THE LAWFILE

Archive for the ‘Editorials’ Category

The age factor

leave a comment »

PUBLISHED IN THE FRONTLINE

The appointment of three new judges to the Supreme Court reopens the debate on the need to appoint judges when they are younger.

The newly appointed judges of the Supreme Court (from left) Justices S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.S. Khehar and Ranjana Desai.

A FEW weeks ago, the Supreme Court of India’s collegium, consisting of the Chief Justice and four most senior judges, cleared the names of three High Court judges for appointment to the Supreme Court. Once the collegium’s binding recommendation was accepted by the President, the new judges, Justices S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Ranjana Desai and J.S. Khehar, were sworn in to the court on September 13. This new slate of appointments will be worth noting for several reasons. Not insignificantly, this is the first set of Supreme Court appointments made by the present Chief Justice of India, Justice S.H. Kapadia, since he took over the office from Justice K.G. Balakrishnan in May 2010. One of the new judges is a woman – only the fifth woman among 196 judges appointed to the Supreme Court in its history spanning over six decades, and this is the first time two women judges will serve on the Supreme Court at the same time. The new appointments offer a telling glimpse into the trend of Supreme Court appointments during the last decade.

A total of 10 judges retire from the Supreme Court during Justice Kapadia’s term, including seven this year. (Justices B. Sudershan Reddy, V.S. Sirpurkar and H.S. Bedi have already retired, and the others to retire, in the order of retirement, are Justices Mukundakam Sharma, Markandey Katju, J.M. Panchal and R.V. Raveendran. Justices Cyriac Joseph, A.K. Ganguly, and Deepak Verma, in that order, will retire next year during Justice Kapadia’s term). This is the first time seven judges retire from the court in one year. In 2000, during Chief Justice A.S. Anand’s term, six judges retired and, one, Justice M. Srinivasan, passed away, creating seven vacancies that year. The vacancies this year also occur against the backdrop of a larger debate concerning many vacancies in High Courts.

But what does the appointment of the three new judges to the Supreme Court say about the candidates typically selected to the highest constitutional court of India? For one, the three judges are, on average, quite old. Two of them, S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Ranjana Desai, are over 61 years old. The retirement age of High Court judges is 62, and both these judges had less than a year left to retire from their respective High Courts. Since Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65, both will serve terms of less than four years in the Supreme Court. Is this adequate? Forget for a moment that judges on the Supreme Court of the United States serve in office for life, and forget that judges of the South African constitutional court serve fixed non-renewable 15-year terms, but consider that in India most judges of High Courts serve at least 10-15 years in office, if not more.

For a constitutional court of the stature of the Indian Supreme Court to retain its coherence as an institution, to maintain consistency and predictability in the articulation and application of constitutional norms, it is essential that its judges be given more satisfactory tenures. That is not to say that judges of repute and learning such as Justices Mukhopadhaya and Ranjana Desai should not be appointed to the court: the only contention is that they should have been appointed earlier, or once appointed they should be given fixed but longer terms.

 

At present, the average age of the three new judges to be appointed is over 60.7 years. In fact, of the 38 Chief Justices of India, only three – Justices Harilal Kania, B.K. Mukherjea, and M.N. Venkatachaliah – made appointments of judges who had an average age higher than this (Table 1 illustrates that the average age of appointment to the court during the tenure of these three Chief Justices of India was over 61 years of age).

Interestingly, this is in keeping with the trend of appointment of older judges, on average, to the Supreme Court.

Youngest judges

The data tell us that the youngest Supreme Court judges in the country’s history were appointed in the 1970s. One of the finest judges the Supreme Court has ever seen, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, was only 51 years old when he was appointed to it. The fact that he served close to 14 years in office, a term longer than his tenure as a High Court judge in Gujarat, perhaps had something to do with the stature he attained in the court and the status he achieved as a judge. But even before him, many judges in the 1950s were appointed to the court at age 55 or younger (B.P. Sinha, Syed Jaffer Imam, P.B. Gajendragadkar, A.K. Sarkar, K. Subba Rao, K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, and J.C. Shah). Some of these names are amongst the most well known in India’s legal circles.

As the court’s most prolific dissenter, Justice K. Subba Rao went on to herald the demise of the “Gopalan era” in the court. According to one estimate, he wrote as many as 53 dissenting opinions, that is, opinions in which he disagreed with the majority view. In A.K. Gopalan vs Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, the Supreme Court had held that the constitutionality of a law would have to be tested on the basis of the object of the law itself and not by the incidental effect the law would have on other fundamental freedoms. In a series of cases decided in the 1960s ( Kochuni vs Madras, AIR 1960 SC 1080; Kharak Singh vs U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295; and Maharashtra vs Prabhakar, AIR 1966 SC 424), Justice Subba Rao expressed considerable doubt over the court’s “object” approach to constitutional analysis, an approach which was soon replaced by the “effects” test in R.C. Cooper vs Union, (1970) 1 SCC 248. Of a similar stature, opinions written by Justices Gajendragadkar and Hidayatullah still elicit adulation in classrooms and admiration in courtrooms. It is not implausible to posit that their age and lengthy terms in office gave them an edge – an occasion to define themselves on the court, and then to define the jurisprudence and docket of the court itself.

