Law, Lawyers, Judiciary

09-12-2006, 11:53 PM

<!--emo&

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /> Accused drop letter bomb on former lawyer
Swati Deshpande
[ 12 Sep, 2006 0337hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

MUMBAI: Nitin Pradhan, counsel for 18 of the accused in the 1993 blasts, said he was withdrawing from the job two months back.

He was disillusioned with the minority community after this July's train blasts, he explained; the frequency of terrorist attacks over the last decade and the lack of condemnation from community leaders had left him disappointed and he felt unable to discharge his duty as their lawyer.

His former clients, including Asgar Mukadam and Shoeb Ghansar (charged with planting bombs), have now struck back with an 11-page letter expressing their anger and hurt at being âdropped like a hot brick".

Calling Pradhan "a combination of Shylock and Brutus", the letter accuses him of failing to rise above religion. Pradhan had said Muslim fundamentalists were attacking more and more Hindus and, that he if continued as lawyer for those of accused of terrorism, the message going out would be that legal services were available "at the drop of a bomb".

Accusing Pradhan of using "hypocrisy, treachery and dishonesty", the letter adds he has pauperised their relatives. It rounds off with telling Pradhan that if he has "even a drop of blood in (his) thick veins containing the grace and dignity of a human being, (he) will return all the fees"...

...

1|2|Next >
Related Stories
'93 blasts: 4 of Memon family found guilty
'First family' of blasts to know fate first
1993 blasts: Chronology of events in court trial
Complete coverage: A long wait
A mockery of justice?

09-30-2006, 06:43 PM

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/argue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='argue.gif' /> When we don't have Jury system in India, it was wrong in the 1st place to withhold permission and it's still wrong to keep them waiting x 3-4 wks:
SC gives green signal to Black Friday
[ 30 Sep, 2006 1703hrs ISTPTI ]

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

NEW DELHI: The controversial film Black Friday, based on 1993 Mumbai bomb blast, will now be screened across the country as the Supreme Court has given a go ahead to its release.

A Bench comprising Justice BP Singh and Justice Altamas Kabir permitted the release of the film with the rider that it would not be shown till the ongoing pronouncement of the judgement gets completed by TADA court in Mumbai.

However, the court clarified that the producer can go with the release of the film without waiting for the pronouncement of quantum of sentence against the convicts.

The order which came on a petition filed by the producer of the film, Mid Day Multimedia, was pending before the court for almost one and half year.

The producer had challenged the Bombay High Court order staying the screening of the film untill the judgement in the case was finally delivered.

Mustafa Moosa Tarani, one of the accused, now convicted by the TADA court, had objected to the screening of the film pending trial contending that it may cause prejudice against him and could have adverse impact on the judge trying the case.

The film is based on the book written by S Hussein Zaidi narrating the sequence of the events starting from three days before the blast till the case was finally investigated by the Police.

10-03-2006, 03:22 AM

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' /> Give precedence to 'desi' legal principles: SC
Dhananjay Mahapatra
[ 3 Oct, 2006 0154hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

NEW DELHI: Probably for the first time in its more than 50-year-old history, the Supreme Court used an indigenous legal principle, developed 2,500 years ago, to adjudicate a dispute.

It exhorted lawyers and courts to rely on 'swadeshi principles', of which Mahatma Gandhi was a staunch votary. And coincidentally, the judgment was delivered just three days before Mahatma's 137th birth anniversary.

The apex court said the intellectual treasure trove bequeathed to future generations by the great minds of ancient India are rarely cited by lawyers or relied upon by the courts.

The stress on use of 'swadeshi' instead of 'videshi' was contained in the judgment given by a Bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhan and Markandey Katju on September 29 in an appeal filed by Ispat Industries Ltd challenging a 2001 order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Authority (CEGAT), Mumbai.

In adjudication of the dispute between Ispat and Commissioner of Customs, the Bench found utility in the 'Gunapradhan Axion of the Mimansa Principles of Interpretation', which were laid down by Jaimini in 5th Century BC.

The 'Gunapradhan Axion' states that if a word or a sentence, purporting to express a subordinate idea, clashes with the principal idea, the former must be adjusted to the latter or must be disregarded altogether, Justice Katju, writing for the Bench, explained.

He said it is deeply regrettable that in the country's courts of law, lawyers quote Maxwell and Craies but nobody refers to the Mimansa Principles of Interpretation (MPI).

"MPI is part of that intellectual treasury, but it is distressing to note that apart from the reference to these principles in the judgment of Sir John Edge, the then Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court, in Beni Prasad vs Hardai Devi (1892) and once more by Justice Katju in a recent case, there has been almost no utilisation of these principles even in our own country," the Bench said.

10-12-2006, 10:27 PM

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/clap.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='clap.gif' /> E-judiciary system a must: Kalam
[ 12 Oct, 2006 1817hrs ISTPTI ]

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

JABALPUR: Presenting a roadmap "to do away with pending cases in Madhya Pradesh courts in next four-five years," President A P J Abdul Kalam on Thursday favoured implementation of an "e-judiciary" system.

"The Centre has approved the action for connecting all the 15,000 courts in the country, from the district level to the Supreme Court, through a wide area network. I consider this as a very important step and should be completed through a mission mode and time bound operation," Kalam said.

