New Delhi,  The Supreme Court Wednesday said it will decide on pleas for commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on the grounds of delay purely on the basis of law without being influenced by politics.

“If there are 20 people sentenced to death, then … some must have the support of some group or other… some have no godfather. How do we deal with this?” Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya said while hearing a petition by Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, who is on death row, and his wife Navneet Kaur.

Bhullar’s hearing seeking commutation of his death sentence to life term on the grounds of inordinate delay in deciding on his mercy plea will now come up for hearing Oct 18.

He was sentenced to death for his involvement in the 1993 car bomb blast at the Youth Congress office here.

The observation assumes significance in the wake of the Tamil Nadu assembly passing a resolution seeking the commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment to former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins.

New Delhi,  The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Tuesday told the Supreme Court that former Gujarat minister Amit Shah was the “commander of crime syndicate with some officials of state police as its foot soldiers” who would eliminate crucial witnesses in the 2005 Sohrabuddin Sheikh staged shootout.

The apex court bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai was told that at every stage of the investigation, either the witness was made to retract his statement or was eliminated.

Additional Solicitor General Vivek Tankha referred to the instance of prosecution witness Azam Khan retracting his statement and the alleged staged shootout killing of witness Tulsiram Prajapati to buttress his argument.

Shah has been named as an accused in the case.

On Oct 29, 2010, the Gujarat High Court granted bail to Shah but the very next day, the CBI moved the apex court seeking the cancellation of bail.

The apex court, while keeping the CBI plea pending, directed Shah to stay away from Gujarat and the situation continues till date.

Khan was abducted and forced to retract and even before the investigating officer could have been granted permission to travel to Rajasthan to record Prajapati’s statement, he was killed in a staged gunfight, Tankha told the apex court.

Khan retracted his statement a few days before the high court heard Shah’s plea for bail that was rejected by a trial court in Ahmedabad, he said.

“It is a telling commentary on how the entire machinery of the state is geared to erase evidence,” Tankha told the court.

The court was told that Shah made nearly 25 phone calls to Gujarat Police officer N.K. Amin during the days when Sohrabuddin’s wife Kausarbi was allegedly killed.

Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani earlier objected to Tankha describing as “fabricated” a document that was relied upon by Shah to contend that the investigating agency was pressing for his arrest so that some people could be brought as witnesses against him.

Sheikh was killed in a staged shootout by Gujarat Police Nov 26, 2005.

New Delhi,  The Supreme Court Tuesday said that Himachal Pradesh was entitled to 7.19 percent of the power from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas hydropower projects and awarded compensation to the hill state.

The compensation, which will be calculated by the central government, would be paid by Punjab and Haryana as the two states were the beneficiaries of the denial of power to Himachal Pradesh over the last few decades.

Himachal Pradesh had sought 12 percent of the power generated by the Bhakra Beas Management Board hydropower projects in the state.

The cost of excess power consumed by Chandigarh would be borne by Punjab and Haryana as it happens to be the capital of both the states.

The apex court bench of Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice A.K. Patnaik said: “It is hereby declared” that Himachal Pradesh is “entitled to 7.19 percent of the power of the composite state of Punjab from the Bhakra-Nangal project with effect from Nov 1, 1966, and from Beas project with effect from the dates of production in unit I and unit II.”

Justice Patnaik said that Himachal “would be given its share of 7.19 percent as decreed in this judgment” from November 2011.

Himachal Pradesh had contended that since 7.19 percent of the total population of the composite state of Punjab was transferred along with the territories to the newly created state of Himachal Pradesh under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, it was entitled to 7.19 percent of the total power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas projects.

This stand of Himachal Pradesh was upheld by the recommendation of the former chairman of the Central Electrical Authority K.S. Subrahmanyam in his report June 29, 1979.

“Equal treatment warranted” that Himachal Pradesh was “allocated 7.19 percent of the total power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas projects” after excluding the power allocated to Rajasthan from Nov 1, 1966 as defined in the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.

The court ordered that the central government would work out the details of the claim of Himachal Pradesh on the basis of its entitlement along with the entitlement of Punjab at 51.8 percent and Haryana at 37.51 percent. Chandigarh was allocated 3.5 percent of the total power production.

The court said that for the calculation of amount due to Himachal Pradesh from Punjab and Haryana, the power already received by the hill state from Bhakra-Nangal and Beas have to be deducted from the quantum of power 7.19 percent allocated to it till October 2011.

The central government has been directed to file the statement on the claim of Himachal Pradesh in the apex court within six months stating the amounts due to the hill state from Punjab and Haryana.

The court directed Punjab and Haryana to pay Rs.5 lakh each as cost to Himachal Pradesh and directed the listing of the matter after six months.

New Delhi,  The Portuguese Supreme Court has cancelled the extradition of alleged mobster Abu Salem to India but the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said it would challenge the verdict.