In the 1960s, Justice S.M. Sikri was the only judge appointed to the court at age 55, but as the Chief Justice of India he went on to preside over the most significant case in India’s constitutional history, where, as part of the majority, he and six other judges held that our Constitution had a “basic structure”, one which could not be altered or destroyed by constitutional amendment. In the 1970s, too, several judges were appointed to the court at age 55 or younger (Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, M. Fazl Ali, R.S. Pathak, O. Chinnappa Reddy, A.P. Sen and E.S. Venkataramiah). Many of these judges left a lasting mark on the jurisprudence of the court.

However, starting with the 1980s, in 30 years, only four judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court at age 55 or younger: Sabyasachi Mukherjee, A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha and K.G. Balakrishnan, each of whom went on to become Chief Justice of India. In fact, the data tell us that the oldest judges were appointed to the Supreme Court in the last two decades, that is, between 1990 and 2009. The average age of appointment during 2000-2009 was 59.7 years and during 1990-1999 it was 59.8 years – higher than the average of any previous decade. Justice Kapadia’s three appointments tend to fit this paradigm. In fact, one wonders if appointees to the Supreme Court today would not have been even older had the retirement age in High Courts been 65. If this were so the court’s collegium would have had even older High Court judges to choose from, judges who would potentially go on to serve only a few months in the Supreme Court.

That is not to say older judges cannot mould the jurisprudence of the court in a comparatively shorter but influential cameo innings. Chief Justice M. Patanjali Sastri, one of the first members of the court, was 61 years old when the Supreme Court of India came into being. Similarly, appointed at the relatively late age of 59, Justices Vivian Bose and H.R. Khanna each indelibly altered the trajectory of the court’s jurisprudence. In the famous Anwar Ali Sarkar case, Justice Bose was perhaps the first judge to use the phrase “reasonable, just and fair”, prescient words which would resonate in the court’s opinions decades later in the Maneka Gandhi case (1978) and beyond. Justice Khanna’s dissent in the habeas corpus case served as a moral compass for a court that tried desperately to atone for the wrongs it committed during the Emergency. Imagine a court where the Sastris, the Boses and the Khannas, or for that matter the Mukhopadhayas and the Desais serve not three to six years in office but 10 to 15 years – how much more beneficial that would be for the court and for our system.

Next, of the three new judges being appointed to the Supreme Court, two (Mukhopadhaya and Khehar) were High Court Chief Justices. There is nothing surprising about this either. In the early years, at least half the judges of the Supreme Court were typically amongst those who were not High Court Chief Justices. This began to show signs of change starting with the end of Justice A.M. Ahmadi’s tenure as Chief Justice of India (1994-1997) when an unprecedented 17 sitting Supreme Court judges (or 73 per cent of the court) were former High Court Chief Justices. This trend reached its zenith by the end of Justice R.C. Lahoti’s term as Chief Justice (2004-05), when an overwhelming 20 sitting Supreme Court judges (or 95 per cent of the court) were former High Court Chief Justices.

CHIEF JUSTICE OF India, Justice S.H. Kapadia. The number of judges retiring during his term will be 10. Of them, three have already retired and four more will retire this year.

For this reason, the fact that two of Chief Justice Kapadia’s new appointees are High Court Chief Justices is not surprising. (In fact, Justice Khehar served as Chief Justice of not one but two High Courts in succession (Uttarakhand and then Karnataka), a trend which has increasingly been seen in the court starting with the 1990s. The overwhelming dominance of High Court Chief Justices in the Supreme Court adds a few years to the average age of the court – after all, only the oldest judges in the country, those who have served the longest terms in the High Courts and risen to positions of seniority, are transferred to other High Courts as Chief Justices.

Neither, perhaps, is it surprising that the only Kapadia appointment to the court not to have been a High Court Chief Justice, Justice Ranjana Desai, is a woman. Only two (Sujata Manohar and Gyan Sudha Misra) of the four women who were appointed to the court before this, previously served as the Chief Justice of a High Court. Justices M. Fathima Beevi and Ruma Pal were not, and neither is Justice Ranjana Desai, although, to be fair, she was the most senior associate justice in the Bombay High Court.

P.N. BHAGAWATI, former Chief Justice of India. He was only 51 years old when he was appointed to the Supreme Court. He served close to 14 years in office and this perhaps had something to do with the stature he attained in the court and the status he achieved as a judge.

What do Chief Justice Kapadia’s appointments tell us about the Supreme Court itself? The appointment of the fifth woman justice of the court must be welcomed. Now there is only one other constituency that has a smaller claim to the court than women – “bar judges”. Since 1950, only four judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court directly from the bar, that is, without having served as a judge in a High Court. Starting with the 1960s, one such judge was appointed in every decade – S.M. Sikri in the 1960s, S. Chandra Roy in the 1970s, Kuldip Singh in the 1980s, and Santosh Hegde in the 1990s.

The 2000-09 decade was the only one since the 1950s when a judge was not appointed to the Supreme Court directly from the bar. The appointment of Justice Ranjana Desai to the court now means that women finally have a stronger claim to the court than the court’s own bar. However, the fact remains that where S.M. Sikri, a bar judge, served as the Chief Justice of India (during the historic Basic Structure hearings, no less), not a single woman has become the Chief Justice of India.

