Lower eligibility limit for OBC student applying to M. Phil Programme ordered

Jawaharlal Nehru University’s policy of requiring OBC students meeting the same threshold to qualify for its M. Phil Programme as general category students was struck down for being unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the University was within its rights in setting the minimum eligibility bar at the same level for general and OBC students, however, such a determination was contrary to its admission policy of ensuring that underprivileged and socially handicapped sections of society were represented in the institution. Though the Court did not itself specify a lower threshold for OBC students, it directed the same to be between the concession accorded to SC/ST students and the standard for general category students. Petitioner was permitted to join the course from 2016 onwards.
Relevant
P.V. Indiresan (2) v. Union of India & Ors.
Sadananda Halo & Ors. v. Momtaz ali Sheikh and Ors.,

Exercise that right to reservation


Sources: Manupatra Newsline

How Akhilesh Yadav tried to handpick Lokayukta until Supreme Court cracked down

 
Akhilesh Yadav with Swami Prasad Maurya, Leader of Opposition in the UP Assembly. (Express Archive)
The drama and politics over the appointment of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta had been on in the state for more than a year before the Supreme Court, in an extraordinary step on December 16, 2015, chose Justice (retd) Virendra Singh, a former judge of the Allahabad High Court, from a list of names sent by the SP government for the post.

Almost immediately, Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud of Allahabad High Court protested, writing to Governor Ram Naik against the inclusion of Justice Virendra Singh’s name in the list sent to the Supreme Court. He said this was done despite his objections and an assurance from Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav that Singh would not be on the panel.
Simply put: Drama over UP Lokayukta appointment
The Lokayukta is chosen by a selection committee comprising the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice of the High Court.
Citing Justice Chandrachud’s letter, a plea was moved in the Supreme Court and, on being questioned by the court, the UP government decided to defer Singh’s swearing-in until the matter is heard next on January 19.


