't have any so far," he says. But isn't such a prolonged court battle unfair to the child? Jahgirdar maintains that his daughter has always taken a neutral stand. "She can't decide between her two eyes, no?"
That's probably the most unpleasant part of the whole affair. "If the child can decide, there is no need for the judge," says Jahgirdar. But then few cases can get as murky as a custody battle. "Sometimes, when the bickering gets too nasty, you have to bring in the child," admits Mehak Sethi, senior legal officer with Lawyers Collective, while conceding that it's a tough step to take. Suffering parents, however, get almost vitriolic on the question of asking a child to choose between the two. "Does the judiciary realise that its prime goal is to rule keeping in mind the welfare of the child and that children are not always the best judge of their welfare, especially minors and alienated children?" says an entry in the blog of a father fighting for his children's custody.
The child's happiness should indeed be the focus of all parties concerned. But embittered fathers feel that pro-women laws often blur the fact that the child may be better off with them. "Is there a ministry entirely for children?" asks Jahgirdar. "There is a ministry of women and child development. The focus should be on the child's welfare, and sometimes children can be nurtured outside a woman's shadow too."
Read more: 'Dads can mother' - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Special_Report/Dads_can_mother/articleshow/3285943.cms#ixzz12iTm6lWW
Woman conceives two weeks after first falling pregnant
A PREGNANT woman in the United States got shocking news when she went in for a routine ultrasound only to find out she is pregnant again.
Doctors think Arkansas couple Julia and Todd conceived baby girl Jillian first, and two-and-a-half weeks later conceived baby boy Hudson, Fox News reports.
Jillian and Hudson have different due dates, and this rare development is called superfetation – when a mother conceives another child while pregnant.
“It does really sound like this is a true case of different conception times for these children,” said Dr. Karen Boyle of the Greater Baltimore Medical Center.
Doctors think Arkansas couple Julia and Todd conceived baby girl Jillian first, and two-and-a-half weeks later conceived baby boy Hudson, Fox News reports.
Jillian and Hudson have different due dates, and this rare development is called superfetation – when a mother conceives another child while pregnant.
“It does really sound like this is a true case of different conception times for these children,” said Dr. Karen Boyle of the Greater Baltimore Medical Center.
5 years, 767 cases, Bengal info panel paints a sorry picture
Shiv Sahay Singh
Tags : Right To Information Act, Information Commission, kolkata
Posted: Wed Oct 13 2010, 06:22 hrs
Kolkata:
Exactly five years ago, the Right To Information Act came into effect in the country. But in West Bengal, the State Information Commission, which has the responsibility to make the Act the effective, has instead become defunct in these years.
Since August 5, 2010, the day Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Arun Bhattacharya retired, the commission has not conducted any hearing. “After the CIC retired on August 5, there is only one information commissioner. As per section 15 (2) of the Act there should be a CIC and other state information commissioners. With only one information commissioner, the commission is not operative,” said a senior official of the commission. And that’s precisely is the situation in State Information Commission in West Bengal. After the CIC retired, Sujit Sarkar is the only information commisoner. In the last two months, the state government failed to appoint a second information commisoner when it has already spent Rs 13.80 lakh on the commission.
Tags : Right To Information Act, Information Commission, kolkata
Posted: Wed Oct 13 2010, 06:22 hrs
Kolkata:
Exactly five years ago, the Right To Information Act came into effect in the country. But in West Bengal, the State Information Commission, which has the responsibility to make the Act the effective, has instead become defunct in these years.
Since August 5, 2010, the day Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Arun Bhattacharya retired, the commission has not conducted any hearing. “After the CIC retired on August 5, there is only one information commissioner. As per section 15 (2) of the Act there should be a CIC and other state information commissioners. With only one information commissioner, the commission is not operative,” said a senior official of the commission. And that’s precisely is the situation in State Information Commission in West Bengal. After the CIC retired, Sujit Sarkar is the only information commisoner. In the last two months, the state government failed to appoint a second information commisoner when it has already spent Rs 13.80 lakh on the commission.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Cabinet cleared BESU upgrade proposal to form first Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology (IIEST) at Shibpur
Press Release, Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Ministry of Human Resource Development
The Union Cabinet today approved the proposal for taking over of Bengal Engineering and Science University (BESU), Shibpur and converting it to Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology (IIEST), with a total five years' project cost of Rs.592.20 crore (Rs. 300.30 Crore as non-recurring cost towards capital expenditure and Rs.291.90 Crore as recurring expenditure).
BESU will be converted to IIEST by suitably amending the NIT Act, with special clauses, which should reflect its exclusive character. IIEST will be an 'Institute of National Importance' covered under NIT Act and its organizational and governing structure will be on the lines of National Institutes of Technology (NITs).
IIEST will integrate under-graduate education, post graduate education and research in engineering and science under the same umbrella. IIEST will be an Institution of international standard and will produce quality manpower for the strategic sector of the country, research laboratories and quality teachers for the institutions of engineering and science education.
Background:
The Government had constituted an Expert Committee in 2005 to evaluate and suggest a plan of action for upgrading seven Institutes, including BESU, which had earlier been identified by Prof. S K Joshi Committee. The Expert Committee recommended the establishment of a new system of 'Indian Institutes of Engineering Science and Technology (IIESTs) as Institutes of National Importance through an Act of Parliament. The Committee recommended upgradation of five Institutes including BESU, to become an IIEST.
The admissions to IIEST will be through national level entrance exam namely, All India Engineering Entrance Examination (AIEEE).
Ministry of Human Resource Development
The Union Cabinet today approved the proposal for taking over of Bengal Engineering and Science University (BESU), Shibpur and converting it to Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology (IIEST), with a total five years' project cost of Rs.592.20 crore (Rs. 300.30 Crore as non-recurring cost towards capital expenditure and Rs.291.90 Crore as recurring expenditure).
BESU will be converted to IIEST by suitably amending the NIT Act, with special clauses, which should reflect its exclusive character. IIEST will be an 'Institute of National Importance' covered under NIT Act and its organizational and governing structure will be on the lines of National Institutes of Technology (NITs).
IIEST will integrate under-graduate education, post graduate education and research in engineering and science under the same umbrella. IIEST will be an Institution of international standard and will produce quality manpower for the strategic sector of the country, research laboratories and quality teachers for the institutions of engineering and science education.
Background:
The Government had constituted an Expert Committee in 2005 to evaluate and suggest a plan of action for upgrading seven Institutes, including BESU, which had earlier been identified by Prof. S K Joshi Committee. The Expert Committee recommended the establishment of a new system of 'Indian Institutes of Engineering Science and Technology (IIESTs) as Institutes of National Importance through an Act of Parliament. The Committee recommended upgradation of five Institutes including BESU, to become an IIEST.
The admissions to IIEST will be through national level entrance exam namely, All India Engineering Entrance Examination (AIEEE).
Asking for a Clean Judiciary
By ADITYA | Published: SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
On first reading the news of Mr. Shanti Bhushan filing an affidavit about corruption in the judiciary, one would think that he has taken the issue a little too far. Mentioning in open court that corruption is rampant in the judiciary and further submitting a list of names of those judges whom he thought were corrupt was surely to be a case for contempt.
However, one should understand that this action was not a sudden tirade against the judiciary. Few of us who have read Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s book ‘The Day that shook India” on the Indira Gandhi case and the emergency or are aware of Mr. Shanti Bhushan’s fight against the Indira Gandhi administration would know that this incident is a culmination of a series of actions undertaken by Mr. Shanti Bhushan and his son, Prashant Bhushan over the years. I am now given to understand that since 1990 both the lawyers have been actively involved in the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and their recent crusade against judicial accountability and applicability of the RTI Act against the judiciary has been laudatory to say the least.
Upon perusal of the affidavits (now available online) submitted to the Supreme Court by the lawyers, one aspect clearly stood out which ought to be brought to light. The concerned paragraph is reproduced below;
“That corruption by judges is a cognizable offence. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires that whenever an FIR is filed with respect to a cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of the police to investigate the offence. The police has to collect evidence against the accused and charge-sheet him in a competent court. He would then be tried and punished by being sent to jail. The Supreme Court has however by violating this statutory provision in the CrPC given a direction in its Constitution bench judgement in the Veeraswamy case of 1991 that no FIR would be registered against any judge without the permission of the Chief Justice of India. In not a single case has any such permission ever been granted for the registration of an FIR against any judge after that judgement.”
Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that when a public servant is to be charged for the commission of any offence, prior sanction of the Central/ State government is necessary. The same is also mandated in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The law as laid down in K Veeraswami v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 655] states that the judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court are outside the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further that any sanction for prosecution of a Judge under S. 197 must be taken from the Chief Justice of India and not the concerned Government as mentioned in the Statute. This, under the all surmounting garb of ‘independence of the judiciary’.
In the Judges’ cases, the Court justified that framing of its own procedure to appoint judges because it stated that independence of the judiciary was paramount and part of the basic structure of the Constitution. In these cases, the Court was dealing with the absence of a ‘clear’ law on the issue and then proceeded to frame it. In the Veeraswami case, despite there being clear statutory provisions on the issue, there has been a successful attempt by the Court to subvert the statutory process. If one is to challenge the newly discovered supremacy of the Court, a critique of this ‘protectionist’ attitude should form the core of the argument.
I would also state that the above situation is perhaps one of the central reasons for an abysmal rate in the prosecutions of judges for corruption even though we all seem to be talking about it. Case in point being the public statement made by the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court stating “In our judiciary, anybody can be bought”. Should the fact that our judges have not been prosecuted imply that we have a clean judiciary?
This situation must be looked in the light of the doctrine of ‘Checks and Balances’. Every organ of Government, the executive, legislature and the judiciary functions and is regulated by a system of checks and balances. James Madison in the Federalist Papers wrote that “the three branches should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.” The system of checks and balances is designed to allow each branch to restrain abuse by another branch. The judiciary in our case seems to be playing a very commendable role in checking the actions of the executive and the legislature. However, diminishing the ability and authority of the legislature and the executive to check the actions of the judiciary under the garb of independence and basic structure is purely autocratic in nature. In this case, democracy would do a lot better with the executive and the legislature playing a role in giving sanction to prosecute the judges.