S.M. SIKRI. In the 1960s he was the only judge to be appointed at age 55, and the only one in that decade to be appointed directly from the bar. He went on to serve as Chief Justice of India and presided over the historic case on the “basic structure” of the Constitution.

Despite these statistical inferences, the three new selections for appointment to the Supreme Court must be welcomed, even as we look to see how the Chief Justice of India populates the remaining six vacancies during his tenure.

Abhinav Chandrachud is the author of Due Process of Law (EBC 2011), and, starting this Fall, a research fellow at Stanford Law School.

ORIGIN: http://www.frontline.in/stories/20111021282104900.htm

We don’t want to bleed anymore

leave a comment »

(Image of the delegates to the first meeting o...

Image via Wikipedia

PUBLISHED IN ZEE NEWS INDIA

When the general secretary of the Congress party, Rahul Gandhi walked into the RML Hospital premises on September 07 after the Delhi High Court blast, slogans were shouted against him. And so were against other politicians who came to empathise with the victims and their families. This in many ways is symbolic of the growing frustration of the general public with those who govern them and the apathy with which they are treated.

India has been attacked again and again. Sample this – On March 12, 1993, Mumbai serial bombings shook the financial capital of the country killing more than 250 people. The main accused, Dawood Ibrahim is yet to be extradited to India from Pakistan. On December 13, 2001, more than a dozen people, including five gunmen, were killed in an attack on Parliament. On September 24, 2002, terrorists attacked Akshardham temple in Gujarat. In August 2003, two taxis packed with explosives blew up in Mumbai at crowded areas killing more than 50 people.

In October 2005, three bombs placed in Delhi markets, crowded with Diwali shoppers killed around 62 people and injured hundreds. In July 2006, seven bombs placed on Mumbai’s local trains killed over 200 people. Eight serial blasts rocked Jaipur in a span of 12 minutes in May 2008. On November 26, 2008, attacks on ten locations in Mumbai left more than 180 dead. Pakistani national, Ajmal Kasab has been sentenced to death with an appeal pending before the Supreme Court.

The list, sadly, goes on…

The Ram Pradhan Committee formed after 26/11 attacks to look into the lapses and recommend measures to stop further attacks, called for radical transformation of the police force. In spite of its recommendations, the beat constable is still unequipped, CCTV cameras still do not work and the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorist Squad established in 2004 is reportedly working at some 30 percent of the strength as compared to the numbers sanctioned by the government.

National Intelligence Grid was given approval by the Union Cabinet in June this year, months after the idea was first mooted. The project aimed at facilitating information-sharing among law enforcement agencies to combat terror was apparently delayed because of objections from other ministries, especially that of defence and finance, as they felt that the home ministry would have an unlimited access to all the information.

National Counter Terrorism Council (NCTC), an umbrella body to fight terror is also in the pipeline. Not sure when it will see the light of the day.

Delhi Chief Minister, after the High Court blast, had remarked that “multiplicity of agencies” created functional problem in combating terror and solving cases. To which the Home Minister P Chidambaram had replied that no single body can alone handle internal and external intelligence, policing and counter-terrorism. How often have we heard the government talk in different languages? And if statements like these do no create confusion in the minds of the citizens then what does?

On May 25, 2011, a blast took place at the Delhi High Court car park. Nonetheless it did nothing to wake up the authorities.

Home Minister recently said that Af-Pak was the epicentre of terror and that home-grown terror modules are fertilised from outside. And to a foreign television channel he said, “As far as cross-border terrorism is concerned, we have to continue to put pressure on Pakistan.”
The Indian Mujahideen gained notoriety in 2008 after taking responsibility for blasts in Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Delhi and Assam, even though it had been active since 2003. As per intelligence reports, the IM is being controlled from across the border. It was also reported recently that militants trying to infiltrate into India by June had exceeded the figures of 2010.

In this scenario what good are the photo-ops between SM Krishna and Hina Rabbani Khar, especially if the perpetrators of 26/11 cannot be brought to book? Yes, we cannot change our neighbours but we can certainly change the way we talk to them. Yes, trade and commerce are important issues, but not at the cost of losing innocent lives.

P Chidambram, was supposedly pulled back when he decided to tighten the noose around the Maoists, due to pressures from certain quarters and certain political parties. After the Batkal encounter case in Delhi, senior Congress leader Digvijay Singh, decided to visit Azamgarh. The Afzal Guru hanging case has long been in the public domain for the people to read between the lines. Isn’t it time we stop the policy of appeasement and vote-banks at the cost of bloodshed?

Congress leader Renuka Chowdhry said in a recent television debate, “Do you think that the terrorists will stop if we have a CCTV? What do you do when terrorists are ready to die?” After the serial blasts in Mumbai in July, Prithviraj Chavan, CM of Maharashtra lamented, “Terror groups are active and are able to strike at will.” Instead of statements like these, we need our leaders to send out a stern message to all terror groups that India will go after them in hot pursuit. And we also need a strong anti-terror law in place.

We have generic information about impending attacks but are we in a position to have specific and actionable and preventive attacks. Do our intelligence agencies depend too much on technical intelligence? Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed the same concern at a recent event when he said that security establishment needed to improve its, “human intelligence capabilities”.

Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley said in a television interview, post the Delhi HC blast, “The most dangerous thing is that in the last six or so blasts, the cases are by and large unsolved.”

Think over this – On December 7, 2010, a bomb went off at a Varanasi ghat killing a two-year old girl with no arrests made in the case so far. On December 19, 2010, gunmen on motorbikes shot at a tourist bus injuring two persons. It was considered to be IM’s handiwork. The case is unsolved. On July 13, 2011, triple blasts in Mumbai killed 21 persons, with IM being the prime suspect. ATS is investigating, with an arrest only very recently. On April 6, 2011, two blasts took place in Maligaon in Assam which killed 7 persons. Investigation is on, ULFA are the main suspects. Inspite of some arrests, it is said that the main culprit is still in the run. And the very recent May 25, 2011, Delhi High Court car park blast with no casualties. It too remains unsolved. And add to it the 7/11 blast again at Delhi HC – not much headway in this case either.

Yes, it is a cause for alarm if cases of terror attacks are unsolved for a long period of time.

Amidst all these spare a thought for the victims of the bomb blasts – past and present and if I may add with a dread – the future. The citizens don’t want to be saluted anymore for their so called resilience and die-hard-spirit – what they want is to live in peace and dignity. And anyways what choice do they have than to get up and get going the next day?

Yes, maybe terror attacks all over the world cannot be prevented all the time. Nonetheless, it is important for the government and the intelligence agencies of the day to be perceived as trying to do their best.

 

ORIGIN: http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/we-don-t-want-to-bleed-anymore_734644.html

Nobel peace award extends human rights tradition

leave a comment »

Norwegian Nobel Committee

Image via Wikipedia

PUBLISHED IN THE REUTERS

This year’s Nobel Peace Prize to three women from Liberia and Yemen extends the illustrious award’s tradition since the 1960s of honoring human rights and democracy activists as well as more conventional peacemakers.

Giving the award for human rights and pro-democracy activism naturally expands the concept of peace, according to the Nobel committee, but critics say it strays from the intention of Alfred Nobel, who created the prize in his 1895 will.

Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, her compatriot Leymah Gbowee and Arab activist Tawakul Karman won the prize for “for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said.

Fredrik Heffermehl, an author who argues that the five-member committee has ignored Nobel’s intention time and again, said the committee failed to explain how this year’s prizes fulfilled the will.

Nobel stipulated that the prize should go to those “who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

“The Nobel committee has disrespected this for at least 60 years,” Heffermehl, an attorney and peace activist, said. “I am not evaluating the winners, I am evaluating the committee.”

Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said the 2011 award was well within the spirit of Nobel’s will.

If the peace prize were primarily given to peace mediators or signatories to peace treaties, as in the prize’s early decades, women would have little chance of joining the honor roll of laureates, according to Nobel experts.

“There are very few female peace mediators in the world, very few women who sign peace treaties, but a full role for women would include involvement in those activities as well,” Geir Lundestad, secretary to the committee, told Reuters.

He said human rights had to include women’s rights.

Jan Egeland, a former U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian and emergency relief affairs, said peace and human rights were inseparable. “There is no peace without human rights, no human rights without peace.”

The prize created by Nobel, a Swedish philanthropist and inventor of dynamite, was in its early decades often awarded to patrician statesmen, such as U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, and arrangers of peace congresses, such as the first woman laureate Bertha von Suttner in 1905.

But with the 1960 award to South African trade unionist Alfred Lutuli, the scope of the prize expanded from its roots in peace-making and disarmament to the battle for human rights.

That paved the way to prizes to many rights and democracy advocates and dissidents opposing authoritarian regimes, such as Andrei Sakarov in the Soviet Union in 1975, Lech Walesa in Poland in 1983, Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar in 1991 and last year’s laureate, Chinese human rights activist Liu Xiaobo.

The fight against poverty and hunger was taken on board with prizes to American agronomist Norman Borlaug in 1970, Mother Theresa of Calcutta in 1979 and Bangladeshi economist Mohammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank in 2006.

The scope of the prize was widened further to encompass environmental protection and climate activism with the awards to Kenya’s Wangari Maathai in 2004 and former U.S. vice president Al Gore and U.N. climate scientists in 2007.

Egeland said the activism of Johnson-Sirleaf, Gbowee and Karman was part of a “momentous trend of dictatorships being followed by democracies” since the 1970s.

“That has happened over only one generation, and the Arab Spring follows the Latin American spring and the Eastern European spring, and soon we will seen Central Asian springs and other Asian springs,” Egeland said.

 

Origin: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/07/us-nobel-peace-tradition-idUSTRE79653P20111007