He was delivering a lecture on "Dynamics of Justice Delivery System" on the occasion of Golden Jubilee Celebrations of the Madhya Pradesh High Court here.

The President also said it was essential to introduce National Citizen Identity Card throughout the country within a year as "it will bring order and accountability in the society and minimize crimes".

Stating that small aim is a crime and great aims make great nation, he commended the average yearly clearance of cases by a judge in the state High Court that was higher than the national average of 2,000 cases, and asked them to raise it from 3,200 to 6,000 cases so as to clear pending cases in next four-five years.

Kalam suggested systematic age analysis and grouping of the cases through computer-based sorting out methodology, to bring down the number of pending cases in a time bound manner.

1|2|Next >

10-15-2006, 06:31 AM

QUOTESoli slams AP Govt in pardon case 
Pioneer.com
Omer Farooq | Hyderabad
The YSR Reddy Government, already reeling under the impact of a Supreme Court verdict in case of pardoning a Congress leader in a murder case, received yet another blow on Saturday.

Former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee said that it was the State Government and the not the governor who should be blamed for granting pardon to a Congress leader on extraneous ground.

Sorabjee, who was in Hyderabad to deliver the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Memorial Lecture at the National Police Academy, said that the governor Sushil Kumar Shinde had acted only on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers.

He was asked to comment on the Supreme Court's order quashing the decision to grant pardon to G Venkat Reddy while serving a sentence of ten years imprisonment in a case of double murder.

Venkat Reddy, husband of Congress legislator Charita Reddy has now returned to the prison but Chief Minister Reddy said that the option of appealing to the governor for commutation of sentence was still kept open for the family by the Supreme Court.

Sorabjee, who was amicus curie in the case, said that the role of the president and the governors in the matter of granting pardon and commuting sentences was limited as they were bound by the recommendations of the Government.

Stating that the governor cannot be faulted, he said, "the governor goes by the advise of the ministerial council, which recommended the clemency just because he was a Congress worker. The recommendation was made on extraneous consideration. It was thoroughly irrelevant consideration".


This man killed TDP workers and CM granted him pardon. Now court had laid down rules, I hope this will discourage politicians to pardon criminals.

Why there is a lack of repect for consitution or law by Indian politicans?

10-22-2006, 10:28 PM

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/lmaosmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lmaosmiley.gif' /> Bill on judges' accountability to be introduced in Parliament
[ 22 Oct, 2006 1700hrs ISTPTI ]

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

Former Chief Justice RC Lahoti, a day before demitting office on October 31 last year, had said he did not agree with the bill in its current form. He suggested several changes in it and recommended that the Law Commission's views should also be sought by the government.

The Law Commission, after a "comprehensive study" of the bill, suggested a number of changes, including the inclusion of a whistleblower provision aimed at protecting those making complaints against judges.

"If a complainant...is apprehensive of reprisals, he should have the right to request...that his name be kept confidential," the Commission said in its 195th Report on the draft Judges (Inquiry) Bill of 2005.

The entire complaint proceedings should be kept under wraps from the start until "minor measures were imposed by the Council or its recommendation for removal is placed in Parliament", said the Commission. "Any breach of confidentiality will amount to an offence."

The Law Commission also recommended a total ban on the complainant or witnesses going public about facts and facets of the case, including allegations in the complaint, as well as the names of the complainant, witnesses and the judge concerned.
< Previous|1|2|

10-31-2006, 02:22 AM

QUOTELegislature versus Judiciary: Debate begins on Ninth Schedule 
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
JUDGMENT WEEK
The nation's best legal minds lined up on Monday to battle out one of the most contentious debates in the Constitution's history to decide whether the legislature has any power, if at all, to set limits on the judiciary.

Under challenge is a constitutional provision that insulates from judicial review, certain State and Central Acts placed under the Constitution's Ninth Schedule enacted in 1951.

The hearing is yet another reflection of the on-going tussle between the legislature and judiciary. The Ninth Schedule allows the Government to circumvent judicial scrutiny and revive even such laws that had been declared void by the court. Seen in this context, the Centre's attempt to fiercely defend its privilege has set the stage for a path-breaking judicial pronouncement.

The battery of senior advocates engaged by the Centre and State Governments explains the stakes in store for the Government. Besides Solicitor General Ghoolam Vahanvati and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Gopal Subramanium, senior advocates Soli J Sorabjee, Ram Jethmalani and TR Andhyarujina will present the Government's case.

Leading the challenge from the other side will be senior advocates Fali S Nariman and Harish Salve.

Opening the arguments before the nine-judge Bench, Nariman claimed the Parliament cannot "preclude" judicial scrutiny by enacting a legislation to protect any number of State and Central Acts. He was referring to the Constitutional provision contained in Article 31 (B) that provided a sort of "protective umbrella" to all such Acts placed under the Ninth Schedule.

The Ninth Schedule has its genesis in the very first constitutional amendment enacted in 1951 when Article 31 (B) was inserted in the Constitution. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who originally drafted the amendment, had placed all land reform legislation under the Ninth Schedule. His aim was to keep out judicial interference from hampering his Government's socialist policies.

