HC permits rape survivor minor to return home

Makes Both Her Father And Govt Answerable For Victim's Welfare

Finally, after her year of yearning to return home, the HC allowed custody of a rape survivor minor to her father, as the criminal trial in the case has ended, and her rapist uncle has been handed a 10-year jail term. The HC walked the extra mile and made both the father of the girl, and the state government answerable for the continued welfare of the minor.
The HC had rejected earlier attempts made by the depressed girl's family to release her into her father's custody on the grounds that the accused, the victim's paternal uncle, lived in the same premises, and there were chances of the victim being influenced or pressurized.
The HC's apprehension was also heightened by the fact that members of the rape survivor's family had turned hostile during the criminal trial.
During her stay away from her family , first at a boarding school and then at an orphanage, the girl had begun to feel homesick and had gone into de pression. She even gave up her studies. Authorities looking after her had submitted to the HC that it was getting difficult to treat her.
Fearing that the girl may be ill treated or neglected upon her return, Justice Sonia Go kani chalked out a 4-year re habi li tation plan for the traumatized girl and entrusted the Amreli POCSO court to supervise the rehabilitation.
While permitting the family to have the girl's custody, the court first asked the father to give his promise that he would “protect the girl in every manner and also ensure her welfa re, particularly to allow her to study further“.
The HC also directed the district primary education officer to facilitate the process of her admission in a school nearby her village without pressing for technicalities or raising eligibility issues.
Above all, the court ordered state authorities, mainly the probation officer and counsellor of District Child Protec tion Unit, Rajkot, to visit her home every month for a ye ar, and then every two months for the next three years. They are to ensure that she stays safe and studies wit hout any hindran ce.
They have to They have to ensure her welfare and report to the concerned POCSO court, which has been tasked to supervi se the re habilita tion.
The HC also laid down the con dition that whenever the rape convict is released by the IG prison, or local court on bail or furlough or otherwise, he should be released only under the condition of not stepping foot in Amreli district.
The girl would now be staying with her father and grandparents at her family home in Amreli district.

Source: Times of India 

SC reminds lower court judges of dos and don'ts

You Can't Take Suo Motu Notice Of Everything'

Finding judges of constitutional courts increasingly deviating from the impassioned and impartial path of adjudication, the Supreme Court iterated the cardinal principles a judge must adhere to while deciding a case. An SC bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh said “the necessity has arisen again for reiteration of fundamental principles to be adhered to by a judge“. Misra quoted Fran cis Bacon, who had said, “Judges ought to be more learned than witty, more revered than plausible, and more advised than confident.“
What triggered the SC's observations was the decision of a division bench of Meghalaya high court to take suo motu cognisance of two issues simultaneously -Meghalaya Lokayukta Act permitting appointment of a non-judicial person as Lokayukta and non-constitution of the state human rights commission.
After Meghalaya counsel Ranjan Mukherjee assured the apex court that the state HRC would be made functional by June, a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh faulted the HC's division bench for taking suo motu cognisance of non-appointment of Lokayukta and seeking answers from the state as to why the legislature allowed appointment of a person other than a retired judge as Lokayukta. Writing the judgment for the bench, Misra frowned at the HC's indiscretion in taking suo motu cognisance when there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the Lokayukta Act's provisions.
“This may be thought of depending on the nature of legislation and the collective benefit but in that arena also, the (high) court cannot raise the issue relating to any particular provision and seek explanation in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,“ Justice Misra said. “In the case in hand, as is manifest, the division bench of the HC has, with an erroneous understanding of fundamental principles of law, scanned the anatomy of the provision and passed an order in relation to it as if it is obnoxious or falls foul of any constitutional provision. The same is clearly impermissible,“ he said. The bench also quoted New York Times's September 2, 1962 editorial titled `The Frankfurter Legacy'.It talked about Justice Felix Frankfurter's legacy as a judge -“detachment, rigorous integrity in dealing with the facts of a case, refusal to resort to unworthy means no matter how noble the end, and dedication to the court as an institution“.

Sources: Times Of India

ACB: govt. comes under acidulous attack

BJP, JD(S) stage dharna demanding withdrawal of decision

The State government’s decision to create the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) came under severe criticism from the Opposition parties in the Legislative Assembly on Monday.

Members of the Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party and the Janata Dal (Secular) staged a dharna in the House urging the government to withdraw the ACB since it would weaken the Karnataka Lokayukta, which is regarded as a model for the country.

As soon as the House met, Leader of the Opposition Jagadish Shettar initiated a debate on the ACB and said the agency was created to hush up cases and complaints against the Chief Minister, Ministers, their supporters, and officials. He alleged that the government was trying to run the anti-corruption bodies “as its puppets.”

Mr. Shettar said, “It is not Anti-Corruption Bureau; it is Corruption Protection Bureau.” The government has reduced the anti-corruption watchdog to a mere “paper tiger” by taking away powers being exercised by the Lokayukta police under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, he alleged.

Accusing the government of “murdering” the Lokayukta institution, Mr. Shettar said the ACB would be answerable to the Chief Minister. Moreover, the Vigilance Advisory Board would comprise IAS officers, police officials and experts or “private members” close to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.