On a side note it must be mentioned that while the judiciary declared in the Veeraswami Case that the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable to judges, in Vineet Narrain v. Union of India, it stepped in to direct the CBI to prosecute certain Government officials even though sanction for prosecution was not given, under the long arm of judicial law- making and ‘checks and balances’.
Perhaps then we need to re-evaluate this autocratic nature of the judiciary. By re-evaluation, I don’t mean that the judiciary itself reviews its role in the democracy through a judgment or something. But that all the organs of Government collectively decide on the checks and balances of each organ and the manner in which they ought to be implemented.
On first reading the news of Mr. Shanti Bhushan filing an affidavit about corruption in the judiciary, one would think that he has taken the issue a little too far. Mentioning in open court that corruption is rampant in the judiciary and further submitting a list of names of those judges whom he thought were corrupt was surely to be a case for contempt.
However, one should understand that this action was not a sudden tirade against the judiciary. Few of us who have read Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s book ‘The Day that shook India” on the Indira Gandhi case and the emergency or are aware of Mr. Shanti Bhushan’s fight against the Indira Gandhi administration would know that this incident is a culmination of a series of actions undertaken by Mr. Shanti Bhushan and his son, Prashant Bhushan over the years. I am now given to understand that since 1990 both the lawyers have been actively involved in the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and their recent crusade against judicial accountability and applicability of the RTI Act against the judiciary has been laudatory to say the least.
Upon perusal of the affidavits (now available online) submitted to the Supreme Court by the lawyers, one aspect clearly stood out which ought to be brought to light. The concerned paragraph is reproduced below;
“That corruption by judges is a cognizable offence. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires that whenever an FIR is filed with respect to a cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of the police to investigate the offence. The police has to collect evidence against the accused and charge-sheet him in a competent court. He would then be tried and punished by being sent to jail. The Supreme Court has however by violating this statutory provision in the CrPC given a direction in its Constitution bench judgement in the Veeraswamy case of 1991 that no FIR would be registered against any judge without the permission of the Chief Justice of India. In not a single case has any such permission ever been granted for the registration of an FIR against any judge after that judgement.”
Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that when a public servant is to be charged for the commission of any offence, prior sanction of the Central/ State government is necessary. The same is also mandated in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The law as laid down in K Veeraswami v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 655] states that the judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court are outside the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further that any sanction for prosecution of a Judge under S. 197 must be taken from the Chief Justice of India and not the concerned Government as mentioned in the Statute. This, under the all surmounting garb of ‘independence of the judiciary’.
In the Judges’ cases, the Court justified that framing of its own procedure to appoint judges because it stated that independence of the judiciary was paramount and part of the basic structure of the Constitution. In these cases, the Court was dealing with the absence of a ‘clear’ law on the issue and then proceeded to frame it. In the Veeraswami case, despite there being clear statutory provisions on the issue, there has been a successful attempt by the Court to subvert the statutory process. If one is to challenge the newly discovered supremacy of the Court, a critique of this ‘protectionist’ attitude should form the core of the argument.
I would also state that the above situation is perhaps one of the central reasons for an abysmal rate in the prosecutions of judges for corruption even though we all seem to be talking about it. Case in point being the public statement made by the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court stating “In our judiciary, anybody can be bought”. Should the fact that our judges have not been prosecuted imply that we have a clean judiciary?
This situation must be looked in the light of the doctrine of ‘Checks and Balances’. Every organ of Government, the executive, legislature and the judiciary functions and is regulated by a system of checks and balances. James Madison in the Federalist Papers wrote that “the three branches should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.” The system of checks and balances is designed to allow each branch to restrain abuse by another branch. The judiciary in our case seems to be playing a very commendable role in checking the actions of the executive and the legislature. However, diminishing the ability and authority of the legislature and the executive to check the actions of the judiciary under the garb of independence and basic structure is purely autocratic in nature. In this case, democracy would do a lot better with the executive and the legislature playing a role in giving sanction to prosecute the judges.
On a side note it must be mentioned that while the judiciary declared in the Veeraswami Case that the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable to judges, in Vineet Narrain v. Union of India, it stepped in to direct the CBI to prosecute certain Government officials even though sanction for prosecution was not given, under the long arm of judicial law- making and ‘checks and balances’.
Perhaps then we need to re-evaluate this autocratic nature of the judiciary. By re-evaluation, I don’t mean that the judiciary itself reviews its role in the democracy through a judgment or something. But that all the organs of Government collectively decide on the checks and balances of each organ and the manner in which they ought to be implemented.
Hydrogen fuel cells to be deployed at ‘clean coal’ power station
Louise Bateman
4th October 2010
A demonstration coal-fired power station equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is to deploy hydrogen-powered fuel cell technology as part of its low carbon energy generation mix, potentially paving the way for low cost fuel cell power stations across the UK.
Alkaline fuel cells will be deployed within the next five years at the 900 megawatt (MW) CCS demonstration site at Hatfield, near Doncaster, with the capacity to generate 300 MW of electricity, it was announced today. The pioneering move follows an agreement between Powerfuel Power Ltd, the company developing the Hatfield CCS plant, AFC Energy, developer of alkaline fuel cells, and B9 Coal, which has exclusive rights to AFC’s clean energy technology for above ground and underground gas and coal application. The partners said the agreement would see them develop fuel cell power stations in the UK and other territories around the world in the future.
Alisa Murphy, director at B9 Coal, told GreenWise the end product would be large scale "low cost, low carbon electricity". The Hatfield site is expected to generate enough electricity for one million homes.
"Together we can offer a technically advanced solution to the problem of rising carbon emissions, as well as a practical and commercial template for clean energy generation," she said.
Fuel cell technology
Alkaline fuel cell is one of the most developed fuel cell technologies and is highly energy efficient, but applying it to large-scale industrial settings is still in its infancy. AFC Energy has developed alkaline fuel cells that promise to deliver on a large scale and at low cost, while delivering energy efficient, emissions-free electricity.
They work by turning fossil fuels, or other energy sources such as waste, into electricity using hydrogen. First the fuel is put into a gasification chamber where very high temperatures turn it into syngas, a gas mixture that contains varying amounts of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. It can then be turned into electricity by the new generation alkaline fuel cells.
Using fuel cells at Hatfield
At Hatfield, Powerfuel is constructing a large scale integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power station. It has already received funding from the European Union to the tune of £164 million to develop the low carbon coal plant and is one of the sites competing for UK Government CCS funding.
Initial construction will involve an 800 MW combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) facility optimised for syngas conversion and operation. Powerfuel then plans to convert the CCGT plant into a 900 MW IGCC power station fuelled by its extensive coal resources at Hatfield colliery.
B9 Coal said syngas used in the plant would be passed through a clean-up process to produce hydrogen as a feedstock for AFC’s fuel cells, producing emissions-free electricity at 60 per cent electrical efficiency.
Potential to replace gas turbines
Murphy said the technology had the benefit of being able to be scaled up easily and over time to replace gas turbines completely at power stations.
This is the second CCS project B9 Coal and AFC’s fuel cell technology are involved in. They are part of another Government CCS demonstration bid being proposed Rio Tinto Alcan’s Lynemouth Smelter in Northumberland. In this case, AFC Energy’s fuel cell technology will combine with Linc Energy’s Underground Coal Gasification (UCG), a process that could potentially give access to an extra 17 billion tonnes of coal in the UK.
Ian Balchin, ceo of AFC Energy Plc, described the company’s technology as "truly transitional: solving the carbon conundrum of fossil fuels whilst enabling the renewable energy economy."
4th October 2010
A demonstration coal-fired power station equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is to deploy hydrogen-powered fuel cell technology as part of its low carbon energy generation mix, potentially paving the way for low cost fuel cell power stations across the UK.
Alkaline fuel cells will be deployed within the next five years at the 900 megawatt (MW) CCS demonstration site at Hatfield, near Doncaster, with the capacity to generate 300 MW of electricity, it was announced today. The pioneering move follows an agreement between Powerfuel Power Ltd, the company developing the Hatfield CCS plant, AFC Energy, developer of alkaline fuel cells, and B9 Coal, which has exclusive rights to AFC’s clean energy technology for above ground and underground gas and coal application. The partners said the agreement would see them develop fuel cell power stations in the UK and other territories around the world in the future.
Alisa Murphy, director at B9 Coal, told GreenWise the end product would be large scale "low cost, low carbon electricity". The Hatfield site is expected to generate enough electricity for one million homes.
"Together we can offer a technically advanced solution to the problem of rising carbon emissions, as well as a practical and commercial template for clean energy generation," she said.
Fuel cell technology
Alkaline fuel cell is one of the most developed fuel cell technologies and is highly energy efficient, but applying it to large-scale industrial settings is still in its infancy. AFC Energy has developed alkaline fuel cells that promise to deliver on a large scale and at low cost, while delivering energy efficient, emissions-free electricity.
They work by turning fossil fuels, or other energy sources such as waste, into electricity using hydrogen. First the fuel is put into a gasification chamber where very high temperatures turn it into syngas, a gas mixture that contains varying amounts of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. It can then be turned into electricity by the new generation alkaline fuel cells.
Using fuel cells at Hatfield
At Hatfield, Powerfuel is constructing a large scale integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power station. It has already received funding from the European Union to the tune of £164 million to develop the low carbon coal plant and is one of the sites competing for UK Government CCS funding.
Initial construction will involve an 800 MW combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) facility optimised for syngas conversion and operation. Powerfuel then plans to convert the CCGT plant into a 900 MW IGCC power station fuelled by its extensive coal resources at Hatfield colliery.
B9 Coal said syngas used in the plant would be passed through a clean-up process to produce hydrogen as a feedstock for AFC’s fuel cells, producing emissions-free electricity at 60 per cent electrical efficiency.
Potential to replace gas turbines
Murphy said the technology had the benefit of being able to be scaled up easily and over time to replace gas turbines completely at power stations.
