HC refuses 'maintenance' to foreigner couple stuck in India

HC refuses 'maintenance' to foreigner couple stuck in India

The Bombay High Court has said foreigners stranded in India due to pending criminal cases cannot seek maintenance to sustain themselves. As reported by DNA

Singapore national Zainab Yousuf (57) and her Japanese husband Teytsyo Hiryama (62) had sought maintenance from the state government.

Yousuf and Hiryama found themselves in an unusual predicamment: acquitted and set free by High Court, although not having permission to leave country since the appeal is pending.

Advocate Ayaz Khan, their advocate, argued that they had no source of livelihood here. Relying on article 21 of Constitution (right to life), Khan moved High Court for maintenance.

The two of them were arrested at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport here for possession of Hashish and were convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment in 2006.

But in January 2009, they were acquitted from the High Court. However, customs appealed it in the Supreme Court, and authorities didn't issue them 'exit visa'.

Yesterday, rejecting their plea, division bench of justice PB Majmudar and justice RG Ketkar said that "even for citizens of this country (India) who cannot maintain themselves, there isn't any policy to offer shelter and maintenance. At the most the petitioners may obtain a work permit."

HC refuses 'maintenance' to foreigner couple stuck in India

HC refuses 'maintenance' to foreigner couple stuck in India

The Bombay High Court has said foreigners stranded in India due to pending criminal cases cannot seek maintenance to sustain themselves.

Singapore national Zainab Yousuf (57) and her Japanese husband Teytsyo Hiryama (62) had sought maintenance from the state government.

Yousuf and Hiryama found themselves in an unusual predicamment: acquitted and set free by High Court, although not having permission to leave country because the appeal is pending.

Advocate Ayaz Khan, their advocate, argued that they had no source of livelihood here. Relying on article 21 of Constitution (right to life), Khan moved High Court for maintenance.

The two of them were arrested at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport here for possession of Hashish and were convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment in 2006.

But in January 2009, they were acquitted by the High Court. However, customs appealed it in the Supreme Court, and authorities didn't issue them 'exit visa'.

Yesterday, rejecting their plea, division bench of justice PB Majmudar and justice RG Ketkar said that "even for citizens of this country (India) who cannot maintain themselves, there is no policy to offer shelter and maintenance. At the most the petitioners may apply for a work permit."

Supreme Court Rejects PIL of Telangana MLAs

Supreme Court Rejects PIL of Telangana MLAs

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking direction to the Andhra Pradesh Speaker to either accept or choose the resignation of over 139 legislators on the Telangana issue. As stated by NDTV

A bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices J M Panchal and Deepak Verma said that the petitioner M Narayana Reddy, a former MP, had no locus standi in the issue.

The apex court said there was no public interest involved with the issue as claimed by the petitioner. "Who are you? It is very strange. You are not an MLA or MP. What are you? What's the PIL? Who gave you the right to present petition," the bench grilled Reddy while dismissing the PIL.

The 139 MLAs, cutting across party lines, are named as petitioners in the matter. They had submitted their resignation to the Assembly Speaker on December 10 and 23 last year. Andhra Pradesh Assembly has 284 members.

Life Term for 'Killer' Mom by Supreme Court

Life Term for 'Killer' Mom by Supreme Court

Holding as "unusual" the conduct of a mother, the Supreme Court has confirmed the life sentence on a woman who axed to death her four-year-old son. As reported by Indian Express

"Motherhood is one of the most precious gifts endowed upon mankind and there's no relationship more pristine and pure than that of a mother and her child. No mother in normal circumstances can tolerate even a scratch on the body of her child," a bench of justices P Sathasivam and H L Dattu observed in a judgement.

The apex court passed the judgement while dismissing the appeal of a tribal woman Satna Bai, charged with axing to death her minor son Kannilal in Chhattisgarh's Ambikapur district on August 18, 1996.

"The appellant was found standing near the body of her son with a bloodstained axe in her hand. An obvious reaction for any mother would have been to go hysterical and clutch the body of her son.

Muslim Community criticise SC ruling over second marriage

Muslim Community criticise SC ruling over second marriage

Jaipur

Reacting towards the Supreme Court's ruling, upholding as illegal the second marriage by a Muslim employee of Rajasthan government, a state-based forum of the community today said the order amounted to interference with the Muslim Personal Law. As reported by Press State Of India.

"With due respect to the Supreme Court, we would like to say that the decision is shocking for the Muslim community because it is a direct interference with the Muslim Personal Law recognised from the Constitution," Rajasthan Muslim Forum (RMF) Convener Qari Mueenuddin said.

On January 29, the Supreme Court ruled that if a government employee remarries without permission, the erring persons could lose his job. The SC withheld the decision from the Rajasthan High Court, justifying the termination of a Rajasthan Police Constable Liyaqat Ali as he married second time without divorcing his first wife.

CJI squashes regional SC benches recommendation

CJI squashes regional SC benches recommendation

New Delhi, Equating what the law states Commission’s recommendation for establishing of regional Supreme Court Benches to the 'disintegration' of the apex court, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) KG Balakrishnan rejected the proposal.As reported by One India News.

I'm not the disintegration of the Supreme Court. Personally i think the Supreme Court can not be in any other part of India. This really is the highest court belonging to the land. It is in the capital city belonging to the land,” he said

It is a final court and we should maintain the integrity of the Supreme Court.” he added

AG opposes go on to set up four SCs

AG opposes go on to set up four SCs

NEW DELHI: Attorney General G E Vahanvati has strongly opposed Law Commission's radical recommendation for setting up of a Constitutional Court in Delhi and four Supreme Courts in the metros primarily to ease present litigational pressure on the SC. As reported by The Times of India

The legislative department from the law ministry had sought the superior law officer's opinion after Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan endorsed the Commission's five-month-old recommendation.

Holding the present character of the Supreme Court as an intrinsic reflection of the core values with the federal structure of the country, Vahanvati has faulted the Commission's proposal on grounds of practicality and said that it strikes at the roots of the Constitution.

He said the Supreme Court in the national capital with judges utilized by all corners from the country representing various communities and sections of the society is a great symbol of unity, and that any dilution of its authority could create an anomalous situation.

"The Attorney General is against any dilution with the stature of the Supreme Court in its present form," said legislative secretary Bhupinder Prasad.

The AG termed the Commission's recommendation as completely unworkable and was even critical of the legislative mode suggested by it for the creation of a Constitutional Court. He said nothing less than an amendment to the Constitution could assist in developing a Constitutional Court since the concept was totally new in relation to the judiciary, one of the three branches of governance.

Article 130 from the Constitution provides that "The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, since the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President from time to time, appoint." The AG in his opinion has virtually supported the consistent stand of the full court of the apex court to not have its Bench any place in India.

Child Prostitution, India becoming a Hub observes SC

Child Prostitution, India becoming a Hub observes SC

New Delhi

India is "becoming a hub" for largescale child prostitution rackets, the Supreme Court said today and suggested the establishing of a special investigating agency to tackle the menace. As reported by Press Trust Of India.

A bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari along with A K Patnaik asked Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam to examine the concept of setting up a special investigating agency to combat child prostitution rackets and assured that courts would deny bail to those who engage children in commercial sex.

"It's happening as a result of abject poverty in the country.

This can be also because of the very high and largescale unemployment. All our cultural ethos are going down the drain.

India is growing a hub of such activities," the apex court said while going through a PIL filed by an NGO Bachapan Bachao Andolan.

Mumbai Forest Land get SC nod

Mumbai Forest Land get SC nod

Mumbai: The long disputed issue of construction on forest land in Mumbai finally seems near to a resolution after a recent Supreme Court ruling. outcome might not bode well for the already fragile environment of the city. As reported by IBN7.

Couple of years after silence descended inside illegal construction sites in Mumbai, a Supreme Court order could now restart the job.

The projects declared illegal in 2006, as they were situated on forest land.

But the apex court now says work can go on if the Environment Ministry clears it.

Developers are a happy lot however the court order has come like a blow to green activists like Debi Goenka.

Goenka was one of several original petitioners who fought to conserve the city's dwindling forest cover.

There are approximately 150 such projects being constructed on 200 acres of forest land.

In 2001, Goenka's Bombay Environment Action group approached the Bombay High Court saying the state government wasn't acting against developers building illegally on forest land.

After five long years, in 2006, the BMC ordered the constructions stopped.

"These buildings are essentially illegal, they've got no permits. They go against the original SC ruling," says Goenka.

It's not only} the environmentalists anxious. Also keeping their fingers crossed are people like Saji Mathews whose dream homes were to be built on the plots.

"We just learnt about this through the papers. The builders haven't told us anything," says Mathews, who booked a flat here five years ago.

Now Matthews is hoping he can take possession of his new home soon.

SC Come down hard on Kidnappers, give Death.