Mr. Shettar and K.G. Bopaiah (BJP) alleged that “the ACB will be used as a tool for vendetta politics.” The creation of ACB was against the spirit of the Supreme Court judgment. Moreover, the ACB would now take over corruption cases being probed by the Lokayukta, Mr. Bopaiah said.

The leaders claimed that the ACB would snatch a part of the police wing from the anti-corruption body. This is because the government has decided to give 300-plus staff, headed by the Additional Director-General of Police, to the ACB and this would weaken the Lokayukta, they said.

Y.S.V. Datta (JD-S) questioned the intentions of the ACB and its timing and said the new agency could have been established after consultations with Floor leaders.

Suresh Kumar (BJP) described the creation of ACB as a retrograde step and accused Law Minister T.B. Jayachandra of trying to confuse people over the issue.

The ACB, headed by a police officer and reporting to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, would not be able to register cases against politicians and senior officers, they said.

Mr. Siddaramaiah and Mr. Jayachandra defended the decision and said the government has not attempted to curtail powers of the Lokayukta.

Economy Survey 2015-16: Indian economy stands out as a haven of macroeconomic stability, resilience and optimism and can be expected to register GDP growth that could be in the range of 7.0 per cent to 7.75 per cent in the coming year; Survey predicts over 8 per cent growth in next couple of years

Despite the global meltdown, Indian economy will continue to grow more than 7 percent for the third year in succession in 2016-17 helped by a normal monsoon,. The Economic Survey (2015-16) presented in Parliament today by the Finance Minister Shru Arun Jaitley states that due to Government's commitment to carry the reform process forward, conditions do exist for raising the economy's growth momentum to 8 percent or more in the next couple of years. The survey underlines that despite global headwinds and a truant monsoon, India registered 7.2 per cent growth in 2014-15 and 7.6 per cent in 2015-16, thus becoming the fastest growing major economy in the world.

The survey points-out that the growth in agriculture sector in 2015-16 has continued to be lower than the average of last decade, mainly on account of it being the second successive year of lower-than-normal monsoon rains. As per the information of the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation and Farmers Welfare for 2015-16, the production of foodgrains and oil-seeds is estimated to decline by 0.5 per cent and 4.1 per cent respectively, while the production of fruits and vegetables is likely to increase marginally. A brighter picture is expected to emerge from the allied sectors consisting of livestock products, forestry and fisheries with a growth exceeding 5 per cent in 2015-16, which will provide some impetus to rural incomes.

Growth in industry is estimated to have accelerated during the current year on the strength of improving manufacturing activity. The private corporate sector, with an around 69 per cent share of the manufacturing sector, is estimated to grow by 9.9 per cent at current prices in April-December 2015-16. The Index of Industrial Production (IIP) showed that manufacturing production grew by 3.1 per cent during April-December 2015-16, vis-a-vis a growth of 1.8 per cent in the corresponding period of the previous year. The ongoing manufacturing recovery is aided by robust growth in petroleum refining, automobiles, wearing apparels, chemicals, electrical machinery and wood products including furniture. Apart from manufacturing, the other three segments of the industry sector- electricity, gas, water supply and related utilities, mining and quarrying and construction activities are witnessing a deceleration in growth.

The survey underlines that the growth in the services sector moderated slightly, but still remains robust. Being the main driver of the economy, the sector contributed about 69 per cent of the total growth during 2011-12 to 2015-16 and in the process expanding its share in the economy by 4 percentage points from 49 to 53 per cent.

The survey in its outlook clearly points out though the emerging market economies have clearly slowed down, the Indian economy stands out as a haven of macroeconomic stability, resilience and optimism and can be expected to register GDP growth that could be in the range of 7.0 per cent to 7.75 per cent in the coming year.

  Sources: Manupatra

Court seeks I-T details of former CJI’s kin

Almost four months after giving clean chit to the former Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan, in ‘benami’ property transactions involving his relatives, the Supreme Court on Monday asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to submit a detailed chart of Income Tax assessments and orders concerning the former top judge’s family members.

A Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra sought the income details of Justice (retired) Balakrishnan's relatives despite Mr. Rohatgi's submissions that they were individual assesses who had already been subjected to Income Tax screening.

But the Bench insisted, asking Mr. Rohatgi to hand over to the court the necessary details “regardless” of any such screenings in the past. The case was then posted for hearing to July 12.

The period under scanner concerns Justice Balakrishnan’s tenure as Chief Justice of India between January 2007 and May 2010. He later went on to complete a five-year tenure as the National Human Rights Commission Chairperson in May last year.

‘Dangerous precedent’

In November 2015, Mr. Rohatgi argued that enquiries against a former CJI would set a “very dangerous precedent”.

However the court had been sceptical. Justice Misra had remarked that if a person who earns Rs. 100 buys properties worth Rs. 10 lakh, the source of the money should be investigated.” 