The provision says none of the laws contained in the Schedule shall be declared void on the grounds that it was inconsistent with any of the fundamental rights, notwithstanding any decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary.

This explains the anxiety of the legislature to place about 285 laws under the Ninth Schedule, as the figure currently stands.

Since no limit or category of laws to be included/excluded in the 9th Schedule is specified, several laws including MRTP Act, FERA and COFEPOSA and the legislation providing 69 per cent reservation in Tamil Nadu have been added to the Schedule from time to time.

Commenting on this dangerous position, Nariman said, "the Ninth Schedule cannot be converted into a vast abyss into which you can throw all laws." His view found concurrence with Chief Justice YK Sabharwal, who observed, "it is not possible for the Parliament to put all laws lock, stock and barrel into the Schedule."

The issue of judicial scrutiny was debated on several occasions in the past. A clinching judgement was delivered by an 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1973, which held that judicial review of any constitutional amendment was possible if it was found to violate the "basic structure" of Constitution. Undoubtedly, judicial review formed one aspect of the basic structure theory and the laws under Ninth Schedule can be tested only if they were violative of the basic structure, the apex court held.

Another ground for challenging the Ninth Schedule which emerged during the hearing was its potential to revive any law struck down by courts for violating fundamental rights of citizens.

Commenting on the issue, the Bench said, "if a law is struck down as illegal can you (Government) give it legality by putting it in Ninth Schedule." 

The Court wanted the Government to respond whether an invalidated act needed to be re-enacted before being placed in 9th Schedule or could be revived simply by placing it in the Schedule.

"It is like putting life into a dead person" the bench commented after Nariman remarked that "it was only in Christian theology that a dead man got revived but dead laws been revived is unheard of."

11-01-2006, 01:39 AM

QUOTESC questions unbridled powers under 9th ScheduleÂ 
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New DelhiÂ
The Supreme Court, hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the legislature's power to exclude judicial scrutiny from laws under the Ninth Schedule of Constitution, expressed doubts on Tuesday on the unbridled powers available with the Centre under this provision.

The nine-judge Bench framed a question for consideration in the intensely debated issue whether certain rights which needed adjudication could simply be made non-justiciable by the Government by exercising power under this provision. Article 31 (B), being the bone of contention between the judiciary and the legislature, allows Parliament to place any law under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution granting automatic immunity from any judicial scrutiny.

Said Justice SH Kapadia of the Bench, "The Government can have certain areas, for instance education, or even the recent reservation issue, where it does not desire judicial scrutiny. But there is a caveat that if those rights come in conflict with the basic principles of equality, the court has to strike a balance. Can you then keep out the court," the court asked.

Responding to the fear expressed by the Bench, senior advocate Fali S Nariman on behalf of the petitioner said, "The Government has overpopulated the Ninth Schedule with non-reform laws." Reiterating that Article 31 (B) was created in 1951 to preclude only land reform laws from judicial scrutiny, he maintained that since the Keshavananda Bharti verdict in 1973, any Constitutional amendment has to pass the 'basic structure' theory to deserve protection.

Nariman, who argued on behalf of one of the petitioners, stated that judicial supremacy over legislation decision is established in the very scheme of the Constitution. Senior advocate Harish Salve supported Nariman's view that the Parliament' s power to amend Constitution does not permit it to become judge of its own legislation. The Ninth Schedule is not a 'laundry bag' he said, emphasising that every time a law is placed under Schedule, the Constitution allows only a one time protection.

The Bench seemed to concur on the view that "the scheme of Constitution suggests validity of all laws with regard to fundamental rights is to be tested by court. Some departure was made in 1951 by the insertion of the Ninth Schedule. The question, however, is after the 1973 judgement should those reasons continue in since Article 31 (B) is applicable to all laws." Sabharwal contended that the cut-off date of allowing all laws prior to 1973 judgement while disallowing any to continue in violation of basic structure post-1973 should serve as 'middle path'.

11-02-2006, 01:34 AM

QUOTESC: When you have to put law in Ninth Schedule, what is the test? 
Pioneer News Service | New DelhiÂ
The Government's attempt to clip judicial scrutiny of certain laws by introducing the Ninth Schedule legislation in the Constitution saw the Solicitor General running for cover in Supreme Court on Wednesday which is hearing the issue.

Appearing before the nine-judge Bench, Solicitor General Ghoolam Vahanvati's submissions granting full protection to any law placed in Ninth Schedule prompted the court to spell out its worst fears. Framing its thought, the Bench asked Vahanvati, "when you have to put a law in Ninth Schedule, what is the test you will follow?" 

The Ninth Schedule, which came into being with the First Amendment Act in 1951, resulted in insertion of Article 31 (B) into Constitution. Giving the context of reservation, the court asked the Solicitor General that if the Parliament wishes to introduce any legislation on reservation exceeding the benchmark set by court, the same could be kept out of judicial purview by placing it under the Ninth Schedule. To this, the Solicitor General stated that the challenge against the Act could be made on the ground that the law violates the basic structure of Constitution, a theory framed by an 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1973.