Judicial activism Of corrupt individuals, media trial and justice

with 2 comments

Supreme Court of India - Central Wing

Image via Wikipedia

PUBLISHED IN GREATER KASHMIR

The recent past has witnessed a good measure of writs, orders and directions from the Supreme Court of India which could be termed classical examples of Judicial Activism, an expression used invariably to connote meaning when courts pronounce on matters which usually and in the ordinary course of things do not fall within their well defined areas of operation or jurisdiction. Legally the courts in these matters may not be lacking jurisdiction totally, but as a matter of practice which over a long period of time has hardened into an unwritten rule, the courts do not interfere in such matters as are best left to the discretion or powers of the Executive or Legislature.
There might have been instances of judicial activism in the country in the past but then the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers was never lost sight of. The Supreme Court of India while dealing with various matters and while giving new dimensions to the concept of rule of law and taking the concept of rule of law to higher legal heights had always refrained from making pronouncements on matters of public policy followed by the executive. Thus the often spoken about doctrine-of-separation of powers between the judiciary, executive and parliament was respected and clearly kept in mind.
Without going into finer details as to what could be termed as judicial activism or pure judicial functioning and not trying to lay down lines of distinction between the two, let us come straight way to the recent unusual decisions or directions of Supreme Court which have once again brought the debate to the fore. All this started when in the recent past Mr. Subramanium Swami approached the Supreme Court of India seeking directions on to CBI to probe in to the 2 G Scam. In his petition Mr. Swami maintained that he had written to the Prime Minister of India to grant sanction for the prosecution of Mr. Raja the then Telecom Minister but the Prime Minister did not grant the same, he further said that he had written to the Prime Minister in this connection in November, 2008. Till then no FIR was lodged in 2G Scam. One wonders as to how the Prime Minister could grant sanction to prosecute Mr. Raja merely on the petition of Mr. Swami. However, an FIR was lodged in 2G Scam in October, 2009 and the Supreme Court started to monitor investigation into the case. What followed is history.
The accused in 2G Scam where subjected to media trial on the one hand and on the other hand the Supreme Court of India while monitoring the investigation acted in a method and manner, that gave rise to many legal ponderables, for instance that one of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, ‘an accused is presumed to be innocent till his guilt is proved beyond doubt at the trial of the case’ was given a burial and an impression was created that whatever the investigating agency comes forthwith is the gospel truth and that as if the guilt of the accused was already proved, so much so that the concession of bail to the accused persons was also denied to them. Though the case even if proved, does not carry death penalty not even life imprisonment as punishment. In thousands of cases across the country which are heinous in nature and where the allegations are grave, but do not carry death penalty as punishment accused are enjoying the benefit of bail because in the legal system in this country bail and not jail is the rule, especially at the pre-trial stage. However, in the case under discussion again the cardinal principal of law relating to bail that (bail is not to be with held as a matter of punishment) was given a good bye. That the accused is presumed to be innocent and the presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused till proved guilty beyond any shadow of doubt and he has right to remain on bail as a presumable innocent person, all this and many other principles of criminal jurisprudence and criminal justice system received a burial.
Any one belonging to legal profession with even slight understanding of the criminal jurisprudence and criminal justice system, can safely say that in the heat and dust created by such cases as 2G Scam, the courts of the country have allowed the long respected cardinal principles of criminal justice system to become a causality and in fact have made these so.

 

A pertinent question stares one in his or her eye that as to what purpose of law and justice is served by keeping Kalanmozi in continued judicial custody, would she flee justice if she was allowed bail? Women are allowed bail even in cases which involve death penalty or life imprisonment as punishment. Kalanmozi is an ML P. and very well known person in her own rights and has very strong roots in society. Therefore, there is no reason in law to withhold her bail.
Another disturbing instance is Hassan Ali’s case, why is he still in jail, when the allegations against him are failing apart in spite of what the investigating agency had to publicize about him and in spite of very strong observations of the Supreme Court in his case. He was put to media trial much before his actual trial in a court of law would start and people were given to believe that Hassan Ali is involved in money laundering in a big way and that he is the king pin in the matter of stashing black money in foreign banks. He was publicized to be owing Rupees Seventy Two Thousands crores of income tax to the country by the investigating agency and in a rush perhaps the Supreme Court not only formed a S.I.T. to investigate the black money stashed in foreign banks but also at one point in time observed that why shouldn’t the government invoke terror laws against him. His bail was cancelled and he was jailed. His rights which the Constitution gives him were violated by the very judiciary which is supposed to protect tire fundamental rights of the citizens, which includes the accused persons also.
(The author is advocate J&K High Court)

ORIGIN: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Sep/15/judicial-activism-83.asp

Constitution versus Reality in India

leave a comment »

PREAMBLE OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

India has been surpassing or probably under-passing the vast public upsurge and constitutional multi-interpretations these days.