This is the second CCS project B9 Coal and AFC’s fuel cell technology are involved in. They are part of another Government CCS demonstration bid being proposed Rio Tinto Alcan’s Lynemouth Smelter in Northumberland. In this case, AFC Energy’s fuel cell technology will combine with Linc Energy’s Underground Coal Gasification (UCG), a process that could potentially give access to an extra 17 billion tonnes of coal in the UK.
Ian Balchin, ceo of AFC Energy Plc, described the company’s technology as "truly transitional: solving the carbon conundrum of fossil fuels whilst enabling the renewable energy economy."
Monday, October 11, 2010
Government to set guidelines for appointments to child rights panel
By IANSDecember 19th, 2009
NEW DELHI - The central government has informed the Delhi High Court that it would lay down guidelines for appointments to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR).
Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam informed a division bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar earlier this week that the government was “working on a mechanism so that appointment to the child rights panel is genuine and only those persons who have expertise in working in that field are appointed.
Our motto is to bring transparency into the appointment process, he added while assuring the bench that the guidelines would be finalised by Jan 6.
The court was hearing a public suit by an NGO, Association for Development, which had termed as illegal and arbitrary the appointment of Sandhya Bajaj and Dipa Dixit to the panel.
The petitioner alleged that the new members did not have requisite qualifications and expertise as required under the Protection of Child Rights Act.
The act of the government in appointing them as members of the commission is illegal and arbitrary and smacks of nepotism and favouritism in public appointments, said advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing on behalf of the NGO.
NEW DELHI - The central government has informed the Delhi High Court that it would lay down guidelines for appointments to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR).
Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam informed a division bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar earlier this week that the government was “working on a mechanism so that appointment to the child rights panel is genuine and only those persons who have expertise in working in that field are appointed.
Our motto is to bring transparency into the appointment process, he added while assuring the bench that the guidelines would be finalised by Jan 6.
The court was hearing a public suit by an NGO, Association for Development, which had termed as illegal and arbitrary the appointment of Sandhya Bajaj and Dipa Dixit to the panel.
The petitioner alleged that the new members did not have requisite qualifications and expertise as required under the Protection of Child Rights Act.
The act of the government in appointing them as members of the commission is illegal and arbitrary and smacks of nepotism and favouritism in public appointments, said advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing on behalf of the NGO.
West Bengal Human Rights Commission almost defunct
Rights panel in Bengal totters as govt drags its feet
Sabyasachi Bandopadhyay
Tags : West Bengal Human Rights Commission
Posted: Sat Oct 02 2010, 05:56 hrs
Kolkata:
The state's procrastination — coupled with Opposition's non-cooperation — has made the West Bengal Human Rights Commission almost defunct.
Uncertainty over the Commission's constitution looms large as the Leader of Opposition Partha Chatterjee kept away from Friday's meeting of the selection committee -- headed by chief minister Buddhadeb Bhatacharjee.
The committee selects the chairman and members of the commission, of which Chatterjee is a member. The other member is Speaker Hasim Abdul Halim. Earlier, Chatterjee had written to the state chief secretary saying that the meeting should not be held. He maintained that the appointments to posts of WBHRC chairman and the chief information commissioner should be deferred till a new government takes charge.
The panel that would make the appointments, however, met on Friday. And officials said the names of two existing members, Justice (Retd) Narayan Chandra Sil -- who was also acting chairman ¿ and Saurin Roy, member, whose terms are coming to an end by November-December, were finalised. "The names will be sent to the Governor," said the Speaker.
Earlier, Governor MK Narayanan, however, had rejected the two candidates chosen by the government for the post of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner. Since the state could not find a chairman since Justice Shyamal Sen, the last chairman, retired in December 31, 2008, Justice Sil has been acting as chairman. On Friday, the state reappointed Sil and Roy as members of the Commission, which according to the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, should have five members including the chairman.
For nearly two years, the rights body has been functioning with just two members. For the last one year, Justice Sil worked as the chairman of the one-man commission probing into the firing on Forward Bloc supporters at Dinhata in Coochbehar in 2008. The situation has taken its toll on the functioning of the Commission. Last year, only seven cases were recommended by the commission to the state's Home Department for action in place of the usual 30-32 cases.
"The state is just playing ducks and drakes with such an important organisation," said legal activist Joydeep Mukherjee. "They could not find a chairman for almost two years or three other members. Hundreds of applications on human rights violations are pouring, in but no investigation is being done. How could Justice Sil become chairman of two commissions? I have already moved Calcutta High court regarding this."
Sabyasachi Bandopadhyay
Tags : West Bengal Human Rights Commission
Posted: Sat Oct 02 2010, 05:56 hrs
Kolkata:
The state's procrastination — coupled with Opposition's non-cooperation — has made the West Bengal Human Rights Commission almost defunct.
Uncertainty over the Commission's constitution looms large as the Leader of Opposition Partha Chatterjee kept away from Friday's meeting of the selection committee -- headed by chief minister Buddhadeb Bhatacharjee.
The committee selects the chairman and members of the commission, of which Chatterjee is a member. The other member is Speaker Hasim Abdul Halim. Earlier, Chatterjee had written to the state chief secretary saying that the meeting should not be held. He maintained that the appointments to posts of WBHRC chairman and the chief information commissioner should be deferred till a new government takes charge.
The panel that would make the appointments, however, met on Friday. And officials said the names of two existing members, Justice (Retd) Narayan Chandra Sil -- who was also acting chairman ¿ and Saurin Roy, member, whose terms are coming to an end by November-December, were finalised. "The names will be sent to the Governor," said the Speaker.
Earlier, Governor MK Narayanan, however, had rejected the two candidates chosen by the government for the post of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner. Since the state could not find a chairman since Justice Shyamal Sen, the last chairman, retired in December 31, 2008, Justice Sil has been acting as chairman. On Friday, the state reappointed Sil and Roy as members of the Commission, which according to the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, should have five members including the chairman.
For nearly two years, the rights body has been functioning with just two members. For the last one year, Justice Sil worked as the chairman of the one-man commission probing into the firing on Forward Bloc supporters at Dinhata in Coochbehar in 2008. The situation has taken its toll on the functioning of the Commission. Last year, only seven cases were recommended by the commission to the state's Home Department for action in place of the usual 30-32 cases.
"The state is just playing ducks and drakes with such an important organisation," said legal activist Joydeep Mukherjee. "They could not find a chairman for almost two years or three other members. Hundreds of applications on human rights violations are pouring, in but no investigation is being done. How could Justice Sil become chairman of two commissions? I have already moved Calcutta High court regarding this."
Friday, October 08, 2010
A cunning 'Self Appraisal'
A little boy went into a drug store, reached for a soda carton and pulled it
over to the telephone. He climbed onto the carton so that he could reach the
buttons on the phone and proceeded to punch in seven digits (phone numbers).
The store-owner observed and listened to the conversation:
Boy: "Lady, Can you give me the job of cutting your lawn?
Woman: (at the other end of the phone line): "I already have someone to cut my
lawn."
Boy: "Lady, I will cut your lawn for half the price of the person who cuts your
lawn now."
Woman: I'm very satisfied with the person who is presently cutting my lawn.
Boy: (with more perseverance) : "Lady, I'll even sweep
your curb and your sidewalk, so on Sunday you will
have the prettiest lawn in all of Palm beach , Florida."
Woman: No, thank you.
With a smile on his face, the little boy replaced the receiver. The store-owner,
who was listening to all this, walked over to the boy.
Store Owner: "Son... I like your attitude; I like that positive spirit and would
like to offer you a job."
Boy: "No thanks,
Store Owner: But you were really pleading for one.
Boy: No Sir, I was just checking my performance at the
job I already have. I am the one who is working for that lady I was talking to!"
This is what we call "Self Appraisal"
over to the telephone. He climbed onto the carton so that he could reach the
buttons on the phone and proceeded to punch in seven digits (phone numbers).
The store-owner observed and listened to the conversation:
Boy: "Lady, Can you give me the job of cutting your lawn?
Woman: (at the other end of the phone line): "I already have someone to cut my
lawn."
Boy: "Lady, I will cut your lawn for half the price of the person who cuts your
lawn now."
Woman: I'm very satisfied with the person who is presently cutting my lawn.
Boy: (with more perseverance) : "Lady, I'll even sweep
your curb and your sidewalk, so on Sunday you will
have the prettiest lawn in all of Palm beach , Florida."
Woman: No, thank you.
With a smile on his face, the little boy replaced the receiver. The store-owner,
who was listening to all this, walked over to the boy.
Store Owner: "Son... I like your attitude; I like that positive spirit and would
like to offer you a job."
Boy: "No thanks,
Store Owner: But you were really pleading for one.
Boy: No Sir, I was just checking my performance at the
job I already have. I am the one who is working for that lady I was talking to!"
This is what we call "Self Appraisal"
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
VU reader seeks information
The Statesman, 23 September 2010
shyam sundar roy
MIDNAPORE, 23 SEPT: The work of the West Bengal Information Commission has virtually come to a halt owing to a battle between the chief minister, Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, and the Opposition leader, Mr Partha Chatterjee, over the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner after Mr Arun Kumar Bhattacharya retired from the post last month.
As a result of this tug of war, the Governor, Mr MK Narayan, has also reportedly put some queries to the state government over the protocol to be followed regarding the appointment of Mr Sujit Sarkar as the new incumbent.
Meanwhile, numerous cases are pending for months with the commission's office despite an order passed by Mr Justice Jayanta Biswas of Calcutta High Court on 7 July.
In the said order, Mr Justice Jayanta Biswas stated, "the Second Appellate Authority (West Bengal Information Commission) shall decide the petitioner's Second Appeal within 45 days from the date of communication of this order."
This order was passed in connection with the writ petition No 11933 (W) of 2010, filed by Mr Akhil Kumar Roy against the West Bengal Information Commission.
A similar story unfolded at Vidyasagar University (VU). Several complaints were lodged by Dr Abhijit Guha, a reader in the department of anthropology, VU, against the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the university, Mr Subir Kumar Basu, for not supplying the required information under the RTI Act.