But this argument had no takers in the Bench. The latter stated, "There is a distinction between reservation per se and the extent of reservation. If somebody is aggrieved by the excessiveness of reservation granted by the law, can his rights be adjudicated under the overarching principles of secularism, equality and freedom which are the overarching principles of the Constitution." 

The court felt it cannot and hence it doubted whether the legislature could be empowered to hold such unbridled powers provided by the provision.

The bench also sought to address the complex issue by deriving the 'original intent' of the legislature in enacting the 1951 Act. Chief Justice YK Sabharwal heading the Bench said, "Because you were permitted to insert Article 31(B) in 1951 since the standards of judicial review came to be set only in 1973, are you entitled to insert whatever you want in 31(B). Do not the citizens have any right to challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights."

Senior advocate Soli J Sorabjee, arguing on behalf of Tamil Nadu, which inserted its legislation granting 69 per cent reservation, said, "Fundamental rights cannot serve as a cause of action for invoking judicial review under Ninth Schedule." He contended that 31 (B) creates a 'legal fiction' by which violation of fundamental rights as a ground for challenge is made unavailable though it exists in the Constitution.

But the court could not get a clear response from the Centre as to what standard of adjudication needs to be applied by it in a case, if the Parliament decides to keep the judiciary's hands off by placing a controversial law in Ninth Schedule. Here, the S-G argued that there are no fetters placed on the power of Parliament to keep adding any law to the Ninth Schedule. 

Making it clear that the original intent of the legislature was not to protect land reform laws alone but an overall protection to any law placed under the Schedule, he maintained there was no change in positionÂ

11-04-2006, 02:35 AM

QUOTESC adamant on its verdict on 9th Schedule LawÂ <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' />
Pioneer News Service | New DelhiÂ
The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict on the tussle between the judiciary and Legislature on the Ninth Schedule Law in the Constitution but took serious exception to the absence of Attorney General of India, who preferred to make his submissions through the Additional Solicitor General.

"Does not the Attorney General have the courtesy to appear before the Bench on a matter of such importance that is continuing for the past five days," said Justice Arijit Pasayat, forming part of the nine-judge Bench, which concluded hearing in the case. The observation came when Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Gopal Subramanium stood up to present arguments on behalf of Attorney General Milon K Bannerjee.

Justice Pasayat shot at Subramanium, "there is no concept of an attorney holder for AG," adding, "You are just a counsel and a counsel cannot appear for another counsel."

Chief Justice YK Sabharwal who headed the Bench intervened at this point allowing Subramanium to proceed with his submissions.

Being the final day of arguments, the court sought to know from Subramanium whether judicial immunity for Acts placed under Ninth Schedule would exist of fundamental rights of a citizen are infringed. Subramanium argued "by placing an Act under Ninth Schedule the remedy of fundamental rights is exhausted. But in the light of the 1973 Supreme Court decision introducing the 'basic structure' theory, there is scope for some fundamental rights to be considered as forming part of basic structure." Review of laws on this ground can then be possible, he explained.

Noted constitutional law expert and petitioner's counsel Fali S Nariman strongly refuted the contentions given by the Centre. Wrapping up his arguments for the day, he stated, "fundamental rights are fundamental to the Constitution" for which reason, he added, "time has come to say that fundamental rights are not to be excluded from basic structure since it forms a concentric circle within the wider circle of basic structure."

He refuted the earlier argument given by Solicitor General stating that the 1973 SC verdict upheld judicial immunity granted under Ninth Schedule. The Solicitor had stated that majority among the 13-judge Bench upheld the validity of a constitutional amendment, which placed two Acts in the Ninth schedule. Nariman pointed out that the issue under consideration before the 13 judges was not regarding placing of Acts under the Ninth Schedule to keep judges' hands off. Instead, the issue under consideration was the scion of judicial review against the power of the Parliament to amend Constitution.

Stating the welfare of people to be the guiding principle for courts to review laws under the protective umbrella of Ninth Schedule, Nariman pointed out the vices in having a provision under Constitution providing Government liberty to keep any law far from adjudication by court.Â


Excellent judgement. Congress and Commies were trying backdoor Emergency.
Its shame that current rulers are indulge in nonsense and trying to dilute fundamental rights of Indian citizens.

11-06-2006, 08:33 PM

You canât take refuge under 'public': SC to GovtQUOTEYou (Government) think that 25,000 people (traders) by putting dagger on the throat of someone (authorities) can hold entire peoples' right, life, liberty and property to ransom and Government is helpless," the Bench observed.

While referring to the situation prevailing in the capital for last six days, the Bench reminded the authorities of their duty saying that they cannot take refuge for failure to implement the orders under the view that there was a public reaction.

"One of the arguments which is given is public reaction," the Bench said referring to the violence witnessed during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, 1993 Mumbai riots and the Gujarat violence in 2002.

"Government's stand in all such situations was that because of the public reaction we are unable to take action," the court said adding that those who are suppose to implement the provisions of law cannot express their helplessness.

Excellent. Atleast court is doing good job.

11-07-2006, 01:21 AM

Gujarat to set up evening courts
QUOTE"The state law department, in consultation with the High Court, has framed "Evening Court rules- 2006," Bhatt said adding that courts will remain open from 6:15 pm to 8:15 pm.