Documents accessed by The Indian Express give a bizarre account of how Uttar Pradesh went about the process. Consider these:
* When Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav and Leader of Opposition Swami Prasad Maurya met on January 28, 2015 to consider a name for Lokayukta, the list before them included at least 30 dead judges. The oldest among them had retired in 1951.
* There were 396 names for consideration: 41 former Chief Justices of India, 28 sitting Supreme Court judges, 150 former Supreme Court judges, 76 sitting judges of Allahabad High Court and 101 former High Court judges. But the Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition agreed on only one name — Justice (retd) Ravindra Singh.
* Chief Justice Chandrachud wrote six letters to Akhilesh Yadav, seeking a meeting or raising objections over the CM’s choice for Lokayukta.
* Governor Ram Naik wrote three letters to the Chief Minister, reminding him that he must meet the Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice together for consultation.
* In one letter, the Governor referred to the Chief Minister’s “adamancy” over Justice Ravindra Singh’s name and “forcing” the Chief Justice to agree to his choice.
* The Chief Minister wrote to the Chief Justice that it is “not possible nor feasible” to continue consultations with him.
Read story in Hindi here
Documents show the Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition first met in November 2014. The Chief Secretary then sought from the High Court Registrar General names of High Court judges who had retired between January 1 and December 31, 2014 and those who would be retiring in 2015. The Registrar General sought a clarification, saying not only these judges but also all sitting and retired Supreme Court and High Court judges were also eligible for appointment.
On January 28, 2015, the Chief Minister sent a letter to Justice Chandrachud, informing him that he and the Leader of Opposition had nominated Justice Ravindra Singh as the next Lokayukta.
On February 12, Justice Chandrachud wrote back, pointing out that the Lokayukta’s tenure was for 8 years and so it was of utmost importance to shortlist some names and the final choice should be made jointly by the selection committee, based on high ranking and integrity of an individual. He said he was willing to meet the Chief Minister at a convenient date and time for consultation.
On April 10, Akhilesh Yadav wrote to Justice Chandrachud, reiterating Justice Ravindra Singh’s name. He referred to the minutes of the meeting held between him and Maurya.
On April 17, Justice Chandrachud informed the Chief Minister that the list he and Maurya considered included 20 former CJIs who were no more and other former SC and HC judges who had passed away. Questioning fairness and objectivity, the Chief Justice said there was nothing to indicate the basis on which Justice Ravindra Singh, who was then a sitting judge, was selected from among 396 sitting and retired judges.
Justice Chandrachud pointed out that Justice Ravindra Singh belongs to Mainpuri, the home turf of SP chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, and that his brother and two sons had been in a panel of lawyers of the SP government. “I am firmly of the view that a person who has such a close affiliation to the ruling political party in the state government should not be nominated to the post of Lokayukta,” Justice Chandrachud wrote, rejecting the nomination.
On June 11 Akhilesh Yadav, in his letter, told the Chief Justice that the UP Lokayukta Act did not prescribe any specific procedure and that it would not be correct to limit them to any fixed selection process. Asking Justice Chandrachud to agree to Justice Ravindra Singh’s name, the CM said Singh’s personal details “have no bearing on his appointment”.
On July 1, Justice Chandrachud replied that since he was unable to persuade his conscience, he was again rejecting Justice Singh’s name again. The Chief Justice also requested the Chief Minister to shortlist some names and decide by consensus. On the same day, Justice Ravindra Singh retired as a High Court judge.
On July 18, Justice Chandrachud and Akhilesh Yadav had a meeting but there was still no panel of names and the former refused to agree to Justice Singh’s name.
Meanwhile, as the six month-deadline set by the Supreme Court in April 2014 to appoint the new Lokayukta lapsed, a contempt petition was filed. On July 23, the court asked UP to complete the task in 30 days.
Referring to this order, Justice Chandrachud wrote again to Akhilesh Yadav on July 29, requesting him to prepare a list of names and have a meeting of the selection committee.
But on August 4, the Chief Minister reiterated that there had been “thorough” deliberation between him and Maurya who “reflected the perception of the people at large” in recommending Justice Ravindra Singh’s name.
On August 6, Justice Chandrachud told the UP CM that his statement was “a reflection of fundamental flaw in the process” and that there had been no meeting in which all three members of the selection committee sat together.
At this stage, Governor Ram Naik entered the fray. On August 20, he reminded the Chief Minister that consultation with the Chief Justice was a must. Naik said that the Leader of Opposition too had written saying he did not know about the disagreement on Justice Singh’s name, that any decision taken contrary to the Lokayukta Act would be invalid.
But on August 22, Akhilesh Yadav wrote to the Chief Justice that “almost nine months have been spent in this process and now it is not possible nor feasible to start this exercise afresh after the decision of the state cabinet”. He said Justice Ravindra Singh’s recommendation was again being sent to the Governor.
On August 24, the Governor wrote to the Chief Minister that the episode “goes to reflect the mere adamancy and amounts to forcing the other two consultees, particularly the Chief Justice, to necessarily agree on the sole name of the CM’s recommendee, Justice Ravindra Singh”. Naik also referred to “huge taints” against Singh and declined the CM’s recommendation again.
The UP government responded by bringing an amendment Bill on August 28, removing the requirement to consult the Chief Justice in the selection of the Lokayukta. After it was passed by the Assembly, the Bill was sent for approval to the Governor.
But the Governor sat over the Bill and the Supreme Court issued strictures against the state government over the delay in the Lokayukta’s appointment. The Chief Minister then called a meeting with the Chief Justice on September 27. Informed that the proposed amendment envisaged no role for the Chief Justice in the selection process, Justice Chandrachud placed on record his reservation against completing the selection process.
On December 14, the Supreme Court questioned the state government’s “agenda” and gave it two days to appoint the new Lokayukta. Consequently, the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice had an almost five-hour-long meeting on December 15 but failed to reach a consensus.
They again met on December 16 at 9.30 am but since there was no meeting ground, they decided to reconvene. But around 1 pm, the Supreme Court chose Justice (retd) Virendra Singh’s name from a list of five names, purportedly shortlisted by the selection committee. The court was also that the Chief Justice had no name to recommend.
But in his letter to the Governor the same day, the Chief Justice said he had proposed five names for a discussion, that the Chief Minister had reservations on one. During the meeting on December 15, Akhilesh Yadav suggested the name of Justice (retd) Virendra Singh but, Justice Chandrachud said, he objected to the name “on grounds of integrity”.
When they met on the morning of December 16, Justice Chandrachud said, the Chief Minister said Justice (retd) Virendra Singh’s name was not pressed or proposed by the state government anymore. The deliberations zeroed in on the name of a sitting High Court judge and the Chief Justice said he would revert at 5 pm, after court hours.
On December 29, the state government issued a press release stating that Justice (retd) Virendra Singh’s was the first name to be discussed at the meetings on December 15-16.

Sources: Indian Express.