SC Come down hard on Kidnappers, give Death.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has given the utmost penalty-- death to kidnappers and murderers of a young boy. As stated by IBN7.

The incident had occurred in Hoshiarpur in Punjab and also the Apex Court says the crime deserves the harshest possible sentence.

Taking a strong note of the recent rise in kidnapping the court said: Kidnapping for ransom has become a lucrative and thriving industry all over the country and it must be sorted out in the harshest possible way. The obligation to get rid of this falls on the courts also and so they must help.

A class nine student, Abhi Verma was kidnapped from Hoshiyarpur when he was on his route to school in 2005 . A ransom demand of Rs 50 lakhs was made. However, Abhi was subsequently murdered by the kidnappers for the fear of being identified.

The Supreme Court is looking at murder after kidnapping since the rarest of rare cases and want to send out an extremely strong signal to prevent such killings in future.

Mayawati’s Statues, Supreme court verdict ready

Mayawati’s Statues, Supreme court verdict ready

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will pass an order on Thursday on the row relating to construction of various memorials and statues of Dalit icons by Mayawati government in Lucknow. It would also pass an order on contempt proceedings against the Uttar Pradesh chief secretary in connection with the row. As Reported by India Today

A bench of Justices H S Bedi and A K Patnaik also asked the UP government to file an affidavit on maintenance works it proposed to undertake at the site though no further construction activities would be permitted at the site until the state High Court decides on the issue.

The apex court said it would ask the Allahabad High Court to consider on a bunch of petitions filed by NGO Gomti Nagar Kalyan Sanstha and other individuals challenging Mayawati government's decision on the making of the memorials.

The two-judge bench decided to pass the orders after hearing at length for the past one week the arguments put forward by the rival sides.

While the UP government had insisted that it had every right to construct the memorials, the petitioners opposed the same on the ground that public money can't be squandered to pander towards the political interests of ruling BSP.

Judiciary is not responsible to control the Prices, SC

Judiciary is not responsible to control the Prices, SC

The Supreme Court has said controlling the prices of essential commodities in the country was not the job of the judiciary. As stated by Indlaw news.com

A bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justices Deepak Verma and B S Chauhan made the remarks over the hearing of a PIL seeking directions towards the Centre and UP government to create immediate arrangements for lifting 11 lakh tonnes of imported raw sugar, lying at Kandla Port in Gujarat, and send it to the sugar mills to help it fit for human consumption.

The petition was filed by Homemakers Front, an organisation of housewives blaming The Union government for all round increase in the prices of essential commodities. Alleged that UP government was creating problems the imported sugar doesn't reach sugar mills.

The apex Court advised D K Garg, counsel to make the petitioner, to approach the Gujarat High Court for appropriate relief but when Mr Garg didn't agree the apex Court dismissed the petition

SC decision is welcomed by EPSI

SC decision is welcomed by EPSI

The Education Promotion Society for India (EPSI) has welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to maintain status quo on the 44 deemed universities facing de-recognition for While the court’s ruling is welcomed by various Deemed Universities, EPSI plans to submit a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in this regard. As reported by Business Standard.


On Monday, the Supreme Court assured the aggrieved universities that no adverse order will be passed without hearing them, as the issue not only involved several institutions but also the fate of thousands of affected students.


The Court directed the government to submit the report from the Review Committee and also the task force, according to which the human resource development ministry had decided to derecognise these universities within two weeks and meanwhile maintain status quo as on today.

DCGI to move Supreme Court on CoPP issue

DCGI to move Supreme Court on CoPP issue

The ongoing battle between the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and the industry over the issuance of CoPP is poised to take a turn for the worse as the DCGI is contemplating to move Supreme Court to find an early solution to the issue. Presently, four stay orders on the CoPP issue are pending in the Karnataka and Madras High Courts for several months. The Madras High Court had on January 18 adjourned the matter for the seventh time to January 28. As reported by PHARMA BIZ.com.

According to sources, Union health minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, who is also annoyed over the inordinate delay in finding an early solution to the issue, has given his in-principle approval to move Supreme Court. Once the official procedures are completed, the DCGI office will move the Supreme Court seeking early solution to the issue, which has been pending since October 13 last year when the Madras High Court granted stay on the DCGI order on CoPP. As per the DCGI order issued on September 1 last year, the DCGI wanted to centralise the issuance of CoPP from October 1, 2009 which was until then issued by the state drug controllers.
The DCGI move in this regard comes in the wake of the thinking in the union health ministry that the CoPP issue should not go the FDC issue way as even after several years, the FDC issue is still pending in the Madras High Court for a final decision. For the early vacation of the stay orders on CoPP, the DCGI office had submitted a foolproof document to the court, plugging all legal loopholes. Even though the stay orders were granted for a period of 8 weeks, the DCGI office wanted to vacate the stay much before that. But, even after all his efforts, the court kept on adjourned the matter prompting the health ministry to move Supreme Court.

Apart from getting an early solution, another reason for moving the Supreme Court is that once the issue reaches the Supreme Court, all the cases related to the issue pending in other High Courts can be transferred to the Supreme Court so that the DCGI office does not have to attend the cases in different High Courts which the DCGI office finds very cumbersome. Presently, three stay orders on the issue are pending in Madras High Court and one stay order is pending in the Karnataka High Court.

Even as the industry and the DCGI have locked horns on the issue, both have their own justifications to support their views.

DCGI Dr Surinder Singh was on record saying that his action on centralisation of CoPP was aimed at strengthening the regulatory framework in India to instil confidence among the world trading community to give a boost to the offshore commerce. He had said that the country's reputation was at stake due to the multiple authorities in issuing the COPP which is an important document as far as international commerce is concerned. His action was also based on a WHO letter in which the world health body has found fault with the way the COPP was issued in India.

Meanwhile, the industry is opposing the move on the apprehension that there will be avoidable delays in issuing the certificate. Its apprehension stems from the fact that the DCGI office does not have the infrastructure to dispose of the application for WHO-GMP certificates expeditiously.

Deemed university status requests put on hold,SC

Deemed university status requests put on hold,SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday stopped the Central Government from divesting 44 universities of their special "deemed university" status. As stated by IB7 News. Read Govt. of India to de-recognise Forty Four Deemed Universities

On a plea by several universities dons flocking to the court with the plea that the Government move would create havoc and panic among the students. A bench of Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice AK Patnaik ordered status quo on the special grading of the 44 deemed university.

Justice Bhandari assured "Nothing will happen to your institutions and your students till we dispose the matter," as various senior counsel, representing various deemed universities, opposed the government's move to derecognise them.The bench also issued notices to each of the 44 deemed universities separately to have their say on the issue and adjourn the matter for next hearing on March 8.

Questioning the Government's generous stance in according deemed university status to increasing numbers of educational institutions, which allegedly have been doubling up as educational shops, as the bench gave the order while hearing a public interest lawsuit by an advocate Viplav Sharma.

As the bench began the hearing, Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati, appearing for the Central Government sought two weeks' time to file a comprehensive affidavit on behalf of the government, detailing the procedures that it proposes to adopt for derecognising various deemed universities, lacking proper academic performance and poor infrastructure.

Vahanvati also told the court that the Government was fully conscious of the uncertainties that the students studying in these universities may face and accordingly, the affidavit would detail the government's "well considered steps" to ensure that the students are not disturbed.

But the very submission of the government's top law officer made nearly half a dozen high profile senior counsel, including Fali S. Nariman, K. Parasaran, Rajeev Dhawan, Ranjit Kumar, Ayan Sundram and Dushyant Dave see red over the government's proposed move against the education shops.

They charged that the Government was taking action on the basis of a panel, Tandon Committee, which does not even have a statutory backing and wanted the court to examine if the government's proposed action was legal.

The governments' move would create havoc in the academic world and create panic among students, they claimed.

After they got the deemed university status after due inspection by the University Grants Commission.some of the senior counsel contended their clients' universities were being derecognised within months.

Political Parties Come Together To Support SC On Voter ID for Burqa Clad Women

Political Parties Come Together To Support SC On Voter ID for Burqa Clad Women

NEW DELHI: Burying their differences, political parties came together on Saturday to back the Supreme Court on the issue of voter identity cards for Muslim women by pointing out that the photo ID was an instrument of empowering them.As reported by The Times Of India.

The photo identity card is the basic symbol of empowerment for any citizen in a democracy; how can anybody deprive the Muslim women of that right?" Congress spokesman Shakil Ahmed asked.

He pointed out that while going to Saudi Arabia for Haj, Muslim women were photographed for passports. "No Islamic country has sought a ban on such a requirement," he said.

Echoing his views, BJP vice-president Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said there was a need to strongly oppose the `fanatic views' putting hurdles in the way of issuing voter identity cards to Muslim women. "There is no need to weaken the democratisation process," he said.