"Cases taken up in the evening court will be of specific nature. They will be small cases which have been pending in courts," he added

11-12-2006, 06:26 AM

QUOTESupremely Contentious 
Pioneer.com
Sunday Burner - Gauri Kohli/Sumit Kumar | New Delhi
Has SC over-reached itself? Legal eagles divided
Executive's failure flayed; clamour for balance & reform
The demolition and sealing row in Delhi has demolished more than walls and sealed more than premises. It has demolished images and credibility - of governments and the Judiciary - and threatening to seal the fates of many, mostly ruling politicians. It has demolished traditional beliefs and arguments and compelled the society to thinking in radical terms.

The eye of the storm is the Supreme Court. Apart from demolition and sealing, issues like caste reservation have raised fears of confrontation between the Executive and the Judiciary. Talking to a cross-section of senior advocates and constitutional experts, Sunday Pioneer found that the legal fraternity is divided on the extent of judicial activism but feels there are larger issues responsible for this kind of a mess.

The dominant view among experts is that though the Supreme Court has not overreached itself, a greater degree of understanding and harmony is required between the Judiciary and the Legislature. Issues like credibility of the political system, sincerity of law-enforcing agencies and occasional insensitivity of courts towards popular feelings cropped up during the survey. Some even talked of reforms, both in the Judiciary and the Executive to redeem India's democracy.

For instance, senior lawyers like Shanti Bhushan felt dismayed by the Supreme Court's penchant for encroaching on the Executive's domain. He said, "This is a democratic country and the will of the people is supreme. As a direct voice of their aspirations, the Executive has every right to exercise its authority in the larger interest of society. The sealing issue in particular is a bolt on the face of Judiciary and the common man is fast losing his faith in the judicial process of the country."

Bhushan added: "Though the Executive has the constitutional means to bring about an amendment to get a reversal of the Supreme Court diktat, the Law Minister of this country is quite a hopeless case and I do not see much happening on the issue." He argued that the high-ranking judges live in ivory towers, away from the current that stores the social fabric of the country, and all such judges who do not care about masses must be impeached."

Bhushan suggested that the Supreme Court should retrace its steps on the issue of demolition and allow the Executive to take appropriate action. Giving a historical background, he said, "Ambedkar was one of the most vocal supporters of giving overriding powers to the Executive in the form of constitutional amendments, and the very purpose of including Article 368 in the Constitution was to defeat unpopular measures through constitutional amendment."

However, former Solicitor-General Harish Salve says he hasn't come across a single order of the Supreme Court where it has overreached itself. "All directions of the Supreme Court - whether for CNG or demolition - are based on some law which the Government - cast with a duty to enforce - is observing in its breach. As far as quota is concerned, equality is a fundamental right, and the right to move the Supreme Court itself to enforce such right to equality is a fundamental right," he says.

Senior advocate PN Lekhi, too, does not feel that the Supreme Court is over-reaching itself. "All the judges have taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law. They will be betraying their oath of office if they don't react to a breach of law. However, the Supreme Court is not doing to the full extent what it should do. During Emergency, the Supreme Court acted as a coward. A court that allows murders does not deserve to be there."

Former Supreme Court Bar Association president RK Jain has a more balanced approach. "Both the executive and the judiciary are taking measures well within their jurisdictions and the apex court has not wronged itself in giving the diktat for demolition, though it is well within the realm of the Executive to reverse the orders of the court if it finds the recent developments unpopular and unfriendly," Jain said. "Though people are making opinions as per their own interest, the only way out is for the Judiciary and the Executive is to sit together and take appropriate steps to put the genie back into the bottle," Jain adds.

Senior advocate PP Rao is all for Supreme Court's effective intervention. Citing his opinion on the issue of sealing in Delhi, he says: "The Supreme Court is discharging its duty by directing strict adherence to the law governing town planning which has been breached continuously for a number of years. Had the Executive implemented the law and not allowed illegal constructions to come up, the present problem would not have arisen. When the executive fails to discharge its duties and the Supreme Court also fails, it will result in lawlessness. Democracy survives on the rule of law. Lawlessness will lead to anarchy. That will be the end of democracy and constitutional governance."

On the issue of the recent Supreme Court judgement which protects the creamy layer to SC and STs in the matter of filling up the posts reserved for them, Rao says, "the creamy layer aspect needs to be dealt with in greater detail. In fact, that was not the issue before the court. The scope of the writ petitions challenging the constitutional amendments was limited to the question whether the amendments were violating the basic feature of the Constitution. How to enforce the provisions for reservation of posts in favour of SC/STs and whether creamy layer should be exclusive from SC/STs were not the subject matter of the writ petitions. I wish, the Supreme Court had not touched upon this aspect while upholding the constitutional amendments which protect the reservation in favour of SCs and STs in promotion and consequential seniority for them".

To avoid tensions of this kind that are witnessed today, Rao has his own solution. "These issues are creating a situation were the Executive finds it difficult to implement the court's orders in letter and spirit and the Judiciary insisting on scrupulous implementation of its orders, we need reforms - political, including electoral reforms, administrative reforms and judicial reforms. The three pillars of the State viz, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary are not functioning in a co-ordinated manner so as to secure achievements of the constitutional goals."