Salem had contended before the Portuguese court that his extradition should be cancelled as the conditions for this had not been met. However, this plea “has been rejected by the Supreme Court. Therefore, CBI is on a secure wicket,” CBI spokesperson Dharini Mishra told reporters.

She said the agency would approach the external affairs ministry on filing an appeal in Portugal’s Supreme Court challenging the decision.

Salem’s lawyer, however, expressed confidence the extradition would be overturned.

“His extradition could be revoked as conditions of the extradition orders have not been complied by the Indian side,” lawyer S. Pasgola told IANS in Mumbai.

Now, the Portuguese government will write to the Indian Government again seeking Salem’s custody, Pasgola said.

However, he declined to hazard a guess on when the inter-government procedures would be initiated or how long it would take.

Abu Salem and his girlfriend Monica Bedi, who were living in Portugal under a fake identities, were extradited to India in 2005. Salem face charges in various cases, including that relating to the 1993 Mumbai blasts, the Pradeep Jain murder case, extortions, fake passports, arms, ammunitions and explosives and other serious crimes in different courts around the country.

Earlier, he was lodged in Mumbai’s high-security Arthur Road Central Jail, but presently, he is kept in Taloja Jail in Raigad district, around 100 kms south of Mumbai.

New Delhi,  The Delhi High Court Tuesday issued a contempt notice to veteran Congress leader N.D. Tiwari for defying its order directing him to give his blood sample in a paternity suit filed by 32-year-old man claiming to be his son.

Justice Geeta Mittal, referring to her Sep 23 judgment in which she had termed Tiwari’s refusal to submit the blood sample “wilful, malicious, unreasonable and unjustified”, issued the notice, returnable for Feb 14.

Meanwhile, the court has directed the claimant Rohit Shekhar, his mother Ujjwala Sharma and her former husband B.P. Sharma to appear before the joint registrar Oct 20 to give their blood samples for a DNA test.

Kochi,  The Kerala High Court Tuesday asked the vigilance court investigating if Chief Minister Oommen Chandy, then finance minister, had any role in the 1992 palmoil import case to stop any further probe.

A single bench of Justice K.T.Shankaran gave the order on a petition from senior bureaucrat and an accused in the case Jiji Thompson, who pleaded that his promotions have been hampered in the case going on for years.

The judge asked for all the records of the vigilance probe and posted the next hearing in the case for Oct 17.

The case was in the news when vigilance court judge P.K.Haneefa Aug 8 rejected the vigilance department’s report that gave a clean chit to Chandy. He asked the department to to further investigate Chandy’s role and submit the report in three months’ time.

Since then the opposition was up in arms and demanded that Chandy should go. However, Congress chief whip P.C.George then shot off a letter to President Pratibha Patil and the chief justices of both the Supreme Court and the high court here, contending that Haneefa’s action was against the law and citing a few apex court judgments in support of his claim.

Following the letter, Haneefa Saturday relinquished the case and requested the high court to make alternate arrangements.

The case, relating to the import of 15,000 tonnes of palmoil, was registered in 1999 when a Left Front government led by E.K. Nayanar was in power.

The previous chief minister K. Karunakaran, his food minister T.H. Mustafa and bureaucrats P.J. Thomas and Jiji Thompson were charged with causing a loss of Rs.2.32 crore by importing oil from Malaysia at an enhanced price.

The case against Karunakaran was dropped after his death, and Thomas resigned as the Chief Vigilance Commissioner after his controversial selection for the post became the subject of a case in the Supreme Court.

New Delhi,  Senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader L.K. Advani’s former aide Sudheendra Kulkarni Tuesday appeared before a Delhi court, in response to a summons, for his alleged role in the 2008 cash-for-vote scam.

Kulkarni appeared before Special Judge Sangita Dhingra Sehgal after failing to do so Sep 6 and Sep 19 as he was in the US.

He has applied for an interim bail.

The court had Sep 19 warned Kulkarni’s counsel that if he failed to appear on the next date of hearing, the court would issue an arrest warrant against him.

“The charge against me is false and politically motivated. My role in the entire matter was that of a whistle blower,” Kulkarni told mediapersons outside the Tis Hazari court complex here.

“Along with my associates, three BJP MPs and Suhail Hindustani, I attempted to expose the purchase of MPs for securing victory in the confidence vote that the then government was seeking in the Lok Sabha,” Kulkarni said.

“I am not running away from anyone. I am ready to go to jail if exposing corruption is a crime,” he added.

The bail plea of Rajya Sabha member and former Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh is also slated for hearing in the court. Another co-accused, Sanjeev Saxena’s bail plea is also to be heard Tuesday.

On July 22, 2008, three BJP members of the Lok Sabha waved wads of currency notes inside the house ahead of the scheduled trust vote, alleging they were given the money to vote in favour of the Manmohan Singh government.

New Delhi,  The Supreme Court Monday asked the central government to state its position on the export of the endosulfan insecticide stocks lying in production units.

The court was hearing a plea seeking a complete ban on production, sale, distribution and use of the farm insecticide blamed for causing ailments in humans.