In one of his RTI applications on 4 March 2010, Dr Guha sought to know the financial and other details of the foreign tours of the university's Vice-Chancellor, Professor Swapan Kumar Pramanick, between 2004 and 2009.
But the PIO rejected Dr Guha's RTI request on the plea that the information sought by him are personal in nature.
After that, Dr Guha filed his First Appeal on 6 April 2010 to the VU registrar and Appellate Authority, Dr Ranajit Dhar, pointing out that for his foreign tours the Vice-Chancellor had used the office of the Vice-Chancellor and to support his conference-related expenditures he had taken funds from the UGC and the VU.
Then, Dr Guha argued that the documents he had sought in his RTI application are in no way "personal in nature" as claimed by the PIO.
But the Appellate Authority of the VU also seemed to have not acted properly on the First Appeal made by Dr Guha who then being disgusted filed his Second Appeal to the secretary of the commission on 10 May, 2010 seeking justice as per the RTI Act.
Dr Guha also requested the PIO to supply him the vouchers which were supposed to have been submitted to the Finance Officer of the VU by the V-C against his expenditures of over Rs 60,000 taken from the UGC's unassigned grants in connection with his trip to attend the 36th World Congress of Sociology held between 7 and 11 July 2004 in Beijing, China.
But the commission is still sitting over the litany of complaints of Dr Guha which they received on 10 May, 2010 ignoring the High Court order.
shyam sundar roy
MIDNAPORE, 23 SEPT: The work of the West Bengal Information Commission has virtually come to a halt owing to a battle between the chief minister, Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, and the Opposition leader, Mr Partha Chatterjee, over the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner after Mr Arun Kumar Bhattacharya retired from the post last month.
As a result of this tug of war, the Governor, Mr MK Narayan, has also reportedly put some queries to the state government over the protocol to be followed regarding the appointment of Mr Sujit Sarkar as the new incumbent.
Meanwhile, numerous cases are pending for months with the commission's office despite an order passed by Mr Justice Jayanta Biswas of Calcutta High Court on 7 July.
In the said order, Mr Justice Jayanta Biswas stated, "the Second Appellate Authority (West Bengal Information Commission) shall decide the petitioner's Second Appeal within 45 days from the date of communication of this order."
This order was passed in connection with the writ petition No 11933 (W) of 2010, filed by Mr Akhil Kumar Roy against the West Bengal Information Commission.
A similar story unfolded at Vidyasagar University (VU). Several complaints were lodged by Dr Abhijit Guha, a reader in the department of anthropology, VU, against the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the university, Mr Subir Kumar Basu, for not supplying the required information under the RTI Act.
In one of his RTI applications on 4 March 2010, Dr Guha sought to know the financial and other details of the foreign tours of the university's Vice-Chancellor, Professor Swapan Kumar Pramanick, between 2004 and 2009.
But the PIO rejected Dr Guha's RTI request on the plea that the information sought by him are personal in nature.
After that, Dr Guha filed his First Appeal on 6 April 2010 to the VU registrar and Appellate Authority, Dr Ranajit Dhar, pointing out that for his foreign tours the Vice-Chancellor had used the office of the Vice-Chancellor and to support his conference-related expenditures he had taken funds from the UGC and the VU.
Then, Dr Guha argued that the documents he had sought in his RTI application are in no way "personal in nature" as claimed by the PIO.
But the Appellate Authority of the VU also seemed to have not acted properly on the First Appeal made by Dr Guha who then being disgusted filed his Second Appeal to the secretary of the commission on 10 May, 2010 seeking justice as per the RTI Act.
Dr Guha also requested the PIO to supply him the vouchers which were supposed to have been submitted to the Finance Officer of the VU by the V-C against his expenditures of over Rs 60,000 taken from the UGC's unassigned grants in connection with his trip to attend the 36th World Congress of Sociology held between 7 and 11 July 2004 in Beijing, China.
But the commission is still sitting over the litany of complaints of Dr Guha which they received on 10 May, 2010 ignoring the High Court order.
Links to India's RTI portals
India RTI portal: http://indiarti.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html
CIC decisions: http://cic.gov.in/CIC_Decisions.htm
State PIOs of WB: http://wbic.gov.in/html/list_spio_pio_aa.htm
RTI India: http://www.rtiindia.org
CIC decisions: http://cic.gov.in/CIC_Decisions.htm
State PIOs of WB: http://wbic.gov.in/html/list_spio_pio_aa.htm
RTI India: http://www.rtiindia.org
Arrest warrant against official for delaying info
Himanshi Dhawan, TNN, Dec 20, 2009, 09.36am IST
NEW DELHI: In an unusual move to ensure compliance by a public official under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Arunachal Pradesh state information commission issued an arrest warrant. Needless to say not only was the public information officer present at the next date of hearing but also gave the requisite information after some delay.
Applicant Tago Pai Camdir had asked for information regarding details of appointments in the state art and culture department in June 2009. With no compliance by the department, the information commission asked the department's deputy director J Siram to furnish the information within three days and also explain why the Civil Procedure Code should not be invoked against him for causing "unreasonable delay''.
Despite the July 13 order, the applicant did not get the requisite information and at the next hearing on July 31, the PIO, J Siram, was absent. Irked by the non-compliance, information commissioner Toko Anil issued an arrest warrant for Siram under CPC order XVI, rule 10(3) that allows for a warrant to be issued to summon a person to ensure his or her presence in court. In his order, Anil said that "....it appears that the PIO/APIO has given less importance to interim order passed by this commission...which tantamounts to non-compliance of the order.''
Not only was Siram forced to execute the bail bond but had to give a written explanation on the delay where he blamed non-cooperation by department officials. Ruling that the explanations given by Siram and his colleagues were not satisfactory, the commissioner issued a showcause notice on why a penalty of Rs 250 per day for 30 days not be slapped on the PIO.
While the fine was finally waived off, the department seems to have learned a hard lesson and has promised to set up an RTI cell and ensure compliance under section 4 of the RTI Act that mandates proactive disclosure by all public institutions.
NEW DELHI: In an unusual move to ensure compliance by a public official under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Arunachal Pradesh state information commission issued an arrest warrant. Needless to say not only was the public information officer present at the next date of hearing but also gave the requisite information after some delay.
Applicant Tago Pai Camdir had asked for information regarding details of appointments in the state art and culture department in June 2009. With no compliance by the department, the information commission asked the department's deputy director J Siram to furnish the information within three days and also explain why the Civil Procedure Code should not be invoked against him for causing "unreasonable delay''.
Despite the July 13 order, the applicant did not get the requisite information and at the next hearing on July 31, the PIO, J Siram, was absent. Irked by the non-compliance, information commissioner Toko Anil issued an arrest warrant for Siram under CPC order XVI, rule 10(3) that allows for a warrant to be issued to summon a person to ensure his or her presence in court. In his order, Anil said that "....it appears that the PIO/APIO has given less importance to interim order passed by this commission...which tantamounts to non-compliance of the order.''
Not only was Siram forced to execute the bail bond but had to give a written explanation on the delay where he blamed non-cooperation by department officials. Ruling that the explanations given by Siram and his colleagues were not satisfactory, the commissioner issued a showcause notice on why a penalty of Rs 250 per day for 30 days not be slapped on the PIO.
While the fine was finally waived off, the department seems to have learned a hard lesson and has promised to set up an RTI cell and ensure compliance under section 4 of the RTI Act that mandates proactive disclosure by all public institutions.
HC serves notice to state govt for RTI appeals pileup
TNN, Dec 5, 2009, 03.47am IST
AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court on Friday issued notices to the state government and the state information commission in connection with vacant posts of information commissioners that has led to piling up of appeals for Right To Information (RTI) during the last couple of years.
Acting on a PIL filed by Amit Jethwa, a division bench headed by the acting chief justice sought explanation on why information commissioners are not being appointed so the appeals related to RTI pleas could be dealt with in speedy manner. Further hearing is kept on December 21.
The petitioner claimed before the court that two posts of information commissioner, equal number of posts of law officers and several other vacancies in the Gujarat Information Commission have not been filled by the government despite due sanction given for them more than three years ago. Since two posts of information commissioners are vacant, the chief information commissioner remains over-burdened and the situation has resulted in huge pendency within a couple of years only.
The PIL contended that the appeal against any RTI appellate authority's decision remains pending for months and in many cases the applicants have to move the high court for quick disposal. In such circumstances, filling up the posts of commissioners as well as other administrative appointments would serve the public purpose and ensure better implementation of the RTI Act, 2005.
AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court on Friday issued notices to the state government and the state information commission in connection with vacant posts of information commissioners that has led to piling up of appeals for Right To Information (RTI) during the last couple of years.
Acting on a PIL filed by Amit Jethwa, a division bench headed by the acting chief justice sought explanation on why information commissioners are not being appointed so the appeals related to RTI pleas could be dealt with in speedy manner. Further hearing is kept on December 21.
The petitioner claimed before the court that two posts of information commissioner, equal number of posts of law officers and several other vacancies in the Gujarat Information Commission have not been filled by the government despite due sanction given for them more than three years ago. Since two posts of information commissioners are vacant, the chief information commissioner remains over-burdened and the situation has resulted in huge pendency within a couple of years only.
The PIL contended that the appeal against any RTI appellate authority's decision remains pending for months and in many cases the applicants have to move the high court for quick disposal. In such circumstances, filling up the posts of commissioners as well as other administrative appointments would serve the public purpose and ensure better implementation of the RTI Act, 2005.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Krishna Iyer writes on the charges of corruption brought against past CJIs
A challenge before the nation
V.R. Krishna Iyer
The Hindu, Tuesday, Sep 21, 2010
Have some Chief Justices of the Supreme Court indeed been delinquent, or is Shanti Bhushan resorting to bravado? The truth should come out.
Shanti Bhushan is a distinguished Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court. The former Union Law Minister has been a public-spirited counsel of corrective strategy. Now he has, in a stroke of seemingly egregious expression of national conscience, raised a historic, heuristic challenge. He has questioned the integrity of the top brethren of the highest judiciary of the Republic, hurling charges of corruption against eight of 16 Chief Justices of the past. He has defiantly desiderated them in a militant manner. Take action for contempt of court against me, if you dare, he seems to say. And the media have publicised Mr. Bhushan's action, which sounds much like bravado.