There are certain situations in which the Supreme Court should intervene. "It is the Constitutional duty of the court to intervene when the Executive fails to enforce the law. The court on its part should observe limits set by the Constitution. and the legislature. It is because the court has been discharging its constitutional duty, it enjoys maximum credibility and confidence of the people in a much larger measure than the executive or legislature," Rao says.

Speaking Free
SC is discharging its duty by directing adherence to civic law which has been breached continuously for years - Sr Advocate PP Rao

The sealing issue in particular is a bolt on the face of Judiciary and the common man is fast losing his faith in the judicial process of the country.

Though the Executive has the constitutional authority to bring about an amendment to get a reversal of the Supreme Court diktat, the Law Minister is quite a hopeless case and I do not see much happening on the issue - Sr Supreme Court advocate Shanti Bhushan

I haven't come across a single SC order where it has overreached itself - Ex-Solicitor General Harish Salve

11-12-2006, 08:16 PM

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /> Dalits stage dharna against SC order
[ 12 Nov, 2006 1644hrs ISTPTI ]

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

PATNA: Dalits from all over Bihar on Sunday staged a day-long dharna in protest against the recent apex court ruling that the "creamy layer" from among SCs and STs should be excluded from reservation in government jobs.

Addressing the dharna staged under the banner of Bihar Anusuchit Jati and Janjati Coordination committee, RJD national General Secretary and MLA, Shyam Rajak and JD(U) MLA Lallan Paswan said, "We are not against the judiciary as being propagated ...We are just demanding a legislation in Parliament to include the Constitution's 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th amendments in the Ninth schedule so that we can get our due".

Asserting that Parliament was the highest institution for formulating laws on policy matters, Rajak said, "The courts should refrain from issuing directives on policy matters," and added "we (legislators) do not want a confrontation with the judiciary".

Committee president and former Bihar Director General of Police G P Dohre said of a population of 100 crore, only 40 lakh SC and ST people were holding government jobs. Citing a comparative data, Dohre said while 90 per cent of upper caste people were engaged in agriculture, the percentage of SCs, STs and OBCs was limited to just 10 per cent in this sector. Similarly the percentage of this section of society in business was just 8 per cent.

"Itâs a travesty of justice that while 85.8 per cent of the total population was living in abject penury, 14.2 per cent of the population was enjoying all the benefits", he alleged.

About two dozen Dalit legislators cutting across party lines had marched in a procession to Rajbhawan on Saturday and had submitted a memorandum to governor R S Gavai against the recent Supreme Court order for exclusion of "creamy layer" from reservation in government jobs.

They said they would petition the president Dr A P J Abdul Kalam, UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi and Union minister and a senior Dalit leader Ram Vilas Paswan in this regard.

11-15-2006, 02:18 AM

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /> <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' />
Not only this but also, Supreme Court is the only place left in India where people r pinning whatever little hope they have:
SC need not always be correct: CJI

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Source: PTI

New Delhi: In the midst of a raging debate over the powers of various organs of the Constitution, Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal today said no institution was infallible and the Supreme Court need not always be correct but what it said was final.

"The Supreme Court decision is final not necessarily beacuse it is right. Every human being, every institution has limitations. No institution is infallible. But since we are final, we are called Supreme Court," the CJI said in reply to a question from a child at a function on the National Child Rights Week at the apex court premises.

This was the first time such a function was organised in the apex court on the occassion of Children's Day.

The CJI advocated the necessity of concerted steps for the upholding children's rights.

11-19-2006, 03:38 AM

<!--emo&

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /> Respect balance of power: SC to courts
[ 19 Nov, 2006 0118hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]
(courts are mellowing down!)

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

NEW DELHI: This Supreme Court judgment is sure to gladden the legislature and the executive, which have been complaining of frequent judicial forays into their domain.

At a time when the list of complaints is getting longer, the recent judgment of a Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Markandey Katju could provide a silver lining as it said: "The courts must exercise judicial restraint, and not encroach into the executive or legislative domain."

The case pertained to regularisation of employees in the sick PSU, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd, which had appealed against the Uttaranchal HC order directing regularisation of daily workers.

Setting aside the HC order, the Bench ruled that creation of posts, appointment on these posts, regularisation, fixing of pay scales, continuation in service and promotions were all executive or legislative functions.

"It is highly improper for judges to step into this sphere, except in rare and exceptional cases," said Justice Katju, writing the judgment for the Bench.

Interestingly, the court also downplayed the importance of its judgments. It said mere directions of the apex court, where no law is laid down, cannot be said to be binding on high courts and cannot be cited as a precedent by others to seek similar relief.

"The Supreme Court often directs appointment of someone or regularisation of a temporary employee or payment of salary etc without laying down any principle of law. This is often done in humanitarian considerations, but this will not operate as a precedent binding on the high court," it said.

After setting aside the HC judgment, the SC dealt with subjects as diverse as unemployment, industrialisation and
starvation deaths and attempted to find a link between them.

Justice Katju said jobs could not be created by judicial orders, nor even by legislative or executive decisions but only through rapid expansion of the country's economy by means of speedy industrialisation.