Source: The Hindu 

Service Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Service Tax Rules, 1994, namely:-

1.       (1) These rules may be called the Service Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the Service Tax Rules, 1994, in Form ST- 3,-

(i) in Part B,-

(a) in the Table "B1 FOR SERVICE PROVIDER", after serial number B1.21 and the entries relating thereto, the following serial numbers and entries shall be inserted, namely:-

"B1.22	Swachh Bharat Cess payable based on entries in serial number B1.15
B1.23	Swachh Bharat Cess payable based on entries in serial number B1.16
B1.24	Total Swachh Bharat Cess payable B1.24 = B1.22+B1.23"

(b) in the Table "B2 FOR SERVICE RECEIVER", after serial number B2.21 and the entries relating thereto, the following serial numbers and entries shall be inserted, namely:-

"B2.22	Swachh Bharat Cess payable based on entries in serial number B2.15
B2.23	Swachh Bharat Cess payable based on entries in serial number B2.16
B2.24	Total Swachh Bharat Cess payable B2.24 = B2.22 +B2.23"

(ii) in Part C, in the Table, after serial number C1 and the entries relating thereto, the following serial number and entries shall be inserted, namely:-

"C1.1

Swachh Bharat Cess deposited in advance

(iii) after Part D, after the Table "SERVICE TAX PAID IN CASH AND THROUGH CENVAT CREDIT", the following shall be inserted, namely:-

"PART DA- SWACHH BHARAT CESS (SBC) PAID IN CASH AND THROUGH ADJUSTMENTS

	Month/Quarter	Apr/ Oct	May/ Nov	Jun/ Dec	July/ Jan	Aug/ Feb	Sep/ Mar
DA1	Swachh Bharat Cess paid in cash
DA2	By adjustment of amount paid as SBC in advance under rule 6(1A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994
DA3	By adjustment of excess amount paid earlier as SBC and adjusted, by taking credit of such excess SBC paid, in this period under rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994
DA4	By adjustment of excess amount paid earlier as SBC and adjusted in this period under rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994
DA5	By book adjustment in the case of specified Government Departments
DA6	Total Swachh Bharat Cess paid DA6=DA1+DA2+DA3+DA4+DA5

(iv) in Part G, in the Table "ARREARS, INTEREST, PENALTY, ANY OTHER AMOUNT ETC PAID", after serial number G12 and the entries relating thereto, the following serial numbers and entries shall be inserted, namely:-

"G13	Arrears of Swachh Bharat Cess paid in cash
G14	Interest on SBC paid in cash
G15	Penalty on SBC paid in cash
G16	Total payment of arrears, interest, penalty on Swachh Bharat Cess G16= G13 +G14+G15"

(v) in PART H,-

(a) for Table heading "H1 DETAILS OF CHALLAN (vide which service tax, education cess, secondary and higher education cess and other amounts have been paid in cash)", the following shall be substituted, namely:-

"H1 DETAILS OF CHALLAN (vide which Service Tax, Swachh Bharat Cess, Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education Cess and other amounts have been paid in cash)";

(b) for Table Heading "H2 Source document details for payments made in advance/adjustment, for entries made at column D3, D4, D5, D6, D7; E3, E4, E5, E6, E7; F3,F4 F5,F6, F7; & G1 to G11", the following shall be substituted, namely:-

"H2 Source document details for payments made in advance/adjustment, for entries made at column D3, D4, D5, D6, D7; DA1, DA2, DA3, DA4, DA5 ; E3, E4, E5, E6, E7; F3,F4, F5, F6, F7; and G1 to G11 and G13 to G15."

(Rajeev Yadav)
Director to the Government of India
[F. No. 137/79/2015-Service Tax]

Note:- The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide notification No. 2/94-SERVICE TAX, dated the 28th June, 1994 vide number G.S.R. 546 (E), dated the 28th June, 1994 and last amended vide notification No. 19/2016-SERVICE TAX, dated the 1st March, 2016 vide number G.S.R. 987 (E), dated the 1st March, 2016.

Judiciary should turn tech-savvy, says PM

The Hindu

Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar at the inauguration of railway projects at Hajipur in Vaishali district of Bihar on Saturday. Photo: Ranjeet Kumar

Modi suggested that the court, the Bar and the Bench should become techno-savvy "to improve the quality of judgments and arguments."

Sharing the stage with Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar for the first time after the NDA’s defeat in the Assembly polls last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Saturday that India “cannot make progress without the development of eastern States like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.”

He said the use of technology and the release of an annual bulletin to highlight the oldest cases in courts would help to improve the functioning of the judiciary and “create sensitivity to the pendency of cases in the country.”

Speaking at the closing ceremony of the centenary celebrations of the Patna High Court, Mr. Modi suggested that the court, the Bar and the Bench should become techno-savvy “to improve the quality of judgments and arguments.” “Now we’ve something which we had not earlier — the power of technology. We’ve to see how much techno-savvy we can make the Bar, the Bench and the courts by using digital technology in their functioning and help work towards improving the quality of judgments.”

“Earlier, a lot of time was spent doing research in the legal field, but today Google is a bar member which digs out what you need for your cases,” the Prime Minister said.

In his 15-minute speech, he said that while sitting at the place, he was mooting that idea: “Can courts release annual bulletins highlighting the oldest pending cases before them? It will crate sensitivity among people to the pendency of cases and inspire others to do something about the long-pending cases.”

Recalling the contribution of several legal luminaries of the State to India’s freedom struggle, Mr. Modi said he hoped the glorious tradition would be “carried forward” in the years to come. Besides Mr. Nitish Kumar, Governor Ram Nath Kovind, Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur and legal luminaries were present.