Our preamble of the constitution says “we the people of India adopt enact and give to ourselves this constitution” and at the same time it’s also said that “the parliament is supreme”. Now the crisis arises, who is supreme? “We the people” or “the parliament (which is elected by we the people)”?
But again, another question arises, who constitutes “we the people”. I? you? They?, who??
Did the crowd of people gathered in Ramlila grounds few days back, or the crowds in various other cities of the country, or the total of them combined, qualify to be called themselves as “we the people”?
May be “yes” may be “no”.
But let’s think again, who was supposed to be “we the people” during the time when this constitution was enacted in India? It will be quite indigestible to accept that the millions of illiterate, poor and starving population, who constituted almost 90 percent of Indian population during the time of enactment of this constitution, were aware of the literatures inside it. The constitution had the sanctity of “we the people” not on it’s technical provisions, but on its moral grounds, of it being designed and compiled by “our government” and not “the British”. Moral beliefs, that this constitution being made by “our” parliamentarians is “ours” and hence will work for our upliftment and empowerment; that this constitution will never defy our rights of living a happy life as the British did.
An extraordinary interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court of India said, “The basic structure” of the constitution can not be changed. So a new group of words “basic structure”! What is it? Basic structure refers not to the technical grounds of the write-ups in our constitution, but to the moral grounds of it; and the moral grounds of our constitution refers to the same degree of belief that “we the people” had during the time of its enactment.
The Anna hazare blow, which spread like a jungle fire in India, a few days back, made it very much clear that there is a widespread trust deficit regarding the holiness of our parliamentarians. The declination of the politician’s status has not been sudden, rather episodic. It has not only been the recent exposure of scams that fuelled the masses but also the irregularities prevailing in the government offices since the time our government took over from British.
They called it “the second fight for independence”. Was it?
This mass eruption of public anguish was, in a way, designed and planned by our constitution; after all it was not indigenous, it is a blend of copies of the constitution prevailing in western world, largely USA and UK. Not doubting of the great work of Baba Bhimrao Ambedkar, because it was the only option available with us after the British sucked off the majority of our physical and intellectual resources to the level of starvation. The constitution we adopted was no doubtably a good base for us to start with, but we missed “Indianizing” it sufficiently.
Even though we added directive principles of states policy in our constitution, we have been sluggish in implementing it. Didn’t we miss the level of accountability and cross-interaction of people with governance as it was during The great emperor Ashoka’s reign? Didn’t we miss out the mechanisms to judge the morality, holiness and capabilities of a “mantri”(minister) before assigning him the seat as was mentioned in kautilya’s Arthashashtra? Didn’t we miss the mechanisms adopted by The great Guptas, who almost proved their reign to be in comparison with the reign of The great Lord Ram?
India’s glorious history has not been only gold and diamonds, but much more than it, we told the world how to administer such a large area of land with the highest degree of happiness, faith and trust; and it’s a strange irony today that we ourselves have lost a grip on it.
The British with about 200 years of colonial exploitation tried to flush out all our glorious legacies including gold and diamonds, and embedded a new terminology in our dictionary called “British legacy”. I call it a “British interference”. It’s the result of the same “British interference” which made us loose our links with our glorious legacy of administration.
In my school exam, I once copied an answer from my neighbor’s sheet, the teacher while checking the papers asked me to stand up, gave me my answer sheet and told me to explain the meaning of that answer. Reluctantly i tried to explain it in my words, but was constantly looking here and there in panic and was praying for no cross questions. I am sure I was neither able to understand nor explain completely what I had written.
Is the situation same here? Here in the parliament?
Justice Saumitra sen, being in the middle of the way of his removal through the parliamentary procedures, offers his resignation, leading again to a debate whether to his removal proceedings should still be processed or it should be suspended out? Who knows the answers?
We the people? The parliamentarians? Or the mentors of the original constitution?
Or if no one knows, let’s give it to the Supreme Court to think about what our basic structure of constitution says.
There are laws prevailing in our country which still insist on payment of penalties of some 10 rupees for certain crimes. Who will give an explanation to it? The Supreme Court?

I am afraid it may not.

Is it high time we make a substantial change in our constitutional books and encrypt the basic structure of governance as it was in our legacy?
India is not merely a head count of 1.2 billion people, neither it’s only some thick books of history, nor is it only the 7thlargest landscape in the world. India is in blood of its people, and that blood runs from the great lord ram to Guptas, Marathas, cholas, chalukyas and Mauryas; and Indians will not accept any other form of governance except what they have been offered in the ancient past. The recent mass Indian upsurge with its active interference in parliamentary affairs has yet been an example for it.
Calling it the second war of independence?
It is said, defeating “your enemies” will give you physical independence but defeating the “enemies in you” gives you total independence. So calling it the first war of independence, too holds a strong justification.
But the question still persists, was this rise for a war of independence, or rather a yet another stronger demonstration of the episodic resentment? Will the “British interference” still cast its shadows on our constitutional provisions? Or the gestation period “Indianization” is over?
India will surely and compulsively modify its long hailed constitution to offer the basic structures of it in genuine reality. The time seems close. But may not be close too.
COURTESY: OYE TIMES

Is the death penalty about to die?

with 4 comments

https://i1.wp.com/www.hindustantimes.com/images/HTPopups/040911/04_09_pg16b.jpg

The Madras High Court‘s order last week staying the execution of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi‘s three killers has triggered a fresh debate on the desirability of the death penalty in India. The court also asked the government to explain why it took 11 years for the president to reject the trio’s mercy pleas.

President Pratibha Patil rejected them in early August. The Tamil Nadu assembly then passed a unanimous resolution requesting the president to reconsider her decision. Politicians in Punjab are making a similar demand for Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, convicted of a 1993 terror attack in Delhi that claimed several lives. Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah reflected the sentiment in his state when he tweeted that had his state assembly passed a similar resolution about Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru reactions would not have been so muted.

The BJP favours the death penalty for such criminals, but Congress leaders have been airing their personal views for or against it. The Indian intelligentsia – the media, academics and the judiciary is also divided about the issue.

A look at the debate:

Punishment is a natural response to crime
This principle is almost universally accepted and that letting off criminals can result in vigilante justice. Also, the punishment has to be proportionate to the degree of wrongdoing and mitigating circumstances have to be considered while deciding the quantum of punishment. It goes without saying that the accused will be given a fair chance to defend himself/herself.