Now it is left to the nation to move on this matter of paramount importance. This is an astonishing event — the rarest of the rare kind. If India is not a coward, if its swaraj is not merely soft and formal but firm and phenomenal, an appropriately high-level investigation, with consequential follow-up action that is punitive and reformatory, is imperative. This is no time to hesitate or involve in an exchange of rhetoric. Nor is this the time for a guarded and diplomatic reaction. This is unprecedented: a succession of Chief Justices have been publicly accused by a Senior Advocate of standing, risking his career.
Take action or face collapse. This is not a matter for ordinary public interest litigation. Until now, in no democracy would such an event have happened. There is not a moment now to relax or show amoral indifference or inaction. Should India keep quiet and go into slumber in the face of Operation Bhushan Bravo now, the world will judge this democracy as a bundle of brave words that, when it comes to action, is a flop show. This is not an hour to relax or retreat from duty. This is an open offensive against the highest court. The court, with vast powers of adjudication of justice and writ jurisdiction, has been put in the dock, so to say. To remain deaf or dumb to this situation will be a shock and a shame. When the judicial system suffers seppuku, we become a society sans justice.
This is a crisis beyond Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia themselves. The extraordinarily epic charge demands a trial. How can the courts close its eyes and pretend to be asleep? Wake up and walk with your head high, and create a tribunal as unique as the situation. To fail here will put the nation's reputation under grave suspicion.
The judiciary is constitutionally empowered to be critical, to quash and be a corrective. It could issue creative writs or directives binding the functional process of the Executive and the Legislature. What about the judges if they are not efficient, competent and capable, and with a vision and mission to transform the social dimension of any policy or action that is violative of suprema lex? In the United States, Chief Justice Earl Warren produced a racial revolution that U.S. President Eisenhower could not achieve. In the Commonwealth, visionary judges have shown their ability to transmute society through judicial activism.
Even in India, public interest litigation has revolutionary potential if our ‘robed brethren' are really socialist and secular. They do not always possess in plenary fashion such a dimension in terms of perception or vision. On the contrary, some of them often tend to yield to class bias and political pressure by multinational corporations, or class-oriented prejudices. Indeed, some of them seem to be slowly succumbing to corruption by powerful vested interests. This is a grave danger.
Yet, the controversy raised by Mr. Shanti Bhushan poses a serious peril before this Republic's crimson future. Our tryst with destiny, articulated in the historic address by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, cannot be implemented since final adjudicatory powers under Article 141 and 144 lie with the highest court. To remain inert and indifferent to the attack is to be amoral and unethical to constitutional mandates. If this Republic is a live constitutional instrumentality, it has received stab wounds on its chest. Our Supreme Court Judges do have a moral stature.
If Parliament has a sense of shame, now is the time to act: it cannot wait till tomorrow. Mr. Shanti Bhushan has dared the court. Of course, he will get an opportunity and has an obligation to the nation to prove the truth of his charges. Not to act on the matter will amount to cowardice, timidity, bankruptcy, and an unworthy submission to his audacious invasion on the credibility of India's highest moral authority, the Supreme Court.
Parliament must act. Let the Prime Minister move a resolution asking the two Houses to meet and pass a motion appointing the highest-ever quasi-judicial body to sit and inquire into any judicatural retreat from their oath of office. This will involve issues of grave importance. It is no longer Bhushan vs. the Supreme Court. It is the people's right to have a paramount Supreme Court of justice. This nation is greater than Mr. Shanti Bhushan and it cannot have a moral backbone if these charges are not publicly enquired into and consequent changes are made — so that the Supreme Court may shine supreme.
Any Commission or Tribunal that is created should not be confined to the charges in its ambit of enquiry. The public must be able to bring any other charges against the judges of the highest court. This will be a historic, epic tribunal to try its own judges without fear or favour and cleanse the system of any bad elements. Frame a performance prescription, punish any guilty judges.
Or if Mr. Shanti Bhushan fails in his bid, let him face the consequences of his phenomenal folly. There should be no secrecy but only transparency, no contempt proceedings to hide delinquent conduct. This will be an epic battle more important than the making of the Constitution — a national hearing by a superlative tribunal. I suggest the Chief Justices of all the High Courts plus the Speaker and the Chairpersons of the two Houses sitting as a body assisted by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. During the course of these proceedings, ad hoc judges may be appointed to hear cases. The marathon process will involve sittings on three days a week. The other four days could be set apart for their regular judicial work. Such a tribunal will be unique — a brave judicial odyssey. For, never has there been such a spiritual or civil challenge to a nation's supreme body.
Let us not be afraid of doing the right thing at the right time. Anybody who comes up with charges must suffer punishment if these turn out to be unproven. Nobody can escape after levelling allegations frivolously, nocently, malignantly and mendaciously. Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan will either go down in history as tremendous challengers of evil or run afoul of the law for having raised frivolous charges. Justice shall be done to the judges, and equally to those who have levelled unproven charges. Those who seek to defile the system through blackmail will be punished, unless they are able to back up and prove the charges.
The collegium
Meanwhile, there is one more item of great relevance and importance to be considered by Parliament. This involves the collegium created by a judgment of the Supreme Court to make appointments and recommend the transfer of judges of the higher courts. This instrumentality is the creature of a judgment with no foundation in the Constitution. It constitutes an usurpation of the powers of the Executive with no guidelines whatsoever. It has played havoc and deserves to be demolished by parliamentary correction, by means of an amendment to the law. The collegium is answerable to none, and acts without transparency. Instead of waiting for a larger bench to eliminate it, a constitutional provision must extinguish this instrument.
Also read this article by Krishna Iyer: Limits of judicial conduct at http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/07/stories/2009080754240900.htm
V.R. Krishna Iyer
The Hindu, Tuesday, Sep 21, 2010
Have some Chief Justices of the Supreme Court indeed been delinquent, or is Shanti Bhushan resorting to bravado? The truth should come out.
Shanti Bhushan is a distinguished Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court. The former Union Law Minister has been a public-spirited counsel of corrective strategy. Now he has, in a stroke of seemingly egregious expression of national conscience, raised a historic, heuristic challenge. He has questioned the integrity of the top brethren of the highest judiciary of the Republic, hurling charges of corruption against eight of 16 Chief Justices of the past. He has defiantly desiderated them in a militant manner. Take action for contempt of court against me, if you dare, he seems to say. And the media have publicised Mr. Bhushan's action, which sounds much like bravado.
Now it is left to the nation to move on this matter of paramount importance. This is an astonishing event — the rarest of the rare kind. If India is not a coward, if its swaraj is not merely soft and formal but firm and phenomenal, an appropriately high-level investigation, with consequential follow-up action that is punitive and reformatory, is imperative. This is no time to hesitate or involve in an exchange of rhetoric. Nor is this the time for a guarded and diplomatic reaction. This is unprecedented: a succession of Chief Justices have been publicly accused by a Senior Advocate of standing, risking his career.
Take action or face collapse. This is not a matter for ordinary public interest litigation. Until now, in no democracy would such an event have happened. There is not a moment now to relax or show amoral indifference or inaction. Should India keep quiet and go into slumber in the face of Operation Bhushan Bravo now, the world will judge this democracy as a bundle of brave words that, when it comes to action, is a flop show. This is not an hour to relax or retreat from duty. This is an open offensive against the highest court. The court, with vast powers of adjudication of justice and writ jurisdiction, has been put in the dock, so to say. To remain deaf or dumb to this situation will be a shock and a shame. When the judicial system suffers seppuku, we become a society sans justice.
This is a crisis beyond Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia themselves. The extraordinarily epic charge demands a trial. How can the courts close its eyes and pretend to be asleep? Wake up and walk with your head high, and create a tribunal as unique as the situation. To fail here will put the nation's reputation under grave suspicion.
The judiciary is constitutionally empowered to be critical, to quash and be a corrective. It could issue creative writs or directives binding the functional process of the Executive and the Legislature. What about the judges if they are not efficient, competent and capable, and with a vision and mission to transform the social dimension of any policy or action that is violative of suprema lex? In the United States, Chief Justice Earl Warren produced a racial revolution that U.S. President Eisenhower could not achieve. In the Commonwealth, visionary judges have shown their ability to transmute society through judicial activism.
Even in India, public interest litigation has revolutionary potential if our ‘robed brethren' are really socialist and secular. They do not always possess in plenary fashion such a dimension in terms of perception or vision. On the contrary, some of them often tend to yield to class bias and political pressure by multinational corporations, or class-oriented prejudices. Indeed, some of them seem to be slowly succumbing to corruption by powerful vested interests. This is a grave danger.
Yet, the controversy raised by Mr. Shanti Bhushan poses a serious peril before this Republic's crimson future. Our tryst with destiny, articulated in the historic address by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, cannot be implemented since final adjudicatory powers under Article 141 and 144 lie with the highest court. To remain inert and indifferent to the attack is to be amoral and unethical to constitutional mandates. If this Republic is a live constitutional instrumentality, it has received stab wounds on its chest. Our Supreme Court Judges do have a moral stature.
If Parliament has a sense of shame, now is the time to act: it cannot wait till tomorrow. Mr. Shanti Bhushan has dared the court. Of course, he will get an opportunity and has an obligation to the nation to prove the truth of his charges. Not to act on the matter will amount to cowardice, timidity, bankruptcy, and an unworthy submission to his audacious invasion on the credibility of India's highest moral authority, the Supreme Court.
Parliament must act. Let the Prime Minister move a resolution asking the two Houses to meet and pass a motion appointing the highest-ever quasi-judicial body to sit and inquire into any judicatural retreat from their oath of office. This will involve issues of grave importance. It is no longer Bhushan vs. the Supreme Court. It is the people's right to have a paramount Supreme Court of justice. This nation is greater than Mr. Shanti Bhushan and it cannot have a moral backbone if these charges are not publicly enquired into and consequent changes are made — so that the Supreme Court may shine supreme.