Documents accessed by The Indian Express give a bizarre account of how Uttar Pradesh went about the process. Consider these:
* When Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav and Leader of Opposition Swami Prasad Maurya met on January 28, 2015 to consider a name for Lokayukta, the list before them included at least 30 dead judges. The oldest among them had retired in 1951.
* There were 396 names for consideration: 41 former Chief Justices of India, 28 sitting Supreme Court judges, 150 former Supreme Court judges, 76 sitting judges of Allahabad High Court and 101 former High Court judges. But the Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition agreed on only one name — Justice (retd) Ravindra Singh.
* Chief Justice Chandrachud wrote six letters to Akhilesh Yadav, seeking a meeting or raising objections over the CM’s choice for Lokayukta.
* Governor Ram Naik wrote three letters to the Chief Minister, reminding him that he must meet the Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice together for consultation.
* In one letter, the Governor referred to the Chief Minister’s “adamancy” over Justice Ravindra Singh’s name and “forcing” the Chief Justice to agree to his choice.
* The Chief Minister wrote to the Chief Justice that it is “not possible nor feasible” to continue consultations with him.
Read story in Hindi here
Documents show the Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition first met in November 2014. The Chief Secretary then sought from the High Court Registrar General names of High Court judges who had retired between January 1 and December 31, 2014 and those who would be retiring in 2015. The Registrar General sought a clarification, saying not only these judges but also all sitting and retired Supreme Court and High Court judges were also eligible for appointment.
On January 28, 2015, the Chief Minister sent a letter to Justice Chandrachud, informing him that he and the Leader of Opposition had nominated Justice Ravindra Singh as the next Lokayukta.
On February 12, Justice Chandrachud wrote back, pointing out that the Lokayukta’s tenure was for 8 years and so it was of utmost importance to shortlist some names and the final choice should be made jointly by the selection committee, based on high ranking and integrity of an individual. He said he was willing to meet the Chief Minister at a convenient date and time for consultation.
On April 10, Akhilesh Yadav wrote to Justice Chandrachud, reiterating Justice Ravindra Singh’s name. He referred to the minutes of the meeting held between him and Maurya.
On April 17, Justice Chandrachud informed the Chief Minister that the list he and Maurya considered included 20 former CJIs who were no more and other former SC and HC judges who had passed away. Questioning fairness and objectivity, the Chief Justice said there was nothing to indicate the basis on which Justice Ravindra Singh, who was then a sitting judge, was selected from among 396 sitting and retired judges.
Justice Chandrachud pointed out that Justice Ravindra Singh belongs to Mainpuri, the home turf of SP chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, and that his brother and two sons had been in a panel of lawyers of the SP government. “I am firmly of the view that a person who has such a close affiliation to the ruling political party in the state government should not be nominated to the post of Lokayukta,” Justice Chandrachud wrote, rejecting the nomination.
On June 11 Akhilesh Yadav, in his letter, told the Chief Justice that the UP Lokayukta Act did not prescribe any specific procedure and that it would not be correct to limit them to any fixed selection process. Asking Justice Chandrachud to agree to Justice Ravindra Singh’s name, the CM said Singh’s personal details “have no bearing on his appointment”.
On July 1, Justice Chandrachud replied that since he was unable to persuade his conscience, he was again rejecting Justice Singh’s name again. The Chief Justice also requested the Chief Minister to shortlist some names and decide by consensus. On the same day, Justice Ravindra Singh retired as a High Court judge.
On July 18, Justice Chandrachud and Akhilesh Yadav had a meeting but there was still no panel of names and the former refused to agree to Justice Singh’s name.
Meanwhile, as the six month-deadline set by the Supreme Court in April 2014 to appoint the new Lokayukta lapsed, a contempt petition was filed. On July 23, the court asked UP to complete the task in 30 days.
Referring to this order, Justice Chandrachud wrote again to Akhilesh Yadav on July 29, requesting him to prepare a list of names and have a meeting of the selection committee.
But on August 4, the Chief Minister reiterated that there had been “thorough” deliberation between him and Maurya who “reflected the perception of the people at large” in recommending Justice Ravindra Singh’s name.
On August 6, Justice Chandrachud told the UP CM that his statement was “a reflection of fundamental flaw in the process” and that there had been no meeting in which all three members of the selection committee sat together.
At this stage, Governor Ram Naik entered the fray. On August 20, he reminded the Chief Minister that consultation with the Chief Justice was a must. Naik said that the Leader of Opposition too had written saying he did not know about the disagreement on Justice Singh’s name, that any decision taken contrary to the Lokayukta Act would be invalid.
But on August 22, Akhilesh Yadav wrote to the Chief Justice that “almost nine months have been spent in this process and now it is not possible nor feasible to start this exercise afresh after the decision of the state cabinet”. He said Justice Ravindra Singh’s recommendation was again being sent to the Governor.
On August 24, the Governor wrote to the Chief Minister that the episode “goes to reflect the mere adamancy and amounts to forcing the other two consultees, particularly the Chief Justice, to necessarily agree on the sole name of the CM’s recommendee, Justice Ravindra Singh”. Naik also referred to “huge taints” against Singh and declined the CM’s recommendation again.
The UP government responded by bringing an amendment Bill on August 28, removing the requirement to consult the Chief Justice in the selection of the Lokayukta. After it was passed by the Assembly, the Bill was sent for approval to the Governor.
But the Governor sat over the Bill and the Supreme Court issued strictures against the state government over the delay in the Lokayukta’s appointment. The Chief Minister then called a meeting with the Chief Justice on September 27. Informed that the proposed amendment envisaged no role for the Chief Justice in the selection process, Justice Chandrachud placed on record his reservation against completing the selection process.
On December 14, the Supreme Court questioned the state government’s “agenda” and gave it two days to appoint the new Lokayukta. Consequently, the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice had an almost five-hour-long meeting on December 15 but failed to reach a consensus.
They again met on December 16 at 9.30 am but since there was no meeting ground, they decided to reconvene. But around 1 pm, the Supreme Court chose Justice (retd) Virendra Singh’s name from a list of five names, purportedly shortlisted by the selection committee. The court was also that the Chief Justice had no name to recommend.
But in his letter to the Governor the same day, the Chief Justice said he had proposed five names for a discussion, that the Chief Minister had reservations on one. During the meeting on December 15, Akhilesh Yadav suggested the name of Justice (retd) Virendra Singh but, Justice Chandrachud said, he objected to the name “on grounds of integrity”.
When they met on the morning of December 16, Justice Chandrachud said, the Chief Minister said Justice (retd) Virendra Singh’s name was not pressed or proposed by the state government anymore. The deliberations zeroed in on the name of a sitting High Court judge and the Chief Justice said he would revert at 5 pm, after court hours.
On December 29, the state government issued a press release stating that Justice (retd) Virendra Singh’s was the first name to be discussed at the meetings on December 15-16.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/30-dead-judges-on-longlist-how-akhilesh-tried-to-handpick-lokayukta-until-sc-cracked-down/#sthash.JqfIoX2y.dpuf