CPI leader D Raja said that the opposition to photo IDs for Muslim women was like putting the clock back. "A lot of Muslim women are coming out of the purdah; they are even fighting elections and getting elected; the fundamentalist forces should realise the democratic temperament of the times," he said

Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind spokesman Abdul Hamid Naumani said that even the Sharia made concessions for exceptional circumstances. "We cannot call the Supreme Court pronouncement wrong; for the purpose of making a passport or an identity card a Muslim woman can be photographed," he said. Naumani, however, suggested that women officials should be present while photographing Muslim women.

Keeping in view the security problem, we should cooperate with the authorities," said Kamal Farooqi, the member of All India Muslim Personal Law.

SC asks J&K to pay HRA to militancy-hit Pandit employees

SC asks J&K to pay HRA to militancy-hit Pandit employees

NEW DELHI: Asking it to be “generous ", the Supreme Court has directed Jammu and Kashmir government to pay House Rent Allowance and City

Compensatory Allowance to over 3,500 Kashmiri Pandit government employees who fled the valley and settled in Jammu due to terrorist threats. As reported by The Times Of India.

"Why can't you be generous? After all they are your own employees. They have fled the place because of terrorist threats. You should be considerate," a bench of Justices Altamas Kabir and Swatanter Kumar observed while dismissing an appeal filed by the state government.

The state had come on an appeal against the directions of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court which had directed the government to pay the HRA and CCA.

The said employees had fled the valley during the early 90s due to threats from militants and settled in parts of Jammu. Though they were being paid salaries, the employees were not given HRA and CCA allowance.

Deprived of their legal rights, the employees led by A K Sadhu and others moved the J-K High Court in 2001 challenging the Government Order which dis-entitled them to the HRA and CCA allowances. It was also contended that the government was extending the benefits selectively to some migrant Kashmiri Pandits in Home Department but was denying the same to the others.

Supreme Court challenges HC verdict bringing CJI in RTI ambit

Supreme Court challenges HC verdict bringing CJI in RTI ambit

The Supreme Court is believed to have filed an appeal before itself challenging the judgement of the Delhi High Court holding that the office of the Chief Justice of India came under the ambit of the RTI Act. As reported by India today.

Highly placed sources on Saturday said that the appeal against the January 12 verdict has been filed after there was unanimity among the judges of the apex court on challenging the verdict.

Sources said CJI K G Balakrishnan had consultation with other apex court judges on the issue and the grounds taken by it in the appeal are identitical to the stand taken in the High Court that disclosure of information held by the CJI would hamper independence of judiciary.

They said Attorney General would argue the matter on behalf of the apex court registry when it is expected to be listed for hearing shortly.

Sources said the apex court would seek stay of the operation of the High Court direction and would plead for referring it before a larger Bench or to the Constitution Bench.

Govt To Rescue Hungry people,says SC Panel

Govt To Rescue Hungry people,says SC Panel

BHUBANESWAR: With 15 of Orissa's 30 districts hit by drought amid allegations of more than 400 starvation deaths in nine years, a Supreme Court panel has asked the administration to rescue hungry people immediately to prevent possible deaths. As Reported by The Times Of India

The SC appointed Commissioner and Special Commissioner have recommended a "protocol" for preventing hunger deaths in the state.

"Protocol for preventing starvation would ensure that the state response is appropriate to mitigate some of the distress faced by poor and vulnerable groups," SC Commissioner N C Saxena and Special Commissioner Harsh Mander told state chief secretary T K Mishra in a letter.

The SC Commission's letter, which reached the office of the chief secretary here recently, also sought an action taken report within a month.

"We are in touch with the Commission in this regard", Mishra said adding that the state administration was taking all steps to avoid hunger deaths. The state government has already declared 3264 villages under 70 blocks and 41 wards under nine urban local bodies spread over 15 districts as drought affected.

"The areas having sustained crop loss of 50 per cent and above during 2009 kharif season are declared drought hit", revenue and disaster management minister S N Patro said.

The drought-hit districts include tribal dominated Kalahandi, Koraput, Kandhamal, Malkangiri, Mayurbhanj, Nawrangpur, Nuapada, Sundergarh and Deogarh. The infamous starvation deaths and child sale in Kalahandi in 1980s had drawn national attention with many dying of hunger though the then government had denied the allegations.

Stating that the district administration was found to be spending most of its energies in trying to establish that deaths were not due to starvation but due to health reasons, the commission asked the state government to ensure that the focus should now be shifted to all the communities that were living in hunger rather than waiting to respond to the crisis after deaths are reported.

Allegations of 404 starvation deaths were made in the last nine raising questions whether development has percolated to all sections. The families facing hunger should be provided with foodgrains on highly subsidised rates and steps taken to ensure early sanction and release of insurance under NFBS (national benefit family scheme), the commission said. The commission's mantra to prevent avoid starvation deaths include coverage under livilihood schemes like ICDS, MDM, NREGS and old age, widow and disability pensions.

For children of the hungry families, the commission said that the administration should ensure their admission to SC-ST hostels. Similarly, it asked the administration to double food quotas for infants, small children, expecting and nursing mothers.

Lift Veil for Right to Vote, SC tells burqa-clad women

Lift Veil for Right to Vote, SC tells burqa-clad women


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said that burqa-clad women cannot be issued voter identity cards, rejecting the argument that religion prohibit them from lifting their veils. As stated by IBN7.


A bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice Deepak Verma gave the order on Friday while hearing a petition by Madurai resident Ajmal Khan, who had pleaded that printing photos of Muslim women in the voters list violates Islam and their fundamental right to practise and profess their religion.


The order comes at a time when a controversy triggered by the ban on full-length burqas has roiled France, attracting protests from clerics.


The Supreme Court was not convinced, and asked him what Muslim women would do if they contested elections.


“What if you want to contest an election?” asked the court. “If you have such strong religious sentiments, and do not want to be seen by members of public, then do not go to vote. You cannot go with burqa to vote. It will create complications in identification of voters.


“If someone comes to vote in a burqa and the photograph was also taken with a veil covering the face, how would anyone identify the voter?'' the court said.


Khan filed a plea in the apex court after the Madras High Court ruling dismissed his plea questioning Election Commission of India’s move to have photographs of voters in electoral rolls.


“The religious custom and preachings of Holy Quran lay down that Muslim women should wear purdah and ‘burqa’ and show their faces only to their husbands and close relatives,” Khan said in his plea.

SIT plans to complete investigation at the earliest, Raghavan

SIT plans to complete investigation at the earliest, Raghavan

The special investigation team probing some of the post-Godhra riot cases plans to complete the inquiry at the earliest, sources in the SIT said on Friday. "We are doing our best and trying to complete our task at the earliest. Supreme Court has given us time till April 30 to submit the
report," said SIT Chairman R K Raghavan when asked how much time it would take to complete its investigation. As reported by Indian Express

SIT which is also conducting a preliminary inquiry into a complaint against Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, and 62 others was given a four-month extension till April 30 by the SC early this week against the demand of five months.Raghavan's presence here since Thursday achieves significance as it comes two days after Supreme Court directed the Gujarat government to furnish all documents, including the alleged inflammatory speeches made by Modi, to the agency. It also becomes important as SIT member, Geetha Johri, has offered to quit from the team on account of "personal allegation" made against her in connection with Sohrabuddin fake encounter case.

The SIT which was constituted by the apex court in March 2008 to investigate the Godhra train carnage case and eight other post-Godhra riot cases, was also directed by the SC in April 2009 to examine a complaint by Zakia Jaffery.

Mrs. Zakia, whose husband and former MP Ehsan Jaffrey was killed during the 2002 riots in Gulburg society along with 69 others has alleged that Mr. Modi, his cabinet colleagues, police officials and senior bureaucrats aided and abetted the post-Godhra riots of 2002.
Besides, Mr. Modi, Mrs. Zakia has named in her list the then home minister Gordhan Zadaphia, former health minister Ashok Bhatt, the then city police commissioner P. C. Pande and others.

According to sources, SIT has recored statements of number of persons named in Zakia’s complaint which include, Zadafia, BJP leader I. K. Jadeja, ex- IPS officer R. B. Sreekumar, social activist Teesta Setalvad, IG Shivanand Jha, some senior police officers and political leaders.

Probability of SCs in 4 Metros Examined by Law Ministry

Probability of SCs in 4 Metros Examined by Law Ministry

New Delhi

The UPA government is closely examining the recommendation of the Law Commission to set up four Supreme Courts in metros and a Federal Court in the Capital exclusively devoted to examine constitutional issues, as one of the possible ways of reducing the huge backlog of pending cases. As reported by Times of India

The recommendation of the Law Commission, made in its 229th report, to set up Supreme Courts in the original four metros as well as a Federal Court tasked with disposing of constitutional issues, was recently endorsed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.