Any Commission or Tribunal that is created should not be confined to the charges in its ambit of enquiry. The public must be able to bring any other charges against the judges of the highest court. This will be a historic, epic tribunal to try its own judges without fear or favour and cleanse the system of any bad elements. Frame a performance prescription, punish any guilty judges.
Or if Mr. Shanti Bhushan fails in his bid, let him face the consequences of his phenomenal folly. There should be no secrecy but only transparency, no contempt proceedings to hide delinquent conduct. This will be an epic battle more important than the making of the Constitution — a national hearing by a superlative tribunal. I suggest the Chief Justices of all the High Courts plus the Speaker and the Chairpersons of the two Houses sitting as a body assisted by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. During the course of these proceedings, ad hoc judges may be appointed to hear cases. The marathon process will involve sittings on three days a week. The other four days could be set apart for their regular judicial work. Such a tribunal will be unique — a brave judicial odyssey. For, never has there been such a spiritual or civil challenge to a nation's supreme body.
Let us not be afraid of doing the right thing at the right time. Anybody who comes up with charges must suffer punishment if these turn out to be unproven. Nobody can escape after levelling allegations frivolously, nocently, malignantly and mendaciously. Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan will either go down in history as tremendous challengers of evil or run afoul of the law for having raised frivolous charges. Justice shall be done to the judges, and equally to those who have levelled unproven charges. Those who seek to defile the system through blackmail will be punished, unless they are able to back up and prove the charges.
The collegium
Meanwhile, there is one more item of great relevance and importance to be considered by Parliament. This involves the collegium created by a judgment of the Supreme Court to make appointments and recommend the transfer of judges of the higher courts. This instrumentality is the creature of a judgment with no foundation in the Constitution. It constitutes an usurpation of the powers of the Executive with no guidelines whatsoever. It has played havoc and deserves to be demolished by parliamentary correction, by means of an amendment to the law. The collegium is answerable to none, and acts without transparency. Instead of waiting for a larger bench to eliminate it, a constitutional provision must extinguish this instrument.
Also read this article by Krishna Iyer: Limits of judicial conduct at http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/07/stories/2009080754240900.htm
Friday, October 01, 2010
Ayodhya: Judge Refers 274 Books, 798 Judgements
NEW DELHI | SEP 30, 2010 (news.outlookindia.com)
Hymns of vedic age to the recent judicial judgements and textbooks from all eras of history were referred by Justice Sudhir Agarwal of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court while deciding the vexed ownership of the disputed land in Ayodhya.
Justice Agarwal, who gave the majority verdict along with Justice S U Khan, prepared his separate judgement in 21 volumes in which he gave reference of 274 books, 798 judgements in 5,238 pages.
The books consulted by him belonged to ancient, medieval and modern history along with the judgements of the recent times by the Supreme Court and various High Courts along with the law settled by the Privy Council.
The judgements referred from the privy council dates back to early 19th century and included Tracy Perrage Case of 1843 for Forensic Science and Expert Evidence to Williams Vs Lourdusamy & another case of 2008.
References have been taken from the books written by Muslim travellers including Ibn Batuta, who visited India during the Tughlaq period.
The judge also took into accounts of cultural history of India from the book authored by Australian historian A L Basham.
Justice Agarwal also made reference of Bhagwat Gita and other religious texts of both Hindus and Muslims in his judgement.
Hymns of vedic age to the recent judicial judgements and textbooks from all eras of history were referred by Justice Sudhir Agarwal of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court while deciding the vexed ownership of the disputed land in Ayodhya.
Justice Agarwal, who gave the majority verdict along with Justice S U Khan, prepared his separate judgement in 21 volumes in which he gave reference of 274 books, 798 judgements in 5,238 pages.
The books consulted by him belonged to ancient, medieval and modern history along with the judgements of the recent times by the Supreme Court and various High Courts along with the law settled by the Privy Council.
The judgements referred from the privy council dates back to early 19th century and included Tracy Perrage Case of 1843 for Forensic Science and Expert Evidence to Williams Vs Lourdusamy & another case of 2008.
References have been taken from the books written by Muslim travellers including Ibn Batuta, who visited India during the Tughlaq period.
The judge also took into accounts of cultural history of India from the book authored by Australian historian A L Basham.
Justice Agarwal also made reference of Bhagwat Gita and other religious texts of both Hindus and Muslims in his judgement.
The Men Behind the Verdict: Three Ayodhya Judges
Outlook, LUCKNOW | SEP 30, 2010
With all eyes riveted on the three judges who pronounced the Ayodhya verdict today, their life away from the Court offered some interesting insight with one of them having a reputation of being as good as with the ladle as he is with the gavel.
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, the senior-most judge on the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court who demits office tomorrow, cooks his own food and occasionally makes a meal for his colleagues, according to veteran advocates.
In the tense build up to today's verdict, Sharma, a deeply religious man who mostly sticks to Hindi, was in the spotlight for two reasons.
He had sprung a surprise with his dissenting verdict on September 20 and pitched for mediation when the High Court rejected a plea for deferment of the keenly awaited verdict in the 60-year-old dispute to explore the possibility of any out-of-court settlement.
And the fact that he demits office tomorrow was highlighted by the parties to the title suit who did not want the judgement to be postponed.
Colleagues of Sharma, a strict vegetarian and a bachelor, speak of his austere lifestyle as he has been seen in white dhoti-kurta at social functions.
The judge is also known to have a human face and he goes out of his way to help poor petitioners.
He is famous for his philanthropic nature and is known to have helped many in times of crisis.
Born on October 2, 1948, Sharma graduated in arts in 1967 and got his law degree in 1970 from a college in Bulandshahr in Uttar Pradesh. In 1972, he got through the judicial service to become a district court judge.
In 2002, he became district and sessions judge and joined the Lucknow bench of the high court in 2005. Sharma was nominated as a judge of the Ayodhya bench on February 12, 2007.
Justice Sudhir Agarwal
Justice Agarwal at 52 is the youngest of the three judges on the Ayodhya bench. Unlike his senior judge Justice Sharma in the bench, Justice Agarwal is mostly heard speaking in English even outside the courtroom.
He is known for his incisive and precise judgments and always plays by the law book, according to a junior who worked under the judge when he was an advocate. The judge was also described as extremely articulate and well versed with nuances of civil law.
Another advocate said that Justice Agarwal's verdicts are marked by earthy legal wisdom and rarely contradicted by the Supreme Court.
Agarwal graduated with science from Agra University in 1977, then studied law at Meerut university, earning his degree in 1980. He joined the Allahabad High Court Bar in October the same year. Starting out as a tax advocate, he later shifted to service laws.
Born on April 25, 1958, Justice Agarwal's retirement is due on April 23, 2020. He joined the Allahabad High Court Bench in October 2005 and was confirmed as a permanent judge in August 2007.
Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan.
Justice Khan, the third member of the Bench, is also a science graduate like Justice Agarwal and both of them were colleagues in the High Court Bar.
Known for his razor sharp wit, Justice Khan, 58, has always been aided by a strong sense of history, according to advocate D P Gupta.
He earned his law degree from Aligarh Muslim University in 1975 and enrolled himself as an advocate the same year. He specialised in the civil, service and revenue areas of law for 25 years before being elevated as permanent judge of Allahabad High Court in 2002.
A law officer said there are many verdicts of Justice Khan in the AIR Law Books which are milestones in civil disputes. The All India Reporter law books report judgements of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
Khan, who is equally at ease in Hindi and English, is known to push for out of court settlements of civil cases, and he is said to settled 2,000 cases through negotiations.
Born on January 31, 1952, Justice Khan will reach the age of retirement on January 30, 2014.
Justice Khan, who sat on the Ayodhya Bench for the first time on January 11, 2010, is known to be a tough judge who remains firm in his approach.
With all eyes riveted on the three judges who pronounced the Ayodhya verdict today, their life away from the Court offered some interesting insight with one of them having a reputation of being as good as with the ladle as he is with the gavel.
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, the senior-most judge on the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court who demits office tomorrow, cooks his own food and occasionally makes a meal for his colleagues, according to veteran advocates.
In the tense build up to today's verdict, Sharma, a deeply religious man who mostly sticks to Hindi, was in the spotlight for two reasons.
He had sprung a surprise with his dissenting verdict on September 20 and pitched for mediation when the High Court rejected a plea for deferment of the keenly awaited verdict in the 60-year-old dispute to explore the possibility of any out-of-court settlement.
And the fact that he demits office tomorrow was highlighted by the parties to the title suit who did not want the judgement to be postponed.
Colleagues of Sharma, a strict vegetarian and a bachelor, speak of his austere lifestyle as he has been seen in white dhoti-kurta at social functions.
The judge is also known to have a human face and he goes out of his way to help poor petitioners.
He is famous for his philanthropic nature and is known to have helped many in times of crisis.
Born on October 2, 1948, Sharma graduated in arts in 1967 and got his law degree in 1970 from a college in Bulandshahr in Uttar Pradesh. In 1972, he got through the judicial service to become a district court judge.
In 2002, he became district and sessions judge and joined the Lucknow bench of the high court in 2005. Sharma was nominated as a judge of the Ayodhya bench on February 12, 2007.
Justice Sudhir Agarwal
Justice Agarwal at 52 is the youngest of the three judges on the Ayodhya bench. Unlike his senior judge Justice Sharma in the bench, Justice Agarwal is mostly heard speaking in English even outside the courtroom.
He is known for his incisive and precise judgments and always plays by the law book, according to a junior who worked under the judge when he was an advocate. The judge was also described as extremely articulate and well versed with nuances of civil law.
Another advocate said that Justice Agarwal's verdicts are marked by earthy legal wisdom and rarely contradicted by the Supreme Court.
Agarwal graduated with science from Agra University in 1977, then studied law at Meerut university, earning his degree in 1980. He joined the Allahabad High Court Bar in October the same year. Starting out as a tax advocate, he later shifted to service laws.
Born on April 25, 1958, Justice Agarwal's retirement is due on April 23, 2020. He joined the Allahabad High Court Bench in October 2005 and was confirmed as a permanent judge in August 2007.
Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan.
Justice Khan, the third member of the Bench, is also a science graduate like Justice Agarwal and both of them were colleagues in the High Court Bar.