In another programme in Chhaukia village in Hajipur of Vaishali district, Mr. Modi flagged off railway projects and said India could not be a developed country unless its eastern States made progress. “We’re committed to the development of the eastern States…The nerve centre of India’s development lies in eastern India… For India’s sustainable development, it is important that the eastern States develop.”

“My firm conviction is that if India’s fate has to be changed, the fate of Bihar has to be changed first… Bihar is priority for us as we feel Bihar’s progress is key to India’s progress,” he said.

He also thanked Mr. Nitish Kumar for extending support to the Centre for Bihar’s development. While listing the priorities of projects of his government for Bihar like providing gas connectivity and electricity to every household, Mr. Modi said that in the past 18 months, his government had completed 34 per cent of unfulfilled projects in Bihar.

When Mr. Nitish Kumar addressed the meeting, thanking Mr. Modi for visiting Bihar and hoping that he would keep coming to the State for its development, some people kept chanting Modi…Modi…Modi. The Prime Minister himself had to get up from his chair and asked them to sit down.

Union Law Minister Sadanand Gowda, Railway Minister Suresh Prabhu, Union Food and Consumer Affairs Minister Ram Vilas Paswan and Deputy Chief Minister Tejaswi Yadav were present.

The RJD has expressed displeasure over its chief Lalu Prasad not invited to the programme at Chhaukia, which is in the Raghopur Assembly constituency represented by Mr. Tejaswi Yadav, his younger son.

Source: The Hindu 

UNDP chief Helen Clark calls for India to criminalise marital rape

India must criminalise marital rape as the first step towards ending violence against women, said UNDP administrator Helen Clark, in an exclusive interview to Diplomatic Editor Suhasini Haidar in New Delhi.

UNDP has completed 50 years, yet it seems the growth divide in the world is at its deepest. If you compare the global south to the north, population is maybe about 2:1, but gross national income per person is closer to 1:20… Is this divide the biggest crisis?

I think it is. Inequality is one of the biggest problems, inequalities between the North and the South, but internal inequalities as well. UNDP launched a report a few years ago that asserted that 70% of people living in developing countries today live in countries more unequal than they were in 1990 — the baseline year for the Millennium Development Goals. So what that tells us is while there has been a lot of growth and development, inequalities have also been exacerbated. And the whole sustainable development agenda is to say look more holistically at what you are achieving. If your model of economic growth is exacerbating the inequalities in the world, if its trashing the environment, is this really the quality of growth you want? Or are there more ways to run your economy? So tackling inequality is one of the biggest goals for the sustainable development agenda.

Given that, what do you see as India’s role in the Global South? As a leader, an innovator, a centre for best practices?

Oh yes, in many ways. India is really taking to new-age renewable technologies. I was on a panel in Davos and one of the key Indian players made the point that coal hasn’t been a factor in India’s energy strategy for some time. The real push is in renewable energy and that’s where the investment is. Secondly, India has an ambitious reforestation goal. So on the environmental side India knows what it needs to do. And that will help not just globally but also bring for its people food security, water, air quality etc. And when India and China move on these issues they have a global impact on these issues far beyond just them.

I wanted to ask about your own role at the UN, perhaps beyond the UNDP. I’m referring to reports that you will be running for the UN Secretary General’s post later this year….

I haven’t offered an opinion on that yet to anyone, and I don’t intend to today. But there has to be a decision on the next UNSG by the end of the year, and the processes are slowly getting under way by member states as they contemplate what they want. I say the first issue is what are the challenges in the job and what are the skill sets you need to fulfill them, that should be the question.

There is an understanding that it is the East European bloc’s turn at the job, in which case you wouldn’t qualify, is that what you are referring to when you say skill sets are the most important?

The job goes around. It has gone to the African continent twice, its gone to Asia twice, its gone to Latin America once, West Europe has had it three times. So East Europe has never been in that rotation, so of course they have put up a flag to say it should be them. I think the member states are going to look at the skill set required.

You’re saying that you are not counted out, although you aren’t willing to count yourself in at present. Do you think it is time to change how the UNSG is chosen; many countries would like the UN Security Council to forward two candidates, not one to the UNGA?

In the end that’s a matter for the Security Council. It’s a matter for the five permanent members to decide and to the best of my knowledge they aren’t planning to put up more than one candidate. Starting July they will be taking straw polls on who they think the candidates should be. The UNGA president is intending to offer declared candidates the opportunity to speak to informed groups of countries one on one next month. But in the end it is to July and to what the UNSC decides to do.

Apart from the nationality criterion, what about gender? The Hindu spoke to one of the candidates expected UNESCO chief Irina Bokova, who said a Woman UNSG is an idea whose time has come. Do you think that’s true this time?

There’s never been a woman UNSG, so of course people are saying what about this time. But whoever is selected they are going to have to fit the skill-set that they need for the job.

Do you think the US also should be looking at a woman for president?

It would be impossible for me as an international civil servant to comment on that, but my position has been women should have their share of the time at the top. Countries like my own (New Zealand) have had two women Prime Ministers already, we are not the only ones, but many countries have yet to see a woman leader, and that must change. Women need to see, young girls need to see that no doors are closed, that it is possible on your merits to go all the way to the top in your country.