Sources said that the CJI's advocacy for four Supreme Courts has been the goad for the closer look at the nearly-forgotten recommendation of the Law Commission.

The idea to set up four Supreme Courts, or more appellate courts, in Delhi is seen as in harmony with the Constitution, for Article 130 provides that "The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President from time to time, appoint."

However, creation of a Constitutional or Federal Court in Delhi to hear only matters of grave constitutional importance would require an amendment to the Constitution, the sources said, adding the law ministry wanted to examine the Law Commission's recommendation and the suggestion made by the CJI.

In its report submitted to law minister Veerappa Moily, the Commission had said: "Whether the Supreme Court should be split into Constitutional Division and Legal Division for appeals, the latter with Benches in four regions - North, South, East and West - is a subject of fundamental importance for the judicial system of the country."

The Law Commission recommended that "a Constitution Bench be set up at Delhi to deal with constitutional and other allied issues and four Cassation (final appeal court) Benches be set up in the Northern region at Delhi, the Southern region at Chennai/Hyderabad, the Eastern region at Kolkata and Western region at Mumbai to deal with all appellate work arising out of orders/judgments of the High Courts of the particular region."

However, the Full Court of the Supreme Court had till date rejected all proposals for setting up Benches of the Supreme Court in the South or any other region of the country.

Jurists Want New Panel To Probe Dinakaran

Jurists Want New Panel To Probe Dinakaran

New Delhi,

Top jurists, including two former Supreme Court judges, on Thursday demanded scrapping of the three-member panel formed by Rajya Sabha chairman Hamid Ansari to probe the corruption allegations against Karnataka High Court chief justice P.D. Dinakaran. As reported by Hndustan Times.

“Two members of the panel, Justice V.S. Sirpurkar of the Supreme Court and senior advocate P.P. Rao, knew Justice Dinakaran quite well and may not be fit to judge his conduct,” they said in a note to Ansari.

In separate applications to Ansari, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform (CJAR), and Chennai-based Forum for Judicial Accountability (FJA) demanded that the probe panel be reconstituted.

The FJA letter signed by R Vaigai, Sriram Panchu and eight other advocates clarified, “We make this request purely in the public interest and with all due respect to Justice Sirupurkar and Rao, on whom we do not intend to cast any aspersions.”

It has sent the application on behalf of former SC judges, V.R. Krishna Iyer and P.B Sawant, and 30 other eminent citizens.

“We learn that Justice Sirpurkar told several responsible lawyers that he knows Justice Dinakaran well, who is independently wealthy and an honourable man,” said the application signed by senior SC lawyer Prashant Bhushan.

In a separate petition to Ansari, 10 Madras High Court lawyers said Sirpurkar was a colleague of Dinakaran between 1997 and 2003. “They functioned together on division benches, shared administrative work and interacted with each other at social and official functions. Of all the Supreme Court judges, Justice Sirpurkar would have the most association with him,” said the petition.

Sirpurkar was not available for his comments. Officials at his residence said they would inform the “hon’ble lordship”.

The two organisations also drew Ansari’s attention to the “legal advice” tendered by Rao to Dinakaran in December. “The fact is known in legal circles and Mr Rao has not denied the meeting.”

Rao confirmed to HT on Monday he had met Dinakaran. “It was a courtesy call. I had suggested to him to seek a probe under the Commission of Inquiry Act to clear his name,” Rao had said.

Ansari had formed the probe panel on January 8, after 75 opposition MPs had moved an impeachment motion against Dinakaran last month.

Best Bakery case, 8 convicts seek transfer to Gujrat Jail

Best Bakery case, 8 convicts seek Transfer to Gujrat Jail


Mumbai: Eight convicts in the Best bakery case have petitioned the Bombay High Court seeking their transfer from Kolhapur central jail to Vadodara prison in Gujarat so that they are able to remain closer to families.


All the eight have been lodged in Kolhapur jail since February 2007 after a special court here convicted them for burning alive 14 people inside Best Bakery in Hanuman Tekdi area of Vadodara during the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat. As Reported by MSN News


The Best bakery case was shifted to Mumbai by the Supreme Court for fair trial. The convicts have written a letter to the High Court which it has converted into a writ petition. The Court would hear their plea in due course. The convicts pleaded that since they have been lodged in Kolhapur prison they have not been able to meet their families.


"We are far away from our home. Our families are facing financial difficulties because of which they are not able to visit us. It becomes time consuming and expensive for them to visit us in Kolhapur Jail", they contended.


The convicts further submitted that in Kolhapur jail they cannot seek furlough (leave). Under the law, they are entitled to 15 day furlough every year.


The letter stated that since the convicts were residents of Gujarat and did not have any relatives in Maharashtra it became difficult for them to find sureties to get furlough.


The convicts are Rajubhai Baria, Pankaj Gosavi, Sanjay Thakkar, Bahadursingh Chauhan, Jagdish Rajput, Dinesh Rajbhar, Sanabhai Baria and Sailesh Tadvi.


On March 1, 2002, a mob had set ablaze Best Bakery in lower-middle class dominated Hanuman Tekdi area of Vadodara killing 14 people. Among the victims were family members of Zaheera Shaikh who had taken refuge inside the bakery.

I-T dept cannot Re-Open the Assessment U/S.147 of the Income Tax Act Arbitrarily, SC

I-T dept cannot Re-Open the Assessment U/S.147 of the Income Tax Act Arbitrarily, SC

In a reprieve to the assessees, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Income-Tax Department cannot re-open the assessment cases arbitrarily but on the basis of some ''tangible material''. If armed with unrestricted power to re-open the cases against assessees, it will amount to review of the assessment by the assessing authority, said the apex court. As mentioned by Economic Times.
"Re-assessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of ''change of opinion'' is removed, as contended on behalf of the department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of ''change of opinion'' as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the assessing officer", said a three-judge bench headed by justice SH Kapadia.

According to section 147 of the Income-Tax Act amended by virtue of the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act of 1989 which came into effect from April 1, 1989, cases could be re-opened if the assessing officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment.

The court, however, said: "One needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words ''reason to believe'' failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the assessing officer to re-open assessments on the basis of ''mere change of opinion'', which cannot be per se reason to re-open. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The assessing officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess".

The court noted that after April 1, 1989, the assessing officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. However, reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief, it said.

The court dismissed a bunch of appeals of the Income-Tax Department against the assessees. The issue before the court was whether by virtue of the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment)Act of 1989, the condition of ''change of opinion'' stood obliterated for re-opening of assessment cases.

The court pointed out that under Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act,1987, the words ''reason to believe'' was deleted and the word ''opinion'' was inserted in section 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the companies against omission of the words ''reason to believe'', Parliament re-introduced it and deleted the word ''opinion'' on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the hands of assessing officer.

To substantiate its order, the apex court also perused a circular issued by the government on October 31, 1989 reiterating the same thing.

Prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, the assessing officer was empowered to make back assessment on fulfilment of two conditions. But section 147 of the Act was amended which came into effect from April 1, 1989, these two conditions were given a go-by.

The only condition remained was that where the assessing officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, it confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, after April 1, 1989, the revenue's power to re-open the cases was widened.

According to the unamended section 147 of the Act, on fulfilment of two conditions, the assessing officer was empowered to re-open the cases. First, if the assessing officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under section 139 of the Act for any assessment year to the income-tax officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year.

Second, notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure on the part of the assessee, the income- tax officer has in consequence of information in his possession has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year.

SC directs Delhi govt to shelter all homeless by evening

SC directs Delhi govt to shelter all homeless by evening
20th Jan 2010 New Delhi

The Supreme Court Wednesday ordered the Delhi government
to provide night shelters to all of the capital's homeless by this
evening.

Taking note of the plight of the homeless during the ongoing cold
wave, the apex court ordered the government to hold a meeting by
4.30 pm to decide how the order was going to be carried out.As
reported by IBN Live.

Justices Tarun Chatterjee and S Radhakrishnan told the government
representative to immediately advertise the locations of all the
night shelters in the capital through television and print media.
The authorities must also ensure that the night shelters have basic
amenities such as blankets, electricity and toilets, the judges
ordered.

Civic authorities run 40 night shelters in Delhi. Their combined
capacity cannot house even a small fraction of the capital's
estimated 150,000 homeless people.

Give Modi's speech,other documents to SIT says SC

Give Modi's speech,other documents to SIT says SC
20th Jan 2010

NEW DELHI: Nearly eight years after the post-Godhra communal mayhem in Gujarat, the probe by a Supreme Court-constituted Special Investigation Team. Reported by India Today

(SIT) into nine most gruesome riot cases appears to be moving closer to investigating the actions of chief minister Narendra Modi during the period of violence.