But various societies in different parts of the world react to crime in different ways. While some, such as a few Arab countries, choose retributive punishment of “an eye for an eye”, others have deterrent punishment. Of late, there has been a shift towards restorative and reformist approaches to punishment, including in India.

Death Penalty in India
Capital crimes are murder, gang robbery with murder, abetting the suicide of a child or insane person, waging war against the government and abetting mutiny by a member of the armed forces. In recent years, the death penalty has also been imposed under a new anti-terrorism legislation for people convicted of terrorist activities.

Is the judiciary becoming averse to the death penalty?
Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was added to the Code in 1973, requires a judge to give “special reasons” for awarding death sentences. In 1980, in the Bachan Singh case, the Supreme Court propounded the “rarest of rare” doctrine and since then, the life sentence is the rule and the death sentence the exception.

But recently, the Supreme Court refused to impose the capital punishment in the Graham Staines, Jessica Lall and Priyadarshini Mattoo murder cases on the ground that these did not fall within the category of “rarest of rare.” Is the judiciary becoming averse to capital punishment?

According to senior advocate KTS Tulsi, the vice chairman of the Law Commision of India, “India has found a perfect balance by retaining the death penalty as a deterrent, yet invoking it only in exceptional cases. While the deterrent effect is maintained, the possibility of an erroneous execution is minimised. Compared with China, Japan, Arab countries and the US, the use of capital punishment in India has been minimal.”

Moratorium on the death penalty
In December 2007, India voted against a UN resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. But in effect, there has been a moratorium on the death penalty in India. Since 1995 there has been only one execution, that of Dhananjoy Chatterjee, in August 2004.

The judiciary appears to be hesitant in awarding the death penalty. The executive has disposed of several mercy petitions in the past few months, but around 20 such pleas, including that of Afzal Guru, are still pending before the president.

According to Amnesty International, in India, at least 100 people in 2007, 40 in 2006, 77 in 2005, 23 in 2002, and 33 in 2001 were sentenced, but not executed, to death.

Rajiv Gandhi Killers’ case is a test case
The Rajiv Gandhi Killers’ case is going to be a test case for death penalty in India. Whatever be the Madras HC decision, the matter is bound to go to the Supreme Court, which could lay down guidelines for timely disposal of mercy petitions. If the court rules that inordinate delay is a ground for converting a death penalty to life imprisonment, then it would have bearing on all pending mercy petitions, including that of Afzal Guru.

World moving towards abolition of death penalty
According to Amnesty International, more than two-thirds of countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Ninety-six countries have abolished capital punishment for all crimes while nine have done away with it for ordinary crimes. Further, 34 countries have abolished it either in law or in practice. Only 58 countries retain this extreme form of punishment.

Should India abolish the death penalty?
“No”, says former additional solicitor general of India Vikas Singh. “Generally, a punishment should be aimed at reforming the criminal. But in some cases, such as in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case or Parliament attack case, you have to give a deterrent punishment, for the simple reason that you can not reform these criminals. Can you reform Kasab (26/11 convict)?”

But Suhas Chakma, the director of the Asian Centre for Human Rights, disagrees. “The death penalty has failed to act as a deterrent against any crime. It’s nothing but retribution. Such medieval justice does not reflect the ethos of Mahatma Gandhi. India should abolish the death penalty and join the league of civilised countries.”

COURTESY: HINDUSTAN TIMES

It is a long journey ahead: Kejriwal

leave a comment »

ARVIND KEJRIWAL

‘We want to pressure the government and assert our rights as citizens.’

Arvind Kejriwal received the Magsaysay award in the Emergent leadership category in 2006. A mere five years later, he has far surpassed that milestone, winning acclaim and notice for the way he conceived and crafted Anna Hazare‘s anti-corruption movement. He talks to Vidya Subrahmaniamabout the Jan Lokpal campaign, what it accomplished and why it often became controversial.

The scale and spread of the Anna movement have baffled many. How did this happen?

A movement cannot be created out of nothing. In this case, anger against corruption was at the point of eruption. Then two things happened. One, instead of merely echoing the anger, the Jan Lokpal Bill (JLB) offered a solution. Second, Anna emerged as a credible leader at a time of huge leadership crisis in politics. See, people did not understand the details of the JBL. They simply saw it as a “dawai” [medicine] for corruption. It is the combination of a solution and a figure like Anna — who lived in a temple with no assets — that clicked.

When we conducted referendums on the JLB, we used to try and explain its contents to people. But they said they did not want to understand the details. They just wanted to put a mohar [stamp] on Anna.

How did you communicate your message to such a large number of people?

Technology played a key role in this. When in January this year, India Against Corruption (IAC) member Shivendra suggested to us that we use Facebook to publicise our rallies, I dismissed it saying Facebook has a limited, urban following. But Shivendra went ahead. We had planned a single rally on January 30 at the Ramlila Maidan. But because we connected on Facebook, we were able to conduct simultaneous rallies in 64 cities. SMS texting also played a critical role. Our SMS communication was designed very intelligently. A company in Mumbai suggested we ask for missed calls as a mark of solidarity. Missed calls cost nothing. In March, we sent out two crore SMS messages and got 50,000 missed calls. Then we targeted the 50,000 callers, asking if they would like to enrol as volunteers for IAC. Initially 13 people responded. We sent two more rounds of messages to the 50,000 callers. And in just one week, the number of volunteers swelled to 800.