 

Sources: Indian Express

Sources: Indian Express

HC stays arrest warrant against Parshottam Solanki

AHMEDABAD: In a relief for the animal husbandry minister, Parshottam Solanki, Gujarat high court on Monday stayed an arrest warrant issued by the special anti-corruption court in Gandhinagar against him in connection with an alleged fisheries scam. In this case, complainant Ishaq Maradia had sought HC intervention to unearth the alleged irregularities, cancellation of fishing contracts and for governor's sanction for criminal prosecution of the minister.After staying the warrant, Justice JB Pardiwala issued notice to the state government and kept further hearing next month.

The special ACB court had issued the arrest warrant against Solanki last month, when he did not respond to its summons and failed to appear before the court after it decided to begin trial in the case aga inst Solanki, who was fisheries minister during the concerned period, and five retired government officials. The HC has, however, stayed trial against a former minister Dilip Sanghani for want of sanction for criminal prosecution.


Sources: TNN

Parliament can make punishment more rigorous for convicts in child abuse cases: SC

Under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC, the rape of a woman under 16 years of age is punishable with a minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment, which could extend to life

A women’s lawyers association had moved the court seeking castration of sexual offenders. 

 

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday suggested the government look at enhancing the punishment for those found guilty of sexually assaulting children and also define a “child” under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A women’s lawyers association had moved the court seeking castration of sexual offenders.

While clarifying it was beyond the court’s authority to introduce such a punishment, a bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and N.V. Ramana suggested that Parliament look at making the punishment more rigorous.

Under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC, the rape of a woman under 16 years of age is punishable with a minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment, which could extend to life.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, stipulates that the punishment will be based on severity of the crime. Aggravated sexual assault warrants the same punishment as that prescribed under IPC.

Justice Misra also said there had to be a better definition of “child” in sexual offences. In his order, he noted a minor woman below the age of 16 years “is no doubt a minor” but a “child though a minor may stand at a different category”.

The petition by the Supreme Court Women Lawyers’ Association (SCWLA), a copy of which Mint reviewed, said the apex court should decide if it should protect the human rights of those children who are raped, sexually assaulted and killed.