"According to SIT, the statement made by the chief minister has some relevance. What is wrong if you make it available?" the bench said while directing Gujarat government to hand over without further delay all documents required bench of Justices D.K. Jain, P. Sathasivam and Aftab Alam rejected the state government's argument that the documents sought by SIT may not have relevance to investigations

SC to hear Reliance Natural Resources Ltd appeal against Allahabad's HC Order on Jan 29

SC to hear Reliance Natural Resources Ltd appeal against Allahabad's HC Order on Jan 29

(19-Jan-10)
The Supreme Court today fixed January 29 for the hearing of the appeal of RNRL, a company of Anil Ambani group, challenging the Allahabad High Court order quashing the land acquisition proceedings for its Dadri power project. Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Reliance Natural Resources Ltd (RNRL) contended before the apex court that the so called poor farmers who had moved court against land acquisition had used chartered private aircraft at least on 30 occasions to fly their senior counsel from Delhi to Allahabad to argue the case. As stated by Indilawnews.com

He also blamed his business rivals for financing these farmers. A bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justices R V Raveendran and Deepak Verma directed to serve the copy of the petition to the counsel for the caveator. The Allahabad High Court, on December 4, 2009, had quashed the land acquisition proceedings and had directed RNRL to return the land to the farmers and renegotiate with them. The apex court did not pass any order on the request for interim stay against the High Court orders and said the request for interim relief will be considered on January 29.

Change age limit for Mp and Mla election to 21 says Pil

Change age limit for Mp and Mla election to 21 says Pil

19 Jan2010
NEW DELHI: Why not change the age limit for contesting the Lok Sabha and assembly elections to 21 years from the stipulated 25 years, when the age for voting has been reduced from 21 years to 18 years? As stated by The Times of India
On Monday, this question from a PIL by one Kumar Gaurav left a Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices R V Raveendran and Deepak Verma thinking for a while. But, it countered the petitioner by asking: “What is the hurry? Why not have some experience of politics before entering the fray?”
Well the counsel for the petitioner was not to be deterred and said it was the people’s fundamental right to choose a profession and politics has become one. He said most of the countries around the world have reduced the age limit for people’s representatives to 18 years and India should follow suit.
The Bench said: “But this would require amendments to several Articles of the Constitution which prescribe the age limit. Can the Supreme Court do it? We do not have powers to reduce the minimum age stipulated for persons to contest Lok Sabha or assembly elections.”
When the petitioner insisted that the Supreme Court could do so by forcing the government to think about it, the Bench, in a lighter vein, said: “If we had the powers to force an amendment to the Constitution, then the first thing we probably would have done is to amend the retirement age of judges from 65 to 80 years.”
Though it dismissed the PIL, the factual position in various countries supported its stand, except probably in US where one has to be 25 years to be a Representative and 30 to be a Senator. In UK, anyone over the age of 18 years can stand for election to Parliament. The age was reduced from 21 years by the Electoral Administration Act of 2006. The position is identical in Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark and Germany. However, in Canada one has to be 30 years to be a Senator.

Farmers’ suicides Can seek remedial measure, says SC

Farmers’ suicides: Can seek remedial measure, says SC

19th Jan 2010
The Supreme Court on Monday said it was not in its power to stop debt-ridden farmers from committing suicide but that it was willing to issue some general instructions to ensure better conditions for them. “We cannot stop suicides, but we can issue general instructions for remedial measures to prevent farmers from committing suicides in large numbers,” a Bench led by Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan observed. The Court was hearing a 2006 PIL filed by advocate Sanjeev Bhatnagar questioning the country’s agricultural policy in view of a spate of farmer suicides. News by Indian Express

Bhatnagar, who is also an agricultural economist, quoting government reports on Monday said that 87,567 farmers had killed themselves between 2002-08.

The Bench said the government has to work on some “special package” like the one presented by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2006. It said, “We have to find out the reasons which are driving the farmers to suicide. The problem is confined to some states.” The government counsel has assured the court of putting the Bench’s views before the Agriculture Secretary.

Supreme Court Lays Down Guidelines For Right Of Private Defence For Citizens

Supreme Court Lays Down Guidelines For Right Of Private Defence For Citizens

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab / Criminal Appeal 1057 of 2002
Date of Judgment : 15.01.2010


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot be expected to act in a cowardly manner when faced with an imminent threat to life and has got every right to kill the aggressor in self defence, the Supreme Court has held.

A bench comprising Justices Dalbeer Bhandari and Asok Kumar Ganguly, while acquitting a person of the charges of murder, said on January 15 that when enacting Section 96 to 106 of the IPC, accepting from its penal provisions, certain classes of acts done in good faith for the purpose of repelling unlawful aggressions, the Legislature clearly intended to arouse and encourage the manly spirit of self-defence amongst the citizens, when faced with grave danger.


The law does not require a law abiding citizen to behave like a coward, when confronted with a imminent unlawful aggression. As repeatedly observed by this court, there is nothing more degrading to the human spirit than to run away in face of danger. Right of private defence is thus designed to serve a social purpose and deserves to be fostered within the prescribed limit, they said.


Justice Bhandari writing a 41-page judgment for the bench, further noted that the right of private defence is recognised in all free, democratic and civilised countries and self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognised by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilised countries.


Laying down ten guidelines, where right of self-defence is available to a citizen, but also cautioned that in garb of self-defence, no one can be allowed to endanger or threaten the lives and properties of others or for taking personal revenge. The apex court acquitted one Darshan Singh from Punjab, who had killed Gurcharan Singh in self-defence on July 15, 1991. Father of Darshan Singh was attacked with a 'gandasa' on his head and when Gurdish Singh proceeded to attack Darshan Singh, Darshan Singh open fired in self-defence and in the process Gurcharan Singh was killed.

The apex court, while setting aside the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court convicting Darshan Singh, restored the order of the trial court recording his acquittal. His father Bakhtawar Singh died during the pendency of his appeal. The apex court concluded by saying that a person, who is under imminent threat is not expected to use force exactly required to repel the attack and his behaviour cannot be weighed in golden scales.

Supreme Court judges and CJI disclose assets

Supreme Court judges and CJI disclose assets

Twenty-one judges of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan, have declared their assets, giving details of movable and immovable property owned by them and their spouses in the Supreme Court website. Justice B.N. Agrawal, who retired last month, has also declared his assets on special request, while Justice H.S. Bedi is yet to do so.

Last month the court challenged a single bench order of the Delhi high court, delivered in September, which ruled that the CJI is a public authority and disclosure of assets by members of the judiciary came within the purview of the Right to Information Act.

The disclosures which have been made are also disappointing because they lack many important details. They give an idea of the different saving habits of different judges. Some of them have invested in real estate, others in shares and yet others in the government’s savings schemes. But the information will be useful only when the market value of the assets is known and details like the time of acquisition of property are given.

That will indicate the present value of the property and whether they were acquired during the judicial career or before that. It will also be noted that the properties in possession of the judges have not been identified. In many cases the amount of savings and the value of properties have not been provided. These details are very important. Another drawback is that the disclosures have covered only the assets of the judges and their spouses. Information about the assets of other close relatives, like sons and daughters, is also important in the Indian context.

The declarations have been made under a Supreme Court resolution of May, 1997 which calls upon the judges to disclose their assets. What has been done now is only in partial conformity with that requirement. It actually underlines the need for a law that makes the disclosure mandatory and open to the public, lays down in detail what are the assets to be declared, how the disclosure is to be made and who all should come under its purview. It should also specify the consequences of wrong declarations.

Source - Hindu, Deccan Herald

Over 50,000 Cases pending in Supreme Court

By the end of March 2009, the Supreme Court has for the first time in a decade run up a backlog of more than 50,000 cases reports the Times of India

With computerization of the Supreme Court registry and use of information technology in docket management, pendency of cases in the 1990s was brought down from more than one lakh to a manageable 20,000. But the huge rush of litigants, despite an increased disposal rate, has proved more than a match for the judges, who hear more than 80 cases a day.

The pendency has steadily crept northwards since 2006, when it stood at 34,649. In January 2007, it had become 39,780 with the pendency jumping up by more than 5,000 cases. Justice K G Balakrishnan took over as the Chief Justice of India at this time and tried to put in place mechanisms to arrest the trend of spiralling pendency. >> Read Complete article

SEBI gets Supreme Courts not to question Raju

The Supreme Court of India permitted the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) on Tuesday to interrogate former Satyam chairman B Ramalinga Raju and his brother, Rama Raju, in connection with the Satyam Fraud

A bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan directed the Superintendent of Chanchalguda central prison to allow Sebi's investigating officer Sunil Kumar to question the Raju brothers.

Sebi had since January 8, the day after Ramalinga Raju disclosed a Rs 7,800-crore fraud in Satyam, been trying to quiz the two brothers. But the Rajus were arrested by the state CID police on January 9 and since became inaccessible.