"At present, the state of affairs in our country is that although the economy has progressed a little in some directions, but the truth is that this has only benefited a handful of persons while the plight of the masses has worsened," the Bench said.

Citing examples of hundreds of applicants, including graduates and post-graduates, vying for Class III or IV posts, the court said unemployment was rising and had become massive and chronic.

"Large-scale suicides by farmers in several parts of the country also shows the level of unemployment. These are the social and economic realities of the country which cannot be ignored," Justice Katju said.

But, this does not mean the courts will step into the act of providing jobs to the needy.

11-27-2006, 10:13 PM

SC scraps inquiry commissions headed by HC judgesQUOTEIn an important order, the Supreme Court on Monday scrapped all Commissions of Inquiry headed by sitting judges of the High Courts and directed that no sitting judge of any High Court would be appointed to head an Inquiry Commission as it affected judicial work.

The order came from a Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice SH Kapadia after Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanian informed that none of the Chief Secretaries of the states has furnished data regarding the sitting High Court Judges heading Commissions of Inquiry.

The Bench, however, clarified that the order would not be applicable to those Commissions of Inquiry whose work was at the fag end and only reports were to be prepared and submitted.

It strongly disapproved of the tendency of the governments to appoint sitting judges of the High Courts to head inquiry panels despite an earlier order of the apex court against appointment of sitting judges of High Courts to Commissions of Inquiries.

Earlier, the issue was raised by the ASG during the hearing of a PIL on ragging menace and the court had asked the Centre to seek information from the states and union territories on the number of sitting judges heading Commissions of inquiries.

The court expressed its displeasure when the ASG said not even a single state or union territory has responded to the request to furnish details in this respect till date.

The court observed that sitting High Court Judges were supposed to hold judicial inquiries only in matters of national and public importance and it was not proper on the part of the state governments to frequently appoint them to head inquiries into trivial and local issues

This is excellent ruling, because state government use judges for their own purpose.

12-25-2006, 06:16 AM

QUOTEJudiciary is the lone warrior 
Pioneer.com
Arun Nehru
We have had a spate of judicial verdicts, which is welcome news. The first decision was given in the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, in which Santosh Singh was sentenced to death. And now a High Court bench of Justice RS Sodhi and Justice PK Bhasin has found Manu Sharma and two others guilty in the Jessica Lall case. While Manu Sharma was awarded life imprisonment, his two other associates were sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment. Hopefully, the decision in the Nitish Katara case will come in the immediate future.

We are witnessing a miracle of sorts from a judicial system bogged down by delays. Hopefully, the three high profile cases - the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, the Jessica Lall case and the Nitish Katara case - will result in major reforms in several fields connected with the criminal justice system. We all know how the criminal justice system works in India, but these three cases, revived after years, defeat the VIP syndrome. Criminal elements are isolated, as many dedicated, honest and committed people in all three wings of governance have an opportunity to make the system work. There are no simplistic solutions. In fact, there are strong vested interests in all three wings of governance. Let us examine the case for reforms by taking these cases as an example.

The lower courts had acquitted the accused in both the cases and interestingly they drew flak of the High Court each time. Why did this happen? The facts and the evidence have not changed in these cases. The lessons that we draw from this are that there is an in-house inquiry within the judicial system in all cases of this nature.

According to media reports, Justice SL Bhayana, whose trial court acquitted Manu Sharma, was elevated to the High Court after the Jessica Lall verdict on February 21. The adverse comments made by the two-member bench on the trial court decision raise some very disturbing questions that need clarification. The police personnel, too, have much to answer for, and unless punitive action is taken, grave miscarriages of justice in hundreds of thousands of cases will continue to take place.

The media has performed a great service in pursuing the cause of justice, and there is much debate taking place on these cases everywhere. Clearly, the criminal justice system is not the monopoly of a few, but is subject to normal checks and balances within a democratic system. We have passed our judgement on many crucial witnesses. Let us take Ms Bina Ramani, a well-known socialite, for example. There are quite a few people who have commented on her lack of nerve. In reality, however, she and her daughter showed more nerve than everyone else. Moreover, is this fair to them and to many others under this situation, where there is no protection from the state to guard them against the VIP syndrome? How many of our prominent citizens had the courage to even express an opinion, much less appear as a witness? How many of our political leaders even today are willing to give an opinion on the subject in public?

The fear syndrome is very real, but these three cases will change the system and this will happen sooner than later. We have seen JMM leader and former Union Coal Minister Shibu Soren going from the Cabinet room to Tihar jail after being convicted for murder of his private secretary, and an ACP sentenced to death for custodial killing. These cases cannot be seen in isolation and will influence events in a positive manner in the future.

The New Year is knocking the door and we select the winners and losers for the year. This time, however, there will be massive competition in both categories. There are hundreds of winners. Look at the remarkable people who can be considered for this category: Narayana Murthy, Ratan Tata, Sunil Mittal, Amitabh Bachchan, Sachin Tendulkar, to name a few. But my choice must be the family members of Jessica Lall, Nitish Katara and Priyadarshini Mattoo.