The group asked the court to direct the government to impose castration as an additional punishment for sexual abusers and rapists of children.

The petition said the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act had failed to deter offenders.

Lawyer Mahalakshmi Pavani, representing SCWLA, said the “more barbaric the crime, more barbaric should be the punishment”.

The petition defines castration as “any action, surgical, chemical or otherwise, by which a biological male loses the use of the testicles. When used on men, these drugs can reduce sex drive, compulsive sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal”.

Ved Kumari, who teaches law at Delhi University, said the government should focus more on the rehabilitation of children who suffered from sexual crimes.

“The state doesn’t care about rehabilitating the victim. They give `2 lakh and they’re done. The victim has suffered from serious physical damage and mental trauma. They require several surgeries,” she said.

“The state doesn’t want to take responsibility of the victim. It wants to punish the offender and wash its hands of the case.”

 

Sources: Mint

Madras High Court stays temple dress code order

The HC had prescribed dhoti and shirt or pyjama “with upper cloth” for men and saree or half-saree or churidar “with upper cloth” for women.
The Madurai bench of the Madras high court on Monday granted an interim stay on its order to impose a dress code for visitors to temples run by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department of Tamil Nadu.
The dress code was imposed on November 26, with Justice S Vaidyanathan hearing a petition seeking the court’s permission to hold a cultural programme at a temple in Trichy district, observing that a dress code was necessary to restrict devotees from wearing improper clothing. The state government subsequently responded that it was not possible to follow a uniform dress code. Monday’s order granting an interim stay until January 18 also followed petitions from women’s organisations challenging the single-judge bench’s order passed in November 2015.

Justice Vaidyanathan’s order came into effect on January 1. “According to Christianity, a general lesson from the New Testament is that we should dress for public worship in a way that is generally considered appropriate,” the controversial judgment had stated.
“Standards of dress are different from church to church and change over time, but we should avoid any style of dress that is offensive or sends a message opposing the church community’s values.”
The court observed that Islamic norms also insist on a dress code. For women, the court said, sleeves should reach the wrists and the head should be covered by a scarf. “Pants or skirts that are too revealing, clingy, or tight should not be worn and the dress permissible to men for worship is that they should wear long pants and plain shirts without messages or slogans when visiting mosques,” it said. “Short-sleeved shirts are acceptable as long as the sleeves are not shorter than average.”
Days after his judgment, Justice Vaidyanathan and two fellow judges — Justices N Kirubakaran and S Ilavazhagan, Registrar (Administration) of the Madras High Court — had visited three temples in Dindigul district in traditional clothes prescribed in the dress code.

Sources: Indian Express

In Jallikattu, questions of tradition and cruelty to animals

Explained: In Jallikattu, questions of tradition and cruelty to animals

 
The southern districts of Madurai, Tiruchirappalli, Theni, Pudukkottai and Dindigul are Tamil Nadu’s main Jallikattu belt, where bulls are bred for the sport. (Express Photo by: Jyothy Karat)
Why is the Supreme Court hearing a petition on Jallikattu, the traditional bull-taming sport of Tamil Nadu?
Modifying its 2011 order that included bulls in a list of animals that “shall not be exhibited or trained as performing animal”, the Environment Ministry last week issued a notification saying Jallikattu, a sport traditionally played in Tamil Nadu during Pongal celebrations, can be held this year.

The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and some others on Monday moved the Supreme Court, seeking urgent hearing of appeals against the Centre’s order. The court will hear the petitions on Tuesday. The harvest festival of Pongal will be celebrated from Friday to Sunday.