An apex court bench of Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice Swatanter Kumar said: “On Friday we will hear (the centre) and pass the order.”

The court’s direction to the centre came after the joint expert committee (JEC) set up by it said that the “manufacturers and formulators have export orders of 1,734 MT of endosulfan technical and 292.5 KL of formulation. Hence, these amounts can be exported.”

The JEC report said that “export can be made to all countries where the use of endosulfan is still permitted” and the “the conditions for the export of endosulfan are as per the current registration for export under the Insecticide Act, 1968″.

Appearing for the endosulfan manufacturers, senior counsel Harish Salve opposed the plea for a week’s time to go through the JEC report as the same was given to other parties to dispute, including petitioner Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) – the CPI-M’s youth wing – two days ago.

Salve said that every day mattered to the industry as it had export commitments which had to be honoured by December. He said that the ban on exports was denting India’s share in the global endosulfan market.

Appearing for the centre, Additional Solicitor General Gourab Banerji told the court that there could be a ban on the production, sale and distribution of endosulfan within the country but there had to be a substitute insecticide to take its place.

Banerji said that there had to be a balance between the concern for the environment and the requirements of agriculture in the country.

New Delhi,  The Supreme Court Monday said that members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) whose names do not figure in the final list of regular practitioners would not be entitled to either vote or contest the election for the office bearers of the apex body of lawyers.

“The members of the SCBA, whose names do not figure in the final list of regular practitioners, shall not be entitled to either vote for election of the office bearers of the SCBA or to contest any of the posts for which elections would be held by,” said an apex court bench of Justice J.M. Panchal and Justice H.L. Gokhale.

After preparation of the final list of the regular practitioners, each member shall give a written intimation to the association whether he was a member of another court annexed bar, the judgment read.

Justice Panchal said that it would be mandatory for a member, whose name was included in the list, to give a permanent declaration that he would vote only in the SCBA and would not vote in any of the election of any high court bar association or district bar association or taluka bar association or associations of quasi-judicial bodies.

A copy of this declaration shall be displayed on the website of the SCBA as well as on the notice board of the SCBA, the judgment said.

The court said that such an information would be sent to all the bar associations.

“Once such a declaration has been given, it will be valid till it is revoked and once it is revoked a member shall forfeit his right to vote or contest any election to any post to be conducted by the SCBA, for a period of three years from the date of revocation,” said the judges.

For the identification of the regular practicing lawyers appearing in the matters before the apex court, the judges said that the criteria adopted by the court for allotment of chambers should be adopted by the SCBA.

Under the said criteria, an advocate on record has to do 20 filings of cases in a year, a lawyer has to appear in 50 cases and an arguing counsel has to argue 50 cases to be eligible for the allotment of a chamber.

This court recommended names of three senior counsel – K.K. Venugopal, P.P. Rao and Ranjit Kumar – as the members of a committee for implementing its directions.

New Delhi,  The Supreme Court Monday dismissed a petition by former Indian Premier League (IPL) commissioner Lalit Modi seeking an independent inquiry into the allegations of financial irregularities against him.

An apex court bench of Justice J.M. Panchal and Justice H.L. Gokhale said that “a mere apprehension of bias cannot be a ground for interference. There must exist a real danger of bias”.

Justice Gokhale said that Modi may have an apprehension but it was not possible to say from the material on record that “he was facing a real danger of bias”.

The court said that “though such domestic inquiries have undoubtedly to be fair, a member of a society cannot stretch the principle of fairness to the extent of demanding a tribunal consisting of outsiders, on the basis that the society members are biased against him”.

Modi had challenged the composition of the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) disciplinary committee set up to probe allegations against him.

The three-member committee including Arun Jaitley, Jyotiraditya Scindia, and cricket administrator Chirayu Amin.

Modi had contended that the committee was not free from bias as it included Amin, who along with the then cricketing board’s president Shashank Manohar, had decided to hold inquiry against him.

The judgment said Modi had not raised objection to the presence of Jaitley and Scindia. He had only contested the presence of Amin in the panel. The court said that apprehension of bias against “Amin is not well founded”.

“Merely because all the members of a society have participated in the discussion concerning such allegation, the society can’t be expected to appoint an outsider to hold the disciplinary proceeding,” the court said.

“That apart, only a prima facie opinion is formed in such meetings. Merely because a member has participated in such a meeting, he cannot be accused of bias to disentitle him from being appointed on the disciplinary committee,” the court said.

“In this way, institutional bias can be alleged against every member of the governing council of IPL and the general body of the first respondent (BCCI) which cannot be accepted,” the court said.

“We cannot presume that the three-member committee will not afford the petitioner a fair hearing, or that it will not render unbiased findings,” the judges said.

“If the members or the managing committee of a society receive a complaint of any misconduct on the part of any of its office bearers, surely the subject is expected to be taken up in the general body meeting of the society,” the judgment said, dismissing Modi’s petition.