Are you in favour of quotas for women in legislatures?

If nothing else works, quotas should be tried. New Zealand go to that place by allowing proportional representation which forced parties to have more women candidates. Otherwise there are no women.

In many countries women in power haven’t necessarily translated to more empowerment for women. I’m speaking about violence against women, which also comes back to the earlier point of inequality. In particular the UN has singled out India on separate cases of rape, like the case in UP last year, or the Nirbhaya case. Is India of particular concern to the UN, as it is quite unprecedented to see the stand taken?

Globally violence against women is of great concern, and it does feature as the issue that has to be tackled in the SDGs. The lack of security for women is a blot , and is a global issue. No one country, but all countries. The PM of this country went to parliament to say the safety of women is a priority. So I wouldn’t question the commitment, but we need to make it the goal.

According to you what is the first step towards that goal?

Firstly, recognising domestic violence as an assault on women, everywhere. Unfortunately we are not on that page with every country. In New Zealand, we passed the first domestic violence act in 1982. We need to make it a specific law with a specific purpose in order for people to take it seriously. Because when it is domestic violence, the police and everyone else takes it as no business of theirs, something within the home otherwise. An assault on women at home is never something “within the family”. It is a crime. It has to be recognised and dealt with. More positively you have to change the mentality of people towards young girls and women. No impunity. Secondly assaults against women like rape and sexual assault in the home have to be treated as crimes. It hasn’t been easy to get other countries on board with this. When a woman goes to court and says she has been raped, she is the victim, but then she is victimised further, as lawyers go into their whole history. So it needs a very progressive judiciary to ask, did this occur with her consent or not. It is a struggle.

You are mentioning the attitude of the police, and of the need to criminalise domestic violence, but in India at present there is a controversy, because the Minister of Women and Child Welfare has said in parliament that it Marital rape cannot be criminalised in our country, because of our cultural attitudes towards marriage…what would you say to that?

Its pretty clear in the circles I move in at the UN that rape is rape. The issue is the consent of the women, and if it isn’t there, it is rape.

Is it important then those leaders of the country see it that way in order to conform to the SDGs they have signed on to?

Each country needs to look at its laws in the light of what the SDGs say, and whether these laws take women forward or take them back. I don’t have anything to say on any particular individual, but it is clear to me that the critical issue is one of consent.

Does violence against women impact a country’s growth then?

To the extent that it harms a woman’s capacity to be independent, to control their own destiny, be empowered. A woman who suffers abuse is a victim; it impacts their self esteem. Gender-based violence is a blight on society, let alone on the woman.

Judiciary yet to meet aspirations for speedy justice, says Pranab

Bar at times has “not been very cooperative” in disposal of cases: CJI Thakur

With nearly three crore cases pending in Indian courts, President Pranab Mukherjee on Sunday said the judiciary is yet to fully meet people’s aspirations for “speedy and affordable” justice.

As the huge pendency of cases caused concern, the Chief Justice of India, T. S. Thakur, did not mince any words as he said the Bar at times has “not been very cooperative” in disposal of cases even if judges are ready to put extra hours.

Justice Thakur also said that judiciary as an institution is facing crisis of credibility which is a challenge from within and asked judges to be conscientious of their duties.

President Mukherjee, who was inaugurating the 150th anniversary celebration of Allahabad High Court, said justice must be “accessible, affordable and quick” for people to understand the meaning of justice.

“Though the Indian judiciary has many strengths, it is yet to fully meet the aspirations of our people for speedy and affordable justice,” he said.

The remarks by the President and the CJI came a day after Prime Minister Narendra Modi mooted a novel idea of courts coming out with an annual bulletin to highlight the oldest cases being tried by them to help create sensitivity on pendency of cases. Mr. Modi was speaking during the centenary celebrations of Patna High Court on Saturday.

The President said as an upholder of the Rule of Law and enforcer of the right to liberty, the role of the judiciary was sacrosanct and the faith and confidence people have in it must be always maintained.

“Our courts are today overburdened on account of number of cases pending before them. There are over three crore cases pending in various courts throughout the country.

“Out of these, about 38.5 lakh cases are pending in 24 High Courts. The pendency of cases in the High Courts has slightly declined from 41.5 lakh in 2014 to 38.5 lakh in 2015, but still have a long way to go,” he said.

The CJI said he can assure the lawyers that if Bar cooperates, judges will be ready to sit even on Saturdays to finish old matters, especially related to people languishing in jail for years.

“At times judges feel that the delay in the disposal of cases is only because the Bar does not, at times, cooperate,” he said.

Mr. Mukherjee noted that the judiciary has played an important role since Independence in strengthening the democratic framework of the country and maintaining rule of law.

“High Courts in particular have a unique position under the Constitution of India. They are not only guardians of people’s rights and liberty, they also have the onerous responsibility of ensuring that access to justice is not denied to any citizen on account of economic or any other disability,” the President said.

He said judiciary which is one of the three important pillars of our democracy, is the final interpreter of the Constitution and it must help maintain social order by swiftly and effectively dealing with those on the wrong side of the law.