But hasn’t the Supreme Court already banned Jallikattu and bullock-cart races on grounds of cruelty to animals?
Yes. In May 2014, the court said “bulls cannot be allowed as performing animals, either for Jallikattu events or bullock-cart races in the state of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country.” The Centre’s notification last week sought to overturn the SC ban.
The SC order also identified “the five freedoms” of animals, including freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition, freedom from fear and distress, freedom from physical and thermal discomfort, freedom from pain, injury and disease, and freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour. It asked Parliament to “elevate rights of animals to that of constitutional rights, as done by many of the countries around the world, so as to protect their dignity and honour”.
Back in 1991, the Environment Ministry had banned the training and exhibition of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and dogs. The notification was challenged by the Indian Circus Organisation before the Delhi High Court, and after prolonged litigation, the legality of the notification was upheld. The ministry issued a fresh notification in 2011, which specifically included “bulls”, paving the way for the Jallikattu ban. The May 2014 order upheld the 2011 notification.
So why did the Centre decide to overturn the judgment by the apex court?
It is largely political. The Jallikattu belt is dominated by the politically powerful OBC Thevar community, which has politicians and considerable clout in several parties. All parties in Tamil Nadu welcomed the Centre’s decision.
It was important for BJP to be seen as being with the “people” ahead of the Assembly elections in April. Tamilisai Soundararajan, state president of the BJP, has said lifting the ban would help the party in the polls. Soundararajan said party chief Amit Shah had had several meetings with Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar to ensure the ban was lifted.
Is there anything other than political considerations in this?
Organisers of Jallikattu and bullock-cart races argue that these are traditional practices closely associated with village life, especially in the southern districts. The bulls are specifically identified, trained and nourished for these sporting events, and their owners spend considerable sums on their upkeep. No tickets are sold for Jallikattu or bullock-cart races, and not much pain or suffering is caused to the animal. Thus, they argue, while these events may be regulated, they ought not to be completely prohibited.

And what are the AWBI and organisations such as PETA arguing?
Through various reports, affidavits and photographs, the AWBI has argued that Jallikattu bulls are physically and mentally tortured for the pleasure and enjoyment of human beings. They have also produced visual evidence for torture and cruelty to bullocks in Maharashtra’s bullock-cart races. According to AWBI, Jallikattu or bullock-cart races conducted in this way have no historical, cultural or religious significance in Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra, and that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960, must supersede any such practice.
Is this debate then essentially between those who enjoy a medieval bloodsport, and the progressive votaries of animal rights?
It is probably more complex than that. There is a clash of worldviews, and the disagreement reflects the absence of an inclusive approach to the problem. The Jallikattu belt — mainly the districts of Madurai, Tiruchirappalli, Theni, Pudukkottai and Dindigul — still breeds pure native studs, and Jallikattu was always more a way to honour bullowners than a competitive sport. Jallikattu events do not offer any major monetary benefits, and prizes are mostly a dhoti, towel, betel leaves, bananas and token cash — that is rarely more than Rs 101 — on a silver plate. Mixer-grinders, refrigerators and furniture have been added to the list of prizes at some events over the last few years. B Raja of Madurai, who sold his Jallikattu bull after the SC ban, complained that the activists “who make brief visits to villages from the cities and allege cruelty to animals” have very little idea of how the animals are reared. “They are like our children. These critics have never seen that. It is not the same as having a pet dog at their apartments,” he said.
However, AWBI and PETA pictures and video footage do clearly show the animals having their tails twisted or bitten, and being poked with spiked instruments as they are forced into the arena.
What is going to happen now?
The Supreme Court will hear the case on Tuesday. The AWBI, which is the lead petitioner, is an independent statutory body that functions under the Centre — and even though the government can plead helplessness in the face of a possible adverse court order, there is a degree of nervousness and disquiet. There is votebank politics involved, and in the long run, unless common ground is found between the arguments on the two sides, neither of whom has any stake in the way the other leads its life, the issue is not likely to die down.


Sources: Indian Express

Making a money bill of it

 
Section 224 of the code creates an insolvency and bankruptcy fund that will receive grants from the Central government, deposits from any person or any other source.

 
On December 21, 2015, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Bill, 2015, was introduced as a money bill in the Lok Sabha. This is disconcerting because money bills have a special place in our Constitution. Article 110 mandates that a money bill must only entertain provisions dealing with the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax; the regulation of borrowings by the government of India and the regulation of the Consolidated Fund of India, including appropriation of moneys out of this fund.
A money bill is also special to a ruling party that does not have a majority in the Rajya Sabha. Unlike other bills, a money bill can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha can only make “recommendations” that are not binding on the Lok Sabha. The president has no power to return a money bill. In short, the Rajya Sabha will not be able to stall the bankruptcy code as it has, unfortunately, blocked the GST bill. But the bankruptcy code, by any reckoning, is not a money bill and introducing it as such was an unfortunate constitutional trick.