Known for his razor sharp wit, Justice Khan, 58, has always been aided by a strong sense of history, according to advocate D P Gupta.
He earned his law degree from Aligarh Muslim University in 1975 and enrolled himself as an advocate the same year. He specialised in the civil, service and revenue areas of law for 25 years before being elevated as permanent judge of Allahabad High Court in 2002.
A law officer said there are many verdicts of Justice Khan in the AIR Law Books which are milestones in civil disputes. The All India Reporter law books report judgements of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
Khan, who is equally at ease in Hindi and English, is known to push for out of court settlements of civil cases, and he is said to settled 2,000 cases through negotiations.
Born on January 31, 1952, Justice Khan will reach the age of retirement on January 30, 2014.
Justice Khan, who sat on the Ayodhya Bench for the first time on January 11, 2010, is known to be a tough judge who remains firm in his approach.
'Eight Of The Last Sixteen Chief Justices Of India Were Definitely Corrupt', said the former law minister in an affidavit to the Supreme Court
Outlook, National/Opinion, SEP 16, 2010
CORRUPTION IN JUDICIARY
'Eight Of The Last Sixteen Chief Justices Of India Were Definitely Corrupt'
'...six were definitely honest and about the remaining two, a definite opinion cannot be expressed whether they were honest or corrupt,' says the former law minister in an affidavit to the Supreme Court.
In the on-going contempt proceedings against his son, Prashant Bhushan, former law minister and senior advocate Mr Shanti Bhushan has joined issue by filing an affidavit in the Supreme Court asking to be impleaded in the case.
The contempt proceedings against Mr Prashant Bhushan were instituted for his following statement in an interview to Tehelka:
“In my view, out of the last 16 to 17 Chief Justices, half have been corrupt. I can’t prove this, though we had evidence against Punchhi, Anand, and Sabharwal on the basis of which we sought their impeachment”.
Mr Shanti Bhushan has backed his son's statement by affirming in his affidavit that, out of the last 16 Chief Justices at the time of the impugned interview,
"in the applicant’s opinion, eight were definitely corrupt, six were definitely honest and about the remaining two, a definite opinion cannot be expressed whether they were honest or corrupt. The signed lists identifying these eight, six and two Chief Justices of India are being enclosed in a sealed cover which is being annexed hereto as Annexure B."
Mr Shanti Bhushan concluded his affidavit by saying:
...since the applicant is publicly stating that out of the last sixteen Chief Justices of India, eight of them were definitely corrupt, the applicant also needs to be added as a respondent to this contempt petition so that he is also suitably punished for this contempt. The applicant would consider it a great honour to spend time in jail for making an effort to get for the people of India an honest and clean judiciary.
That the applicant also submits that since the questions arising in this case affects the judiciary as a whole, the petition needs to be decided by the entire court and not merely by three judges handpicked by a Chief Justice.
As the latest affidavit by Mr Shanti Bhushan furthers the debate on judicial accountability, we feel it needs to be read in full and are therefore publishing it here for public record:
***
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACr. M.P. NO. ________ OF 2010
IN
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 10 OF 2009
IN
I.A. NO. 1374, 1474, 2134 OF 2007
IN WP (C) NO. 202 OF 1995
IN THE MATTER OF:AMICUS CURIAE ….PETITIONER VERSUS PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR. ….RESPONDENTS IN THE MATTER OF:SHANTI BHUSHAN
R/O, B-16, SECTOR-14,
NOIDA- 201301 …..APPLICANT
APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT AS RESPONDENT NO. 3
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice &
His Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India
The humble application of the Petitioners above named.
Most respectfully showeth:
That the applicant is filing the present application for his impleadment as Respondent No. 3 in the aforementioned contempt petition as the applicant is making a categorical statement in the present application that eight of the last sixteen Chief Justices of India were definitely corrupt and also providing the names of those eight definitely corrupt Chief Justices in a sealed cover as an annexure along with the present application.
The Applicant is a practicing advocate who was enrolled on 8th July 1948. He has appeared in each and every High Court in the country. He is well acquainted with the manner in which the Indian judiciary has been functioning and how its character has been changing over the years.
That the applicant has been a part of the campaign for judicial accountability since its inception in the year 1990.
That there was a time when it was almost impossible even to think that a judge of a High court or the Supreme Court could be corrupt. Things have changed drastically during the last 2 or 3 decades during which corruption has been growing in the Indian judiciary. So much so that even a sitting Chief Justice of India had to openly admit that 20% of the judges could be corrupt. Very recently in March 2010 a sitting Chief Justice of a high court openly made a statement. The statement of the sitting chief justice was published by the Times of India in its issue of 6th march 2010 with the headlines “In our judiciary, anybody can be bought, says Gujarat chief justice”. A copy of the news paper report is being annexed hereto as Annexure A.
That the applicant believes that the reported statement may not be correctly reflecting the perception of the Gujarat Chief Justice, since he should be knowing as the applicant does that there are and have always been plenty of totally honest judges, but they are also becoming the victim of this public perception since no institution of governance in the country is taking any effective steps about dealing with corruption in the judiciary.
That India became a republic in 1950, when the people became sovereign. They got the right to constitute their institutions, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, to serve them, who would be accountable to them.
That before 1950, corruption was almost non existent in the High Courts. The Federal Court had in 1949 got Justice Shiv Prasad Sinha removed from the Allahabad High Court, merely on the finding that he had passed 2 judicial orders on extra judicial considerations.
That it however appears that thereafter the judiciary has adopted the policy of sweeping all allegations of judicial corruption under the carpet in the belief that such allegations might tarnish the image of the judiciary. It does not realize that this policy has played a big role in increasing judicial corruption.
That the Constitution prescribed removal by impeachment as the only way of removing judges who commit misconduct since it was believed at the time of the framing of the Constitution that misconduct by judges of the higher judiciary would be very rare. However those expectations have been belied as is apparent from the surfacing of a series of judicial scandals in the recent past. The case of Justice V. Ramaswami and subsequent attempts to impeach other judges have shown that this is an impractical and difficult process to deal with corrupt judges. The practical effect of this has been to instill a feeling of impunity among judges who feel that they cannot be touched even if they misconduct.
That corruption by judges is a cognizable offence. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires that whenever an FIR is filed with respect to a cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of the police to investigate the offence. The police has to collect evidence against the accused and charge-sheet him in a competent court. He would then be tried and punished by being sent to jail. The Supreme Court has however by violating this statutory provision in the CrPC given a direction in its Constitution bench judgement in the Veeraswamy case of 1991 that no FIR would be registered against any judge without the permission of the Chief Justice of India. In not a single case has any such permission ever been granted for the registration of an FIR against any judge after that judgement.
That the result of this direction has been that a total immunity has been given to corrupt judges against their prosecution. No wonder that judicial corruption has increased by leaps and bounds.
That an honest judiciary enjoying public confidence is an imperative for the functioning of a democracy, and it is the duty of every right thinking person to strive to achieve this end.
That unless the level of corruption in the judiciary is exposed and brought in the public domain, the institutions of governance cannot be activated to take effective measures to eliminate this evil.
That it is the common perception that whenever such efforts are made by anyone, the judiciary tries to target him by the use of the power of contempt. It is the reputation of the judge which is his shield against any malicious and false allegations against him. He doesn’t need the power of contempt to protect his reputation and credibility.
That the applicant strongly believes that a responsible citizen should be prepared to undergo any amount of suffering in the pursuit of the noble cause of fighting for a clean judiciary.
That there are 2 statements of Respondent no. 1 published in Tehelka by Respondent no. 2 which are alleged to constitute contempt of court. In the 1st statement, Respondent no. 1 has expressed that in his view, out of the last 16 or 17 chief justices of India, half have been corrupt.
The applicant states that in his view too this statement is absolutely correct. At the time of the publication of this report in Tehelka, the last 16 Chief Justices of India were the following:
1. Justice Rangnath Mishra,
2. Justice K.N. Singh,
3. Justice M.H. Kania,
4. Justice L.M. Sharma,
5. Justice M.N. Venkatchalliah,
6. Justice A.M. Ahemadi,
7. Justice J.S. Verma,
8. Justice M.M. Punchhi,
9. Justice A.S. Anand,
10. Justice S.P. Bharucha,
11. Justice B.N. Kripal,
12. Justice G.B. Patnaik,
13. Justice Rajendra Babu,
14. Justice R. C. Lahoti,
15. Justice V.N. Khare,
16. Justice Y.K Sabharwal
Out of these, in the applicant’s opinion, eight were definitely corrupt, six were definitely honest and about the remaining two, a definite opinion cannot be expressed whether they were honest or corrupt. The signed lists identifying these eight, six and two Chief Justices of India are being enclosed in a sealed cover which is being annexed hereto as Annexure B.
That in fact two former chief justices of India had personally told the applicant while they were in office that their immediate predecessor and immediate successor were corrupt judges. The names of these four Chief Justices of India are included in the list of the 8 corrupt Chief Justices of India.
That since the applicant is publicly stating that out of the last sixteen Chief Justices of India, eight of them were definitely corrupt, the applicant also needs to be added as a respondent to this contempt petition so that he is also suitably punished for this contempt. The applicant would consider it a great honour to spend time in jail for making an effort to get for the people of India an honest and clean judiciary.
That the applicant also submits that since the questions arising in this case affects the judiciary as a whole, the petition needs to be decided by the entire court and not merely by three judges handpicked by a Chief Justice.
PRAYERS
In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
allow the present application and implead the Applicant as a contemnor in the aforementioned contempt petition as Respondent no. 3; and
pass any other or further order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(Shanti Bhushan)
Applicant-in-Person
New Delhi
Dated:
CORRUPTION IN JUDICIARY
'Eight Of The Last Sixteen Chief Justices Of India Were Definitely Corrupt'
'...six were definitely honest and about the remaining two, a definite opinion cannot be expressed whether they were honest or corrupt,' says the former law minister in an affidavit to the Supreme Court.
In the on-going contempt proceedings against his son, Prashant Bhushan, former law minister and senior advocate Mr Shanti Bhushan has joined issue by filing an affidavit in the Supreme Court asking to be impleaded in the case.