The President said the governments, judges and lawyers must work hand in hand to make justice a living reality, observing, “Justice delayed is justice denied”. - PTI

Sources: The Hindu

Aadhaar Bill tabled in RS, Opposition cries foul

Approved as Money Bill in the Lok Sabha, it is well on its way to becoming a law

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 is well on its way to becoming a law. The 14-day period between tabling a Money Bill in the Rajya Sabha and it being considered as cleared by both Houses of Parliament has started as far as the Aadhaar Bill is concerned, despite strong protests from the Opposition.

The secretary general of the Rajya Sabha, Shumsher K. Sheriff, tabled the message received from the Lok Sabha of the Bill having cleared the Lower House and then laid a copy of the Bill in the House. The Opposition had protested its terming as a Money Bill since it would then be immune to scrutiny by the Rajya Sabha.

A Money Bill, once tabled in the Rajya Sabha can be deemed as passed even if no discussion on it takes place there. Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Ghulam Nabi Azad, alleged that the government did not intend to bring the Aadhaar Bill in the Upper House and wanted to allow it to become a legislation without discussion in this House.

“We want a discussion on the Aadhaar Bill even if it is for an hour, so that it is not passed without debate,” he said.

On Thursday and Friday, the Rajya Sabha had met to resolve the imbroglio over the Aadhaar Bill, as Opposition members sought specific identification of a clause in Article 110 (1) of the Constitution that laid down the conditions under which a Bill could be considered a Money Bill. The government, however, managed to establish the autonomy of the Lok Sabha Speaker in certifying a Bill and getting it placed in the order of business.

Source: The Hindu

Women respect

A judgement must be reviewed

Different Coverage of Women's day Rally on 8th March from Gujarat Vidhyapith to Gandhi Ashram

યુનાઈટેડ વર્લ્ડ સ્કૂલ દ્વારા રેલી અને મહિલાઓને એચિવર્સ એવોર્ડ
નવગુજરાત સમય > અમદાવાદ

-- આ વર્ષે વિશ્વ મહિલા દિનની થીમ જેન્ડર ઈક્વાલિટી છે. આ થીમ પર લોકોને જાગૃત કરવા યુનાઇટેડ વર્લ્ડ સ્કૂલ દ્વારા એક મહારેલી યોજાઈ હતી. જેમાં સંસ્થાના અધ્યાપકો ઉપરાંત ૨૧૦ જેટલા વિદ્યાર્થીઓએ ભાગ લીધો હતો. યુનાઇટેડ વર્લ્ડ સ્કૂલ ઓફ લૉના ડિરેક્ટર ડૉ. જ્યોત્સના યાજ્ઞિક, ગૂજરાત વિદ્યાપીઠના સામાજિક કાર્ય વિભાગનાં અધ્યક્ષ ડૉ. આનંદીબેન પટેલ અને શાંતિ સંશોધન કેન્દ્રનાં અધ્યક્ષ ડૉ. પુષ્પા મોટીયાણીએ રેલીને પ્રયાણ કરાવ્યુ હતુ. વિદ્યાપીઠથી ગાંધી આશ્રમ સુધી આ રેલી યોજાઇ હતી. 

Coverage in Indian Express on 9th March 2016 - Photo News 

 Coverage in Divya Bhaskar - Ahmedabad City

Coverage in Divya Bhaskar - Gandhinagar  edition

DNA# Ahmedabad

SC judge: Judiciary frequently gives in to pressure

Mar 06 2016 : The Times of India (Ahmedabad)





Justice Rohinton Nariman Says He Pins His Hope On Dissents

Supreme Court judge, Justice Rohinton Nariman, said on Saturday that the Indi an judiciary, like any oth er judiciary of the world, has fre quently given in to pressure during times of trouble, and failed to protect fundamental rights of citizens. He was speaking here on the topic `Judiciary the least dangerous branch?' as part of Justice PD Desai memorial lecture series .Justice Nariman narrated the history of the judiciary in the US, UK during the wars, and of India during the colonial period, to illustrate how judiciary had buckled under pressure.
Equating the troubled times in the West with the Emergency in India, he said the majority of judges let people down and fail to stand up against political power.
However, dissents by courageous judges to protect citizens' rights have later often become the law of the land . Citing the example of Justice H R Khanna, who recorded his dissent in order to uphold the fundamental rights of a citizen during the Emergency, Justice Nariman said: “Fortunately, dissents become law in this country.Unfair majority judgments were either overturned by courts or by constitutional amendments.“ Justice Nariman said he pins his hopes on such dissents.
Speaking about the Supreme Court, he said that what is important is that this institution has been given the greatest power to see that the laws conform to the Constitution and that they are faithfully obeyed.
Putting his hope in the judiciary, the judge said: “As a constitutional lawyer, I have great hope that the institution will always stand up to the great task of guarding fundamental rights, and speaking as a priest, I pray for the same to happen.“
Senior counsel Dush yant Dave, however, did not sound so optimistic. Hinting at the incident in JNU, he said, “I can only pray.This is no time of war, nor is there an emergency now.But the judiciary is facing great challenges due to various reasons including the majoritarian approach.Our judges will have to passionately deal with this.And I can only join Justice Nariman in his prayers.“





No freedom without dissent

A democracy without a dissenter in it is impossible. Free men, in the exercise of free thought, will give vent in free speech. No matter how abhorrent the thought, or its manner of expression, a mature democracy will tolerate it, and even encourage its publication.