The bankruptcy code proposes to consolidate and amend laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons and other entities, and to establish an “insolvency and bankruptcy fund”. Sections 243 to 245 of the proposed code amend laws relating to central excise, income tax and customs to safeguard the priority rights of secured creditors over tax dues. This is evident from Section 53 of the code and the interim report of the Bankruptcy Law Reform Committee. But these amendments cannot fall under the category of “imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax”. By this analogy, the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, which inserted Section 10AA in the Income Tax Act, 1961, and granted tax exemptions would also have been a money bill.
Section 224 of the code creates an insolvency and bankruptcy fund that will receive grants from the Central government, deposits from any person or any other source. But such grants made by the government will not amount to an “appropriation of money” out of the Consolidated Fund of India. For example, Section 16 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, provides for a “fund of the commission” to which the Central government grants money. Does this make the University Grants Commission Bill a money bill? The answer would clearly be in the negative.
In the United Kingdom, Section 1(2) of the Parliament Act, 1911, defines a money bill as a public bill that, in the opinion of the speaker of the House of Commons, contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects: The imposition, repeal, remission, alteration or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund. The word “only” is also present in Article 110(1), which is clearly modelled on Section 1(2). During the Constituent Assembly debates, Ghanshyam Singh Gupta moved an amendment to delete the word “only” from Article 90 of the draft Constitution, which later became Article 110 of the Indian Constitution.
On May 20, 1949, Gupta said: “Now Article 90 says that a bill shall be deemed to be a money bill if it contains only provisions dealing with the imposition, regulation, etc, of any tax or the borrowing of money, etc. This can mean that if there is a bill which has other provisions and also a provision about taxation or borrowing, etc, it will not become a money bill. If that is the intention, I have nothing to say; but if that is not the intention, I must say the word “only” is dangerous, because if the bill does all these things and at the same time does something else also it will not be a money bill.”
The amendment moved by him was rejected by the Constituent Assembly. Thus, the position in the UK and India is that a money bill must contain only matters mentioned in Sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Article 110, although it may incidentally deal with other issues. But if a bill is primarily concerned with a different topic but incidentally refers to any of the enumerated matters in Article 110, the bill is not a money bill.
The 23rd edition of Erskine May’s classic Parliamentary Practice points out that even if the main object of a bill is to create a new charge on the Consolidated Fund or on money provided by Parliament, the bill will not be certified as a money bill if it is apparent that the primary purpose of the new charge is not purely financial. The book points out that the Family Allowances Bill, 1944-45, and the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill, 1992-93, will not be money bills even though they contained a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the UK.
Equally, the stated purpose of the bankruptcy code is to consolidate bankruptcy and insolvency laws in India. The fact that the code amends fiscal statutes and provides for a grant from the Central government cannot make it a money bill. The deadlock in the Rajya Sabha is not grounds to circumvent the Constitution as it is a basic principle of law that what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. However, Article 110(3), like Section 3 of the UK Parliament Act, 1911, says that the speaker’s decision to certify a bill as a money bill is conclusive and cannot be questioned in a court of law. But the speaker, who is also a member of Parliament, takes an oath to solemnly affirm his/ her true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India. Certifying a bill as a money bill when its primary purpose is not governed by Article 110 is an unconstitutional act. Let us hope that the bankruptcy code is not the beginning of a new trend.

Bullish on jallikattu

 
 Jallikattu also known Eruthazhuvuthal is a bull taming sport played in Tamil Nadu as a part of Pongal celebrations on Mattu Pongal day.
 
The Centre last week issued a notification which makes it possible to legally organise jallikattu, a popular bull-taming sport patronised by farming communities in Tamil Nadu. This reverses a 2011 decision of the UPA government, which, by placing bulls in the list of animals that shall not be deemed as performing animals, had effectively banned the sport. In 2014, the Supreme Court endorsed the Centre’s decision when it upheld the view that jallikattu, and other sporting events like bullock-cart racing, violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Animal rights groups have now sought the apex court’s intervention in the matter while the political class in Tamil Nadu, in a rare show of unanimity, has welcomed the Centre’s decision.
Jallikattu and other such sports are a part of agrarian culture. They give play to expressions of masculine violence, but they also showcase the prowess of cattle breeders and rearers and the skills of farm hands in managing cattle. Rural communities involved in these sports see legislative and judicial attempts to ban them as an assault on their tradition and cultural rights. While it is also true that culture must not be seen to be frozen or fixed in time, bans or unilateral legal intervention may not be the best way to bring in reform. The concerns of cruelty towards animals raised by the activist community in the context of jallikattu are valid and there is a case for more humane treatment of farm animals. Over the years, debates on the ethics of the use of animals, not just in sport but also in other fields of entertainment like the circus, have helped in sensitising society to animal rights. But the shift from an anthropocentric vision to ecocentric wisdom can be achieved only through education and negotiation. Blunt instruments like bans only polarise the debate and may eventually cause a breakdown of the law.