We all have our role models and for inspiration we look at the "successful" people around us. But look a little deeper and one will observe the courage, grit and determination of the simple people who are fighting against impossible odds without any physical or material resources. Despite their losses and grief they persist. See how Chaman Lal Mattoo, Sabrina Lall and Neelam Katara have coped with the situation. We do not have to look very far for the "winners" of 2006. We wish them well and no words, no matter how eloquently expressed, can ever lessen the grief for the loss they have suffered. The constant media attention - which is largely responsible for shaping public opinion and attitudes - would have been extremely difficult for them to handle on an emotional level.

The "losers" of 2006 need not be named. The media has exposed them. We must concentrate on the positives of the situation and press for reforms. The cases are not over, as many will go to the Supreme Court and the due process of law has to run its course

The Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentence to Mohammed Afzal, the mastermind of the terrorist attack on Parliament House. Sadly, the media campaign by "activists" and human rights organisations against the sentence and raising questions against the apex court's decision have created a massive wave of adverse public reaction against the Congress-led UPA Government. This was aptly manifested when the families of the victims of the Parliament House attack returned the gallantry medals awarded to the nine martyrs.

The UPA Government has failed to read the severity of the reaction and a string of minority appeasement measures at the expense of security considerations have added to the complications. The credibility of the Government is at stake and it will be difficult to postpone a decision on the fate of Mohammed Afzal.

There are several people who oppose the death penalty on moral and ethical grounds; we must respect their views. At the same time, our commitment to fight terrorism - Islamist or otherwise - cannot be compromised at any cost.

01-02-2007, 02:00 AM

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /> A bad case of backlog
Manoj Mitta & Nitin Sethi
[ 1 Jan, 2007 0352hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

The good

The highest court of the land cross-ed a psychological hurdle on November 3, 2006. A nine-judge bench, one of the largest ever, wrapped up the hearing of a major Constitutional matter â the alleged abuse of the 9th Schedule â in five days flat.

Never before has Supreme Court rationed time so strictly for senior advocates, used to being heard till eternity. It set a new benchmark by adopting the American method of managing judicial time.

All parties had to give written submissions before â not after â the hearing, where judges mainly sought clarifications.

A month earlier, the apex court introduced e-filing, which allows advocates-on-record and petitioners-in-person to file cases from anywhere in the world.

This is the latest in a series of IT applications to make the judiciary more responsive to the needs of a globalising India, like the Singapore model of video-conferencing being used in several states to avoid taking hardened criminals from jail to court for hearing of remand pleas.

The bad

For all the efforts to upgrade the hardware, the quality of the software â judgments â is actually deteriorating. A recent verdict on political corruption was so poorly written, the media misunderstood it and misreported that Supreme Court had done away with the statutory safeguard of taking prior sanction for prosecuting ministers and legislators.

Sometimes the reasoning is so obviously infirm that it emboldens the government to shrug off the verdict. Example: A five-judge bench's ruling to apply the creamy layer rule to SCs and STs in the teeth of a larger bench's decision that it can apply only to OBCs. Faulty verdicts have sometimes grounded perfectly legal executive policies.

Example: Even after the disinvestment policy was upheld by a three-judge bench in the Balco case, a two-judge bench made out in the HPCL/BPCL case that Parliament's prior approval has to be taken every time any public asset is sold.

TOI view

Just now its stock is high because of the justice done in a spate of high-profile cases. Even otherwise, the judiciary has been acclaimed for its activism in filling up vital spaces of public policy ceded by a negligent or pusillanimous executive.

But its fundamentals are still far from sound as evident from its failure to make a dent in the problem of arrears â especially in the lower rungs, which account for the bulk of the 2.5 crore pending cases.

Superior courts are setting an awful example by their disdain for transparency in judicial appointments and accountability.

In the name of independence of judiciary, Indian judges have accrued more immunities and privileges than those enjoyed by their western counterparts.

The bar council's resolution of doing away with addressing judges as "Lords" is a small reform. Far more needs to be done to help them shed their paternalistic mindset and come to terms with the fact that, shorn of legalese, judges are like any other service providers.

01-02-2007, 04:53 PM

QUOTELegal information institute's website operational

Legal Correspondent

Judgments of courts and tribunals will be available free

Public will have rights to use legal resources without restriction Free online assistance to the needy

New Delhi:

The India Legal Information Institute's new website; www.indlii.org; providing free of cost all legal information, including judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts, tribunals and even district courts, "has now become fully operational."

It is a "New Year gift to the people," chairman Adish Aggarwala told The Hindu . The web site was formally launched by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on November 26, 2006 on the occasion of Law Day.

The institute was committed to collecting legal information about India from all available sources; publishing it on the Internet with free and full public access; granting the public rights to use legal resources without any restriction; creating awareness of the availability of free legal resources; removing hurdles to providing information and coordinating with other institutions to explore sources and utilisation of legal information.

"Initially all judgments of the Supreme Court, including the old and latest judgments are available and copies can be taken free of charge."

All High Courts would be covered in phases. At present, judgments of the Allahabad, Calcutta, Bombay and Delhi High Courts were available. The decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunals and district courts, besides cause lists of the Supreme Court and High Courts, would also be made available soon.

The website has information on law universities with a list of affiliated colleges offering five and three-year degree courses.

It contains Central and State Acts and the Constitution of India.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?