The regulator then approached a local court for permission to interrogate the Rajus, but the plea was rejected on technical grounds.

When hearing of its appeal in the Andhra Pradesh High Court was repeatedly deferred, Sebi moved the apex court for "urgent relief".

The Supreme Court today also said that Kumar will intimate the jail authorities in advance as to who will be accompanying him for the interrogation of the Raju brothers.

Sebi would be probing if there was any insider trading angle to the fraud since Raju had disclosed falsifying profits for years -- which would have helped inflate share prices.

President gives assent to Judges Salary hike

Supreme Court Judges and High Court Chief Justices to get Rs. 90,000/- per month- Other High Court Judges - Rs. 80,000/- per month

Judges of Supreme Court and High Court can now take a sigh of relief as the President gave her assent to the ordinance late last week. The proposed hike in salaries also means a substantial increase in pension for judges. Judges are entitled to 50 per cent of their last drawn salary as monthly pension.

The President's New Year gift for the judiciary means a revised salary Rs 1 lakh for the Chief Justice of India, Rs 90,000 for Supreme Court judges and High Court chief justices and Rs 80,000 for HC judges.

Source : PTI

Also Check out >> Latest News Headlines on Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court and High Court Judges Salaries hiked

As per Government Agencies, Supreme Court and High Court Judges Salaries have been increased

The Cabinet in its meeting held yesterday decided to increase the salaries of Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. This revision has been necessitated because of the increase in the salaries of the Central Government employees on acceptance of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission.

The Chief Justice of India will now get a salary of Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. plus Dearness Allowance(DA) thereon. Judges of Supreme Court and Chief Justices of High Courts will draw a salary of Rs. 90,000/- p.m. plus DA thereon whilst the Judges of High Court will draw a salary of Rs.80,000/- p.m. plus DA thereon. This will be effective from 01.01.2006. 40% of the arrears of salary will be given in the current financial year and the balance 60% in the next financial year.

The Government has also decided to double the existing limit of both sumptuary allowance and furnishing allowance for all the Supreme Court and High Court Judges. This will be effective from 01.09.2008.

Necessary Government order will issue after effecting amendment in the relevant legislation.

Chief Justice of India wants Judges to disclose assets

"The CJI has written to chief justices of all high courts to consider adopting the apex court judges' practice of declaring their assets at the time of their appointment and every year subsequently," said a Supreme Court official, as reported by NDTV/IANS

nder mounting pressure for more probity and transparency in the judiciary, Chief Justice of India (CJI) K G Balakrishnan has written to all high courts across the country to consider adopting the apex court judges' practice of declaring their assets.


Supreme Court judges have been declaring their assets since 1997 to the CJI at the time of their appointment as an apex court judge and thereafter every year as per a resolution passed by the apex court on May 7, 1997.

"The High Court judges may consider adopting a similar resolution in case it does not have a system of judges declaring their assets soon after the assumption of office and regularly updating the declaration made by them," said Balakrishnan in his letter to High Court chief justices.

The CJI wrote, "It is essential for an independent, strong and respected judiciary and indispensable for impartial administration of justice."

In his letter, Balakrishnan also called upon the High Court judges to adopt what is known as "restatement of values of judicial life" adopted by the apex court in another resolution earlier.

The CJI described the "restatement of values of judicial life" as "the pre-existing and universally accepted norms, guidelines and conventions" governing judicial conduct and behaviour.

The CJI has sought declaration of assets by High Court judges in the face of mounting pressure upon the Indian judiciary to ensure greater probity, transparency and purity in judicial conduct.

Responding to a question on declaration of judges' assets during a recent conference of apex court judges, Balakrishnan had said, "At the time of their appointment, every Supreme Court judge has to declare his assets. Thereafter, if any property is purchased, he has to give the information to me in a sealed cover."

"This must be the case with High Court judges (who would furnish the information to the chief justice of the High Court concerned)," he said.

The Bar Association of India (BAI) also wants declaration of assets by judges, saying that it would enhance their dignity greatly.

Students protest against OBC Quota in Supreme court lawns

A group of about 350 students from premier medical and other colleges held a protest on the lawns of the Supreme Court Friday against the 27 percent quota for other backward classes students in higher educational institutions. Around 10 students were injured in a clash with the police.

The police said more than 90 students were detained and let off an hour later.

The students were from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi University, Indian Institute of Technology-Delhi and some medical colleges.

The protesters entered the apex court premises in small groups and gathered in the lawns around 11 a.m. They chanted anti-government slogans and accused the government of trying to circumvent the court ruling by planning to extend quota benefits to post-graduate courses.

"We just want the court ruling to be implemented in the right way," said Kaushal Kant Mishra, a doctor at AIIMS.

The students who were injured in a lash with the police were admitted to the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. Some of them were discharged after first-aid.

On April 10, SC upheld the law for implementing 27 percent quota for OBCs in centrally-run educational institutions of higher learning.

Supreme Court dismisses plea for early hanging of Afzal Guru

New Delhi, Feb 22 The Supreme Court Friday dismissed a plea for early hanging of Mohammad Afzal Guru, condemned to the gallows for plotting the December 2001 terror attack on the Indian parliament.

A bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices R.V. Raveendran and Markandey Katju dismissed the plea saying that the apex court has already decided the case.

The bench asked the petitioner, little-known Hindu organisation called Lashkar-e-Hind, to approach the government.

Questioning the delay on a decision on Afzal's mercy petition to the president, Lashkar-e-Hind contended that a convict given the death sentence should not be allowed to frustrate the court's decision.

"A condemned prisoner, waiting to be hanged, should not be having any fundamental right," contended the petitioner.

The organisation demanded judicial direction for Afzal's execution at the earliest, arguing that the courts had arrived at the decision to hang him.

But in case he is pardoned, it would amount to negation of the judicial verdict, the petitioner contended.

However, the bench refused to buy the Lashkar-e-Hind argument.

On Dec 13, 2001, five gunmen stormed the heavily guarded parliament complex and killed nine people before being shot dead. Afzal was awarded the death penalty after being convicted of the conspiracy, a verdict upheld by the Supreme Court.

However, Afzal's hanging scheduled on Oct 20, 2006 was put off after his wife submitted a mercy petition to then president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.

Supreme Court to have 31 judges

New Delhi, Feb 21 Litigants can now hope for quicker resolution of their cases with the Indian government conceding the demand of the Supreme Court to increase the number of judges from 25 to 30, apart from the chief justice.

"The government is going to move an amendment to the Supreme Court (number of Judges) Act, 1956 in the winter session of parliament," said Principal Director General (Media and Communications) Dipak Sandhu after a meeting of the cabinet of ministers here.

"The proposed amendment would augment the strength of the Supreme Court judges, excluding the Chief justice of India from 25 to 30," she said.

In 1986 the government had amended the act to increase the number of Supreme Court judges from 17 plus one to 25 plus one.

The current strength of 25 plus one was fixed in 1987. But even the current strength is not fully filled, with three vacancies existing at the moment, said sources in the law and justice ministry.

In the early years the apex court functioned with only seven judges and all would sit together to hear each case.

Noticing the backlog of cases in 1956, the government brought in the Supreme Court (number of judges) Act, 1956 and increased the number of judges from 8 to 11. In 1978, four more judges were added.

Supreme Court upholds ban on bullfight

New Delhi, Jan 11 The Supreme Curt Friday threw out the Tamil Nadu government plea to allow the traditional Jallikkattu, saying that the bullfight in which the animals are tortured and made to run amok represented "severe cruelty".

A bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan dismissed the Tamil Nadu government plea and said that torturing bulls to provoke them into fighting was also "against the humanity".

The bench observed that the sport, which takes place just after the harvest festival of Pongal, causes "severe injury to men" trying to tame the bulls and those watching.

The court, however, allowed the bull race and bullock-cart race on the occasion.

On July 27, the Supreme Court suspended a Madras High Court ruling that allowed the age-old practice and said that it was merely a form of traditional sport and attracted foreign tourists. The high court set aside a single judge bench order of its Madurai bench.

It had done so on a petition by the Animal Welfare Board of India challenging the high court order.

Senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the animal rights body, opposed the Tamil Nadu government's plea to lift the ban and argued that the bulls were subjected to enormous cruelty before and during the competition.

He said the animals were made to drink arrack and had chilli powder sprinkled in their eyes to make them go berserk.

He said the bull owners left the animals loose in a boisterous crowd and some people jump over their humps while others try to catch them by their horns or pull their tails.

This practice often leads to serious injuries and even deaths amongst the spectators.

SC divided on examining government appointments

New Delhi, Jan 4 (IANS) Adding to the raging debate on judicial activism, a Supreme Court bench Friday appeared divided on examining a plea challenging the executive's powers to appoint officials.