Surely television played a disproportionate role in projecting the movement.

TV certainly helped, both when Anna sat on a fast at Jantar Mantar and then at Ramlila Maidan. But the media cannot create a moment. They can at best magnify it. The crowds at Ramlila and the crowds that followed him when he left for Medanta hospital were not manufactured.

There have been reports of dissensions within the Anna camp. Also that the deadlock was broken only because Congress/government negotiators spoke directly to Anna.

Anna appointed Kiran Bedi, Prashant Bhushan and me to negotiate with the government. One day I was very tired and Kiran was also not around. So, Medha and Prashant went for the meeting. The next thing we hear [from the media] is that Kiran and I have been sidelined, that we are hardliners, and we are deliberately preventing Anna from breaking his fast. This was disinformation by the government.

You started with the maximalist position of “Jan Lokpal Bill by August 30 and any amendments only with Anna’s permission.” From that to accepting a “sense-of-the-house” resolution that was not voted upon — wasn’t it a climbdown?

When we started on August 16, there was such an overwhelming response that we thought the government would agree to our demands. People wanted the JLB. After a few days we realised that there was a serious leadership crisis in the government — negotiators were constantly backing off. In the last three days of the fast, it happened four times. The Prime Minister made a conciliatory statement, Rahul Gandhi went off on a tangent. Salman Khurshid, Medha and Prashant sat together and drafted a resolution. Next day [August 27], at 1.30 p.m., Salman said no resolution. It became clear to us that what we wanted — Parliament voting on a resolution containing Anna’s three demands — was not going to happen. Therefore we had to change our strategy.

Are you satisfied with the resolution that was adopted? It is not categorical and leaves escape clauses.

We are satisfied because it contains Anna’s three demands. It will not be easy for the Standing Committee to renege on Parliament’s commitment. We will be keenly watching the Committee’s proceedings and the MPs also ought to know that they are on watch. I know, of course, that it is a long journey ahead.

Kiran Bedi told a TV channel that at one point when all seemed lost, a miracle happened: L.K. Advani called her and gave her his word that a solution will be reached by the following evening [August 27]. She also said that the Bharatiya Janata Party, which until then was ambiguous on the JLB, changed its stand and offered full support to Anna.

We met the leaders of the main political parties thrice and as part of this we also met Mr. Advani. However, we have been clear that no BJP leader or leader of any communal organisation will share the stage with us. This is the decision of our core committee. As for Kiran talking about Mr. Advani, please put that question to her.

So are you an apolitical movement?

No, we are political but we are concerned with people’s politics. The movement will always remain outside of political parties and outside of electoral politics.

You will not float a political party?

No, never. We don’t need to get into the system to fight it. We want to pressure the government and assert our rights as citizens. Everyone who has a dream need not get into politics.

Doubts have been raised about the credentials of those who have donated money to IAC. Sometime ago, a citizens’ group from Hyderabad wrote to you saying it was shocked to see some very discredited names in your list of donors.

A number of people have contributed money to the Anna movement. There is complete transparency from our side. Our receipts and expenditure are transparent. But we have no mechanism to go into the antecedents of our donors. And donations are streaming in, making it impossible to keep track. If there is a glaring case, we will certainly investigate it. I know, for instance, that there has been talk of the Jindal group. But those who donated to IAC are from Sitaram Jindal, not the Jindal mining group.

Your entire fight is about transparency and accountability. One of your NGOs, Public Cause Research Foundation, received donations on behalf of IAC and issued receipts in its name. But until August 29, there was no mention of Anna or the donations on the PCRF website.

That is an oversight. We will immediately update the website and provide a link to IAC.

Another of your NGOs, Kabir, received grants from the Ford Foundation (FF). According to the FF, Kabir received $172,000 in 2005 and $197,000 in 2008. The FF also sanctioned an “in-principle” grant of $200,000 for 2011, which you have not accepted so far. Why does Kabir not mention the FF and these specific details on its website?

We did not give the specific details because we also got some other NRI contributions and these were clubbed together. I will make sure that the website gives the break-up.

Fears have been expressed about the form of mobilisation we saw over the last four months. There was anger and impatience and, some would say, coercion in your methods. During the Ram Rath yatra, too, the BJP said people were angry because the mandir had not been built for 40 years. Aren’t you setting a worrying precedent?

The two situations are not comparable. One was communal and divisive and went against the grain of the Constitution. We are not asking for anything illegal. Our demands resonate with the people and our movement has been unifying, non-violent and entirely within rights given by the Constitution. What is wrong if people demand a strong law against corruption? What is wrong if they ask for the Jan Lokpal Bill?

Why did you ask for Parliamentary due process to be suspended? You didn’t want the JLB to go to the Standing Committee.

The JLB was drafted after wide consultations; it underwent many revisions based on feedback. Where is this kind of discussion in the drafting of anysarkari Bill? The purpose of the Standing Committee is to take multiple views on board. But not all Bills reach the Standing Committee, and in 90 per cent of the cases, the government does not accept the Committee’s recommendations. So why the fuss only for JLB which has been widely discussed and debated?

COURTESY: THE HINDU