Nearly a century ago, in 1919, the United States had just finished with World War I, a war to end all wars. There had been race riots in the summer and labour strikes in the autumn. A bomb had exploded on the attorney general’s doorstep. In that year the U.S. Supreme Court was called to decide the case of Abrams v. United States. The case challenged the convictions of five Russian-born men who were prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, as it had been amended by the Sedition Act of 1918, for “provoking and encouraging” resistance to the government’s war efforts (and its hostile manoeuvres toward Russia) through a series of pamphlets. The court sustained the conviction but one judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., dissented.

A time to stand up

When Holmes circulated his draft judgment to his fellow judges, three of them came to plead with him not to dissent. They feared a dissent, from Holmes, could weaken the country’s resolve and give comfort to the enemy. Holmes had always respected the institution of the Court and, at times had suppressed his own beliefs for the sake of unanimity. This time he felt he had to speak his mind. Holmes read his dissent from the bench and it caused a sensation. It was acclaimed as a monument to liberty.

Holmes wrote: “But when men have realised that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.”

These very words were cited in India last year by Justice Rohinton Nariman of the Supreme Court, when the court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act in the Shreya Singhal case. It freed online speech in India from the threat of arrests and prosecution.

“India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states,” decrees Article 1 of its Constitution. In reality though, Bharatvarsha-India has in its nearly 70 years of independence been a disunity of strongly held political opinions, all of which dissent from each other.

There is an opinion that India has come into its natural inheritance only after the election of a majority government in May 2014. It is argued that the past 60-odd years of the Indian Republic were a mere epilogue to an empire and a Western era that had not fully died in 1947. The Nehruvian consensus, it is urged, was a hypocritical cloak of minority appeasement within India, and a subservient bowing to Western domination abroad.

The counter-narrative of the Left agrees that there has been a subservience to the West, but it says that appeasement, if any, has been of the rich and of religious majorities. The third tale told is by apologists of the ancien régime, who narrate a process of steady economic rise and containment of social tensions, which have now been interrupted by a cataclysmic lurch towards virulent nationalism.

Yet another story is told by those who lead people’s movements in various parts of India, as a tale of perpetual struggle against whoever is in power in Delhi.

These and other voices have contributed to the medley and melody of the argumentative Indian life that surrounds alike its villages and cities, bazaars and malls, and is daily amplified for the nation in television studios. Except for the twenty months of the Emergency, never has one voice prevailed to the exclusion of the rest. Nor has it ever been suggested that an opinion contrary to that of the government is somehow inimical to national interest. India’s ability to express and simultaneously contain a million mutinies, has been a source of joy to its friends and of wonderment to its adversaries. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who had once advocated a thousand-year war with India, proclaimed from his death-row cell in Pakistan, “India is more heterogeneous than Pakistan, but India has been kept in one piece by the noise and chaos of her democracy.”

Why now?

Why then have recent events at the Jawaharlal Nehru University fanned such a seething rage against dissent in India? What has caused the majority to react with fear and loathing to mere slogans that have been heard for decades in some parts of the country? Who are those who have benefitted from the raising of temperatures of discussion, to the point where dissent from the majority narrative is seen as anti-national? When does a protest tip from discontent against government into sedition against the nation? Is the national consensus now veering towards a sullen silence, lest any expression of doubt be construed as support to those who seek India’s balkanisation? Is the Indian nation so fragile that it can only be held together by strong leaders benevolently administering the authoritarian structure of a police state? Is our national identity of such a loose character that it needs to be shrouded in a cloak of anodyne conformity?

Dissent is not anti-national. This nation has been built on dissents expressed at crucial times in its history. Kautilya dissented against the Nandas of Magadh, who were complacent in the face of Alexander’s invasions. He created the Mauryan empire. The Buddha dissented against the orthodoxy of his times, and the eightfold path stood revealed. Adi Shankara dissented against the fading of sanatana dharma and resurrected it. Shivaji dissented against the kingdoms of the Deccan and the might of the Mughal empire to lay the foundation of the Maratha empire. The dissent of the soldiers at Barrackpore and Meerut led to the First War of Independence in 1857. A long line of dissenters thereafter, from Lokmanya Tilak to Bose, Nehru and Gandhi, gave us our path to an independent India. Dr. Ambedkar, a man who dissented from even Mahatma Gandhi, gave us a Constitution that has endured all these years.

Our Republic has seen its own share of dissenters whose discordant dissent of the day has led to the wisdom of the morrow. C. Rajagopalachari’s opposition to Soviet-style planning came to fruition when P.V. Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh dismantled the licence quota raj. Jayaprakash Narayan’s call for total revolution led both to the imposition of Emergency as well as the consensus against a dictatorship.

Justice Khanna’s reminder

During the Emergency, Justice H.R. Khanna dissented in the ADM Jabalpur case and held that the right to life was inherent in humans and not a gift of the Constitution which could be suspended. The judgment cost him the office of the Chief Justice of India. A grateful nation, however, ensured that his portrait hangs in the Supreme Court’s courtroom 2, over which he last presided. He forever epitomises Charles Evans Hughes dictum, “A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the brooding spirit of law, to the intelligence of a future day.”