The difference of opinion emerged in a bench of Justices H.K. Sema and Markandey Katju during hearing of a petition that apprehended that former Gujarat Director General of Police (DGP) P.C. Pandey could be reappointed as the police chief of the state.

While Justice Katju fiercely opposed the plea challenging Pandey's likely appointment as Gujarat police chief, Justice Sema asked the petitioner, social activist Teesta Setalvad, to file an additional affidavit in support of her contentions.

During last month's Gujarat assembly elections, Pandey was shifted as the DGP on the orders of the Election Commission following complaints about his alleged lack of political neutrality and bias in favour of the Narendra Modi government.

Pandey was made director of the state's Anti-Corruption Bureau. The petition by Citizens for Peace and Justice, headed by Setalvad, apprehended that Pandey could be reappointed as the state police chief.

Earlier, Setalvad moved the apex court alleging Pandey's role in shielding perpetrators of the 2002 statewide communal carnage.

As the petition came up for hearing Friday, state government counsel Hemantika Wahi told the court Pandey had already been shifted out from the DGP's post.

At this, Setalvad's counsel Aparna Bhat contended that following the assembly polls a new government has been sworn in and there was strong possibility of Pandey being brought back as the DGP.

She wanted the court to extract an undertaking from the Gujarat government that it would not reappoint Pandey.

To this, a visibly infuriated Justice Katju retorted: "What has the judiciary to do with the appointment of the state's DGP? Is the judiciary meant for regulating the appointments by the government? Do you challenge the appointment of the prime minister?"

"It's the exclusive jurisdiction of a chief minister to appoint anybody to a post. You want the judiciary to take over the function of the government?" Justice Katju asked.

"In the appointment of the chief secretary or home secretary or even a district magistrate, it's the state government which has to decide," he said.

Rattled by the judge's observations, Bhat said there were many complaints pending against Pandey. At this Justice Katju shot back: "One may not be a desirable person, but that does not mean the judiciary will interfere in appointments by the government."

Justice Katju pointed out that Pandey was no longer the police chief and so the plea for his removal has already become meaningless and liable to be dismissed.

Faced with the court's inclination to dismiss the petition, Bhat wanted to be given the "liberty" to approach it again in case Pandey is reappointed.

"What liberty? What type of Citizens for Peace and Justice (the name of the petitioner's organisation) are you?" Justice Katju asked, adding, "Had you sought our permission before fling this petition?"

But despite Justice Katju's observations, which indicated his aversion to take up the petition for elaborate hearing, Justice Sema, the senior judge on the bench, decided against dismissing it and adjourned the matter for two weeks for further hearing. He asked the petitioner to file an additional affidavit in support of her contentions.

On Dec 6 last year, as part of another bench headed by Justice A.K. Mathur, Justice Katju had delivered a significant ruling on judicial activism and cautioned the judiciary against encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and the executive.

The ruling had triggered a fierce debate on judicial overreach.

Panel to examine long vacations for Supreme Court judges

New Delhi, Dec 26 Judges of the higher judiciary have long enjoyed a work calendar with holidays matching those of schoolchildren, but a parliamentary panel has decided to step in and examine whether the long vacations are really necessary.

As Supreme Court and high court judges take a break during the ongoing fortnight long year-end holiday, the Parliamentary Standing Committee for the Ministry of Law and Justice has decided to examine the need and rationality of long vacations in the apex court.

Said the panel's Chairman and Rajya Sabha Member E.M.S. Natchiappan: "We are currently examining several issues of legal reform. We will also examine the rationality of continuing with the British legacy of long vacations in the judiciary."

"It has also been brought to the committee's notice that the backlog of cases in the apex court has begun rising of late. We would like to examine if vacations have a bearing on the rising trend of backlog of cases there," Natchiappan told IANS.

He said the committee would like to examine the work schedule of judges like the time taken in hearing cases, reading various case files and laws, writing verdicts and whether long vacations aid or hinder their work.

Beginning Dec 17, the Supreme Court is officially on a winter break, nearly a week before Delhi schools called it a year. The court closed amid fiercely divided legal opinion over the need for long holidays in the judiciary, which often makes news for having more holidays than working days.

The total number of days of work for it, as per its 2007 calendar, works out to a meagre 176 out of 365 days. For the remaining 189 days, more than six months of the year, it was on holiday.

The holidays included roughly 104 Saturdays and Sundays, nearly two months of summer vacation, a week each of Diwali and Dussehra breaks, besides several other offs that ranged from a day to a week.

"Even the highest US court, where individual judges do not have to adjudicate more than 150 cases, does not have more than three to four months of holidays in a year," said senior advocate K.K. Venugopal.

The British legacy of a long summer vacation has been continuing since independence. This year, the Supreme Court closed for summer from May 21 to July 8, compared to several schools that closed from May 15 to July 1.

While there could be a rationale for closing schools for two months in the scorching summer of Delhi, the apex court and high court judges have air-conditioned cars to commute and air-conditioned courtrooms to work in, said advocate Prashant Bhushan.

The rationale to close down courts in summer is questionable, he added.

Besides the holidays and vacations, individual judges are entitled to their own quota of leaves, according to the provisions of Supreme Court Judges' salary and other Condition of Service Act, 1958.

Depending upon the number of years of service, they are also entitled to a certain number of off days on full salary, some on half salary and on quarter salary too.

Official data from the Department of Justice reveals that the number of cases pending in the apex court had come down to 19,806 in 1998 from a whopping 104,936 in 1991. But it's rising again. At the beginning of 2006, it had risen to nearly 29,000 and by November 2007 it was 46,000.

Despite the rising backlog of cases, some lawyers support long vacations in the judiciary on ground of "tremendous work pressure" on judges.

"Every day, a bench of two to three judges hears around 50 cases. The cases listed on Mondays go up to 70 while it's around 40 on Fridays. They also have to read the voluminous files every evening before hearing them the next day," said a lawyer.

He added: "They also need time to write judgments, which cannot be written in open courts. And they end up doing all these work during holidays or vacations, which they deserve."

But Venugopal disagreed: "It's true that Supreme Court judges do a lot of work even at home. Yet, the apex court needs to arrest the rising trend of the backlog of cases and reducing their long vacations may be one way out." - IANS

SC to consider framing guidelines on PILs

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will consider laying down guidelines governing public interest litigation (PIL).

"It is better to have some guidelines whether these types of PILs can be entertained," said a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.

The Chief Justice decided to address the issue when a PIL relating to rehabilitation of sex workers referred to it by a bench headed by Justice S B Sinha came up for hearing.

Justice Sinha had referred the matter in view of the observations made by the bench comprising Justices A K Mathur and Markandeya Katju and had said it was not clear what was the power of the court in dealing with PILs.


On Tuesday, the court found itself plagued by self-doubt over its power to entertain PILs when a bench of Justices Sinha and Bedi refused to hear a lawsuit by non-governmental organisation Prajawla on the legal status of sex workers. It referred the lawsuit to the bench of Chief Justice Balakrishnan, asking whether court benches were entitled at all to hear the PILs "in view of" Justice Katju's ruling. This also left Delhi High Court judges rattled as the ruling had either declared illegal or questioned the rationality of several recent judgements of the high court. The ruling has led to more than one bench of the high court refraining from hearing PILs during the week. The rancour in the judiciary reached the bench of Chief Justice Balakrishnan Thursday when counsel appearing for another PIL apprehended that the bench might not hear it at all owing to the "judicial activism" judgement.

However, the chief justice's bench observed that his was a three-judge bench and a two-judge bench ruling on "judicial activism" was not binding.

But even that failed to clear the confusion whether the ruling was not binding merely on three-judge benches of the court or not binding at all on any high court. While admitting the need to have an elaborate guideline for entertaining PILs, the bench of Chief Justice Balakrishnan adjourned the hearing on the PIL related to the conditions of sex workers for Feb 23.

'Judicial activism' order holds up court order on Bluelines

New Delhi, Dec 14 Despite the Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan clearing the air over judicial activism, Delhi High Court Friday did not pass an order on entertaining a public suit on Blueline buses.

A division bench headed by Justices Mukul Mudgal and Reva Khetarpal refrained from passing an order on the growing number of accidents caused by the privately owned Blueline buses.

"We have to see the effect of the Supreme Court order (of Dec 6) on the proceedings of this case," said the bench, adding, "We have not had the time to go through the judgement. It has just been handed over to us by the amicus curiae."

The bench was hearing a suo motu matter, which it had earlier taken into cognisance, on the growing number of Blueline accidents.

The court refused to pass any order on the matter without going through the apex court judgement, which had deprecated the tendency of "judicial overreach".

"The apex court ruling of 1997 is that the judiciary and bureaucracy should join hands together and work for the welfare of people," Justice Khetarpal observed.