On jallikattu, political parties seem to be driven only by the populist impulse. Jallikattu patrons are politically influential in rural Tamil Nadu and the state is headed for elections this year. The political calculus also explains the double standard of the BJP, which seeks to take credit for liftng the ban on jallikattu in Tamil Nadu even as it sings paeans to the cow elsewhere.

PAN Must for Cash Payment of Hotel Bill over Rs 50,000 from Tomorrow

Furnishing PAN has been made mandatory from tomorrow i.e. 1-1-2016  for cash transactions such as hotel or foreign travel bills exceeding Rs 50,000. Department of Income Tax has made it mandatory under Rule 114B of the Income-tax Rules to quote PAN where transactions exceed a specified limit.

Sources: Manupatra Newsline  

Executive loses say in tribunal postings

`CJ Most Appropriate To Name Heads'

After quashing the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to keep intact its dominance in appointment of judges, the Supreme Court on Monday took another step to eliminate the executive's role in the statute-envisaged consultation process for appointment of heads of judicial tribunals. The matter, before a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur, concerned appointing the president and judicial member of the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal. The earlier practice was that the chief justice of the high court would send a panel of names of retired judicial officers and the state government would pick two from that list and send it back for the CJ's approval.
But, in a recent judgment, the HC said this practice did not reflect the primacy that the CJ deserved in choosing the president and judicial member of a quasi-judicial tribunal. It ordered that henceforth the CJ would send two names for the two posts and the government must appoint them. It also said that if the government finds something amiss in their names, it could approach the CJ for a fresh name.
Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, who had recently ended up on the losing side in the pitched legal battle to save NJAC in its constitutional validity test, appeared for the state and argued that the judiciary could not alter the consultation process for appointment of heads of judicial tribunals by citing the approach adopted by the apex court for selection of judges to the SC and HCs on the ground of maintaining the independence of judiciary . “Can the HC say that the CJ will send only one name and that is binding on the government? This is trenching upon the power of the state and the CJ. Where is the question of the CJ giving only one name,“ he argued.
Thakur said for the primacy of the judiciary, the CJ was supremely suitable to determine the suitability of a person to head a tribunal with judicial powers.“Why should the government insist on a panel? This is a judicial forum. If you have problem with a name you can always get back to the CJ for a fresh name. If the CJ is suggesting a name, the government must appoint him,“ he said.
The SC entertained the appeal by the state but asked it to make the tribunal functional by appointing the president and judicial member on the basis of names suggested by the CJ of the HC.“We will decide later whether the process was appropriate,“ it said.

Sources: TNN

HC notice to Centre on Pak woman's plea

She Is Godhra Convict's Wife

Gujarat high court on Monday issued notice to the Ministry of External Affairs, the state government and the Panchmahal district SP in response to a petition by a Pakistani woman, Maria Mohammed Qasim, who is married to Godhra carnage convict Irfan Pada. Maria has been seeking directions to the Centre to consider her application for a Long Term Visa (LTV) so she can live with her husband and their newborn daughter Savera in Godhra. She also questioned he inaction by local police authorities in not forwarding her application for the LTV to the Centre.
Police have given Maria a deadline of January 8 to leave or Pakistan. Justice R M Chhaya has sought a reply rom the concerned authorities by January 7. The HC has also ordered the serving of a copy of the petition to the solici or general. The court ordered or direct service of notice, but Pada did not feel comfortable with the condition. He said, “The time is very little to comp ete the process because it is mpossible for me to deliver he notice to authorities before January 6. The hearing would be the very next day .“

Sources: TNN

UP Lokayukta: Swearing-in stay extended

The Supreme Court on Monday extended till January 19 its interim order restraining the Uttar Pradesh government from going ahead with the swearing-in of Justice (Retd) Virendra Singh as lokayukta of the state. Hours before Justice Singh was to take charge, the SC had in an emergency meeting on December 19 asked the state to defer the oath-taking ceremony after it was alleged that the Akhilesh Yadav government played “fraud“ with the court by recommending his name despite stiff opposition from the chief justice of Allahabad HC. A bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said the controversy on the appointment of lokayukta would be adjudicated by a bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, which had appointed Justice Singh as head of the anti-corruption watchdog after the UP government failed to appoint lokayukta despite its repeated orders.
Selection of lokayukta is done by a high-powered committee comprising the chief minister, chief justice of HC and the leader of opposition and the appointment is done by the governor. The SC had on December 16 appointed Justice Singh after the state failed to appoint lokayukta during the last 19 months.The court picked up the name of Justice Singh out of five names, purportedly cleared by the committee.

Sources: TNN