A democracy without a dissenter in it is impossible. Free men, in the exercise of free thought, will give vent in free speech. No matter how abhorrent the thought, or its manner of expression, a mature democracy will tolerate it, and even encourage its publication. It is better for an imperfect thought to be voiced and rejected in the marketplace of ideas, than for it to fester within the warehouses of inexpressible thought. After all there is no greater idea of democracy than free men, freely and voluntarily, committing to the requirements of citizenship of a free country. Only totalitarian regimes suppress dissent and dissidents. Only a country not yet rid of its colonial hangover of a government that commands and controls, labels dissent as seditious. A truly free nation will confidently view even its advocated destruction as a bad idea that will fail in the marketplace of ideas. This is my idea of India, secure in its place among the great nations of the world, confident in its destiny. Dear reader, is it your idea, as well?

(Sanjay Hegde is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court.)

Source: The Hindu  

‘Courts should not be swayed by mob hysteria’

The courts should not be swayed by the mob hysteria while dealing with the sensitive cases of sedition, as the charges in such matters are often slapped in a premeditated manner, said Supreme Court lawyer and human rights activist Vrinda Grover, She was reacting to Wednesday’s order of the Delhi High Court granting bail to student leader Kanhaiya Kumar.

Ms. Grover, who represented Mr. Kumar in his bail petition, told The Hindu that all the facts about the JNU students organising the February 9 event were in the public domain and the court had rightly reached the conclusion in favour of granting bail to the student leader. .

“However, we feel that this whole episode of electronic media first highlighting the university event, followed by the police crackdown, was pre-planned,” said Ms. Grover, adding that the entire sequence of events would be revealed if the investigation was free and fair.

Asked if a petition could be separately filed seeking expunging of some of the remarks made in the High Court’s order, Ms. Grover said the defence lawyers’ team would wait for completion of investigation which itself would reveal the truth.

The Delhi government’s standing counsel Rahul Mehra, who argued in the court in favour of granting bail to Mr. Kumar, said justice had been delivered, as it was a fit case for releasing the student leader on bail. “The bail should not have been opposed. I am happy that truth has prevailed,” said Mr. Mehra, reacting to the court verdict.

Whole episode of media highlighting the university event, followed by police crackdown was pre-plannedVrinda Grover,SC lawyer

The bail should not have been opposed.

I am happy that

truth has prevailed

Rahul Mehra,Delhi govt’s standing counsel

Source: The Hindu 

We will go by Supreme Court ruling, says Rajnath Singh

Letter should not be entertained, says Congress leader Kharge

Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh said on Thursday that the Centre was examining the Tamil Nadu government’s request for freeing the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, but made it clear that the government was constitutionally bound to act by the ruling of the Supreme Court.

This happened a day after the State government wrote to the Centre to seek its opinion — necessary under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — on its decision to remit the life sentences of all the seven convicts. “We received a letter from the Tamil Nadu government yesterday [on Wednesday] and we are examining it. But I want to state… that the Supreme Court has given a verdict and to abide by it is our constitutional responsibility, not only constitutional but also moral responsibility,” Mr. Singh told Parliament.

On December 2, 2015, the Supreme Court held that the Centre and not the State government would have the “primacy” and that the States could not exercise suo motu the power to decide whether or not those convicted in the cases investigated by the CBI or another Central agency could be released.

The Congress opposed the AIADMK government’s decision to remit the sentence of the convicts, calling it “very unfortunate”. “The letter should not be entertained at all,” Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge said. “The assassins must not be released to uphold the integrity of the country for which Rajivji gave his life.”

However, Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi refused to give his opinion, saying it was up to the government to take a call. The DMK, with which the Congress has stitched up an alliance, has also wanted the convicts released. DMK chief M. Karunanidhi has demanded that the Centre take steps for their release.

Source: The Hindu 

 

Sidha Samachar Gandhinagar Publication

DNA Publication

Divya Bhaskar coverage of Legislative assembly visit.

SC to study plea to close Ishrat case trial

Petition seeks contempt action against then Home Minister for concealing facts

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to consider a petition for closure of all criminal proceedings against Gujarat police officers in the 2004 Ishrat Jahan encounter case on the basis of the testimony of the 26/11 Mumbai attack accused David Headley that she and her three companions were Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives on a mission to assassinate the then Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

In an urgent mentioning, a Bench of Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur and Justice U.U. Lalit told advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, who filed the petition, that “it will be listed” in due course. The signal to hear the petition came even as the Home Ministry agreed to re-examine files to verify former Home Secretary G.K. Pillai’s claims of “political meddling.” Mr. Sharma’s petition sought the Supreme Court to initiate “ suo motu perjury/contempt of court proceedings against the then Home Minister and the CBI Director for concealing true facts before the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court for filing a false affidavit on the facts about Ishrat Jahan.”

Mr. Pillai had said an affidavit submitted in the Gujarat High Court in 2009 about the LeT links of Ishrat Jahan and her accomplices was changed at the “political level.”

Visit to Legislative Assembly - Photo with Chief Minister Smt. Anandiben Patel