The contempt proceedings against Mr Prashant Bhushan were instituted for his following statement in an interview to Tehelka:
“In my view, out of the last 16 to 17 Chief Justices, half have been corrupt. I can’t prove this, though we had evidence against Punchhi, Anand, and Sabharwal on the basis of which we sought their impeachment”.
Mr Shanti Bhushan has backed his son's statement by affirming in his affidavit that, out of the last 16 Chief Justices at the time of the impugned interview,
"in the applicant’s opinion, eight were definitely corrupt, six were definitely honest and about the remaining two, a definite opinion cannot be expressed whether they were honest or corrupt. The signed lists identifying these eight, six and two Chief Justices of India are being enclosed in a sealed cover which is being annexed hereto as Annexure B."
Mr Shanti Bhushan concluded his affidavit by saying:
...since the applicant is publicly stating that out of the last sixteen Chief Justices of India, eight of them were definitely corrupt, the applicant also needs to be added as a respondent to this contempt petition so that he is also suitably punished for this contempt. The applicant would consider it a great honour to spend time in jail for making an effort to get for the people of India an honest and clean judiciary.
That the applicant also submits that since the questions arising in this case affects the judiciary as a whole, the petition needs to be decided by the entire court and not merely by three judges handpicked by a Chief Justice.
As the latest affidavit by Mr Shanti Bhushan furthers the debate on judicial accountability, we feel it needs to be read in full and are therefore publishing it here for public record:
***
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACr. M.P. NO. ________ OF 2010
IN
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 10 OF 2009
IN
I.A. NO. 1374, 1474, 2134 OF 2007
IN WP (C) NO. 202 OF 1995
IN THE MATTER OF:AMICUS CURIAE ….PETITIONER VERSUS PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR. ….RESPONDENTS IN THE MATTER OF:SHANTI BHUSHAN
R/O, B-16, SECTOR-14,
NOIDA- 201301 …..APPLICANT
APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT AS RESPONDENT NO. 3
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice &
His Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India
The humble application of the Petitioners above named.
Most respectfully showeth:
That the applicant is filing the present application for his impleadment as Respondent No. 3 in the aforementioned contempt petition as the applicant is making a categorical statement in the present application that eight of the last sixteen Chief Justices of India were definitely corrupt and also providing the names of those eight definitely corrupt Chief Justices in a sealed cover as an annexure along with the present application.
The Applicant is a practicing advocate who was enrolled on 8th July 1948. He has appeared in each and every High Court in the country. He is well acquainted with the manner in which the Indian judiciary has been functioning and how its character has been changing over the years.
That the applicant has been a part of the campaign for judicial accountability since its inception in the year 1990.
That there was a time when it was almost impossible even to think that a judge of a High court or the Supreme Court could be corrupt. Things have changed drastically during the last 2 or 3 decades during which corruption has been growing in the Indian judiciary. So much so that even a sitting Chief Justice of India had to openly admit that 20% of the judges could be corrupt. Very recently in March 2010 a sitting Chief Justice of a high court openly made a statement. The statement of the sitting chief justice was published by the Times of India in its issue of 6th march 2010 with the headlines “In our judiciary, anybody can be bought, says Gujarat chief justice”. A copy of the news paper report is being annexed hereto as Annexure A.
That the applicant believes that the reported statement may not be correctly reflecting the perception of the Gujarat Chief Justice, since he should be knowing as the applicant does that there are and have always been plenty of totally honest judges, but they are also becoming the victim of this public perception since no institution of governance in the country is taking any effective steps about dealing with corruption in the judiciary.
That India became a republic in 1950, when the people became sovereign. They got the right to constitute their institutions, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, to serve them, who would be accountable to them.
That before 1950, corruption was almost non existent in the High Courts. The Federal Court had in 1949 got Justice Shiv Prasad Sinha removed from the Allahabad High Court, merely on the finding that he had passed 2 judicial orders on extra judicial considerations.
That it however appears that thereafter the judiciary has adopted the policy of sweeping all allegations of judicial corruption under the carpet in the belief that such allegations might tarnish the image of the judiciary. It does not realize that this policy has played a big role in increasing judicial corruption.
That the Constitution prescribed removal by impeachment as the only way of removing judges who commit misconduct since it was believed at the time of the framing of the Constitution that misconduct by judges of the higher judiciary would be very rare. However those expectations have been belied as is apparent from the surfacing of a series of judicial scandals in the recent past. The case of Justice V. Ramaswami and subsequent attempts to impeach other judges have shown that this is an impractical and difficult process to deal with corrupt judges. The practical effect of this has been to instill a feeling of impunity among judges who feel that they cannot be touched even if they misconduct.
That corruption by judges is a cognizable offence. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires that whenever an FIR is filed with respect to a cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of the police to investigate the offence. The police has to collect evidence against the accused and charge-sheet him in a competent court. He would then be tried and punished by being sent to jail. The Supreme Court has however by violating this statutory provision in the CrPC given a direction in its Constitution bench judgement in the Veeraswamy case of 1991 that no FIR would be registered against any judge without the permission of the Chief Justice of India. In not a single case has any such permission ever been granted for the registration of an FIR against any judge after that judgement.
That the result of this direction has been that a total immunity has been given to corrupt judges against their prosecution. No wonder that judicial corruption has increased by leaps and bounds.
That an honest judiciary enjoying public confidence is an imperative for the functioning of a democracy, and it is the duty of every right thinking person to strive to achieve this end.
That unless the level of corruption in the judiciary is exposed and brought in the public domain, the institutions of governance cannot be activated to take effective measures to eliminate this evil.
That it is the common perception that whenever such efforts are made by anyone, the judiciary tries to target him by the use of the power of contempt. It is the reputation of the judge which is his shield against any malicious and false allegations against him. He doesn’t need the power of contempt to protect his reputation and credibility.
That the applicant strongly believes that a responsible citizen should be prepared to undergo any amount of suffering in the pursuit of the noble cause of fighting for a clean judiciary.
That there are 2 statements of Respondent no. 1 published in Tehelka by Respondent no. 2 which are alleged to constitute contempt of court. In the 1st statement, Respondent no. 1 has expressed that in his view, out of the last 16 or 17 chief justices of India, half have been corrupt.
The applicant states that in his view too this statement is absolutely correct. At the time of the publication of this report in Tehelka, the last 16 Chief Justices of India were the following:
1. Justice Rangnath Mishra,
2. Justice K.N. Singh,
3. Justice M.H. Kania,
4. Justice L.M. Sharma,
5. Justice M.N. Venkatchalliah,
6. Justice A.M. Ahemadi,
7. Justice J.S. Verma,
8. Justice M.M. Punchhi,
9. Justice A.S. Anand,
10. Justice S.P. Bharucha,
11. Justice B.N. Kripal,
12. Justice G.B. Patnaik,
13. Justice Rajendra Babu,
14. Justice R. C. Lahoti,
15. Justice V.N. Khare,
16. Justice Y.K Sabharwal
Out of these, in the applicant’s opinion, eight were definitely corrupt, six were definitely honest and about the remaining two, a definite opinion cannot be expressed whether they were honest or corrupt. The signed lists identifying these eight, six and two Chief Justices of India are being enclosed in a sealed cover which is being annexed hereto as Annexure B.
That in fact two former chief justices of India had personally told the applicant while they were in office that their immediate predecessor and immediate successor were corrupt judges. The names of these four Chief Justices of India are included in the list of the 8 corrupt Chief Justices of India.
That since the applicant is publicly stating that out of the last sixteen Chief Justices of India, eight of them were definitely corrupt, the applicant also needs to be added as a respondent to this contempt petition so that he is also suitably punished for this contempt. The applicant would consider it a great honour to spend time in jail for making an effort to get for the people of India an honest and clean judiciary.
That the applicant also submits that since the questions arising in this case affects the judiciary as a whole, the petition needs to be decided by the entire court and not merely by three judges handpicked by a Chief Justice.
PRAYERS
In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
allow the present application and implead the Applicant as a contemnor in the aforementioned contempt petition as Respondent no. 3; and
pass any other or further order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(Shanti Bhushan)
Applicant-in-Person
New Delhi
Dated:
"Here is a small piece of land where angels fear to tread" - Says Justice S U Khan while giving Ayodhya Verdict
Press Trust of India, Updated: September 30, 2010 21:16 IST
Lucknow: "Here is a small piece of land where angels fear to tread."
This is how Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan described the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute likening it to a 1,500-sq yard minefield which he and his brother judges had to clear.
"Here is a small piece of land (1,500 square yards) where angels fear to tread. It is full of innumerable landmines. We are required to clear it."
"Some very sane elements advised us not to attempt that. We do not propose to rush in like fools lest we are blown. However, we have to take risk. It is said that the greatest risk in life is not daring to take risk when the occasion for the same arises," he wrote in a prelude to his judgement. The judgement that ran into 285 pages says that judges cannot decide whether they had succeeded or failed in their attempts. "Once angels were made to bow before man. Sometimes he has to justify the said honour. This is one of those occasions. We have succeeded or failed? No one can be a judge in his own cause," he said.
The Prelude concludes with: "... herein follows the judgement for which the entire country is waiting with bated breath."
Lucknow: "Here is a small piece of land where angels fear to tread."
This is how Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan described the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute likening it to a 1,500-sq yard minefield which he and his brother judges had to clear.
"Here is a small piece of land (1,500 square yards) where angels fear to tread. It is full of innumerable landmines. We are required to clear it."
"Some very sane elements advised us not to attempt that. We do not propose to rush in like fools lest we are blown. However, we have to take risk. It is said that the greatest risk in life is not daring to take risk when the occasion for the same arises," he wrote in a prelude to his judgement. The judgement that ran into 285 pages says that judges cannot decide whether they had succeeded or failed in their attempts. "Once angels were made to bow before man. Sometimes he has to justify the said honour. This is one of those occasions. We have succeeded or failed? No one can be a judge in his own cause," he said.
The Prelude concludes with: "... herein follows the judgement for which the entire country is waiting with bated breath."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)