On Dec 6, a two-bench apex court had cautioned the judiciary against indulging in judicial activism and encroaching upon the domain of the legislature and the executive, saying if the courts failed to restrain themselves the politicians would step in and curtail their power and independence.

However on Thursday, a three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India observed, "We are not bound by the two-judge bench order."

But his observation failed to clarify if the Dec 6 order, delivered by a bench of Justices A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katju, will not bind only a three-judges' bench or not be binding at all on any bench.

Meanwhile, senior counsel V.P Singh for the Blueline bus operators whose permits have been cancelled following a high court order, said the order was not justified and needed to be reviewed.

"We are just implementing the apex court order and not passing any order. Article 141 says the apex court ruling should be followed by all subordinate courts," Justice Mudgal said while posting the matter till Jan 10, next year.

On Monday, the apex court had castigated the Delhi High Court for entertaining PILs on a host of public issues, including the begging menace, nursery admissions and traffic issues particularly the Blueline menace.

Supreme court in self-doubt after 'judicial activism' ruling

New Delhi, Dec 11 (IANS) A day after a Supreme Court bench cautioned the judiciary against indulging in judicial activism, the apex court Tuesday virtually found itself gripped by self-doubt over its power to entertain public suits.

The court's self-doubt was evident from the decision of a bench to refer to a larger bench a Public Interest Litigation on the legal status of sex workers.

"In view of yesterday's judgment (by the bench of Justices A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katzu), this matter be referred to a larger three-judge bench to be examined if it could be heard by us," said the bench of Justices S.B. Sinha and H.S. Bedi, while refusing to further adjudicate the PIL filed by a non-governmental organisation Prajawala.

The suit had sought the court's direction to the government to treat sex workers, held under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act (SITA), as a victim of the crime rather than an accused. The PIL has also demanded a ban on arrest of such victims.

The bench of Justice Sinha referred the matter to a larger bench mid-way through its adjudication. The bench had been hearing the PIL for quite some time.

With Justice Sinha's bench referring the PIL to a larger bench "in view of" Monday's ruling on judicial activism, the controversial ruling itself stands referred to a larger bench for legal scrutiny.

In an apparently candid mood of self-introspection, the bench of Justice Mathur and Justice Katzu had cautioned the judiciary to refrain from encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and the executive saying otherwise politicians will curtail its power and independence.

"If the judiciary does not exercise restraint, there is bound to be a reaction from politicians and others. The politicians will step in to curtail its power and independence," the bench had apprehended Monday.

Justice Katzu had on an earlier occasion made an equally controversial remark about "hanging the corrupt by the nearest lamppost".

The observation had triggered a debate in the legal circles over the desirability of judges' making exaggerated and hyperbolic observations in courts.

The bench of Justice Mathur and Justice Katzu, in its ruling delivered Thursday but released Monday, observed, "In the name of judicial activism, judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of the state."

"Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the government. They must have modesty and humility and not behave like emperors," the bench had said.

What has made the ruling all the more controversial is the fact that the bench has gone to the extent of questioning various Supreme Court judgements, delivered in past by benches headed by erstwhile chief justices, and has also virtually rendered illegal a host of recent decisions by the Delhi High court by its single 22-page judgement.

SC - Students involved in Ragging should be expelled

Coming down heavily on ragging in colleges, the Supreme Court Monday said its directions issued in May on the menace should be extended to include private, unaided colleges and professional educational institutes as well.

Supreme Court on Monday directed educational institutions to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy to ragging and expel students found guilty of maltreating freshers.

A bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam said that ragging is plaguing not merely government educational institutions but private educational institutions too and there is no reason why it should be not curbed.

It asked the central and state governments to implement the court's earlier directions to arrest the menace of ragging in private educational institutions, including professional colleges on medicine, engineering, dental science, management, pharmacy and agriculture.

The court directed bodies like the Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India and Bar Council of India to suggest guidelines to it to curtail ragging of junior students by seniors.

It asked educational institutions to include a condition and warning in their admission forms saying that any student found indulging in ragging would be expelled after being given a chance to explain his act.

The bench lambasted the government saying that its earlier directions to do away with ragging did not appear to have made any dent in the situation owing to lack of action by the government.

It asked Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanian, who is assisting the court in the matter as amicus curie, to file a fresh status report on its earlier directions for implementation of the Ragahvan Committee report to check ragging in educational institutions.

In its directions in May, the court had said ragging, which sometimes involves violence, abuse and even sexual harassment, is unacceptable and deserves severe punishment.

Supreme Court asks judiciary not to overstep limits

New Delhi, Dec 10 (IANS) The Supreme Court has cautioned the judiciary to refrain from encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and the executive, and said the "unconstitutional" move could lead to political leaders curtailing its powers otherwise.

"If the judiciary does not exercise restraint and overstretches its limit, there is bound to be reaction from politicians and others. The politicians will step in to curtail its power and independence," said a bench of Justices A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katju in a ruling delivered Friday but released Monday.

The bench made the candid observation following a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling, which had ordered the creation of a regular job for tractor drivers in the state-run Aravali Golf Club in Faridabad.

"The courts cannot direct creation of posts. Creation and sanction of posts is a prerogative of the executive or the legislative authorities and the court cannot arrogate to itself this purely executive or legislative function," said the bench, setting aside the high court ruling.

It added: "Before parting with this case, we would like to make some observations about the limits of the powers of the judiciary.

"We are compelled to make these observations as we are repeatedly coming across cases where judges unjustifiably try to perform the executive or legislative functions. In our opinion, this is clearly unconstitutional," it said.

"In the name of judicial activism, judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of the state.

"Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the government. They must have modesty and humility and not behave like emperors," said the bench.

"The justification often given for judicial encroachment in the domain of the executive or legislature is that the two organs are not doing their jobs properly.

"Even assuming this is so, the same allegations can then be made against the judiciary too because there are cases pending in courts for half a century," the bench added.

Asserting that the judiciary encroaching upon the domain of the executive or the legislature is not a remedy for their non-functioning, the bench said, "If the legislature or the executive are not functioning properly, it is for the people to correct the defects by exercising their franchise properly in the next elections and voting for right candidates or by other lawful methods, for example, peaceful demonstration.

"The remedy is not in the judiciary taking over the legislative or executive functions because that will violate the delicate balance of power enshrined in the constitution. Also, the judiciary has neither the expertise nor the resources to perform these functions," the bench added.

It questioned a host of recent decisions by the Delhi High court in its single 22-page judgement.

Citing the example of the ruling on the school admission process, it said, "The Delhi High Court directed that there can be no interview of children for admissions in nursery schools, while there is no statute which prohibits such interviews.

"But the Delhi High Court, going beyond its jurisdiction, created law by its judicial order and then sought its enforcement. It's clearly illegal," the court said.

"Recently the courts have apparently, if not clearly, strayed into the executive domains or in matters of policy. For instance, the orders passed by the Delhi High Court in recent times dealt with subjects ranging from age and other criteria for nursery admissions, unauthorised schools, criteria for free seats in schools, supply of drinking water in schools, number of free beds in hospitals on public land, use and misuse of ambulances, the kind of air Delhiites breathe."

"In our opinion, they were matters pertaining exclusively to the executive or legislative domains and not the judiciary," said the bench.

Supreme Court refuses to restore ousted AIIMS director

New Delhi, Dec 3 The Supreme Court Monday refused to restore the services of eminent cardiologist P. Venugopal as AIIMS director, saying it was "finding it difficult" to suspend the law fixing the retirement age for the post.

A bench of Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice Dalveer Bhandari could not provide legal reprieve to the former head of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), even as it said: "We are with Dr. Venugopal on the facts of the case.

"It (the bench) is, however, finding it difficult to suspend the law," the bench added.

Venugopal had challenged the amendments in the law on AIIMS, which President Pratibha Patil approved Friday. The health ministry immediately removed him as director and appointed T.D. Dogra in his place.

The law - All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, and Post Graduate Institute for Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (Amendment) Act, 2007 - limits the tenure of the directors of the two institutes to a maximum of five years or till they reach the retirement age of 65, whichever is earlier.

The new law was viewed as a move by Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss to remove Venugopal, with whom he has been involved in a bitter turf war. Venugopal, a noted cardiologist who has been associated with AIIMS for 42 years, is over 66 years of age.

According to the provisions of the original law passed in 1956, AIIMS directors are appointed for a fixed tenure of five years, irrespective of their age. Venugopal was named director in July 2003 at the age of 62 and was due to retire in July 2008 at the age of 67.

While refusing to grant any reprieve to Venugopal, the bench, however, restrained the government from tinkering with the tenure of the newly appointed AIIMS director, who too does not happen to be on the best of terms with Ramadoss.

The bench restrained the government from acting against the new director on the apprehension of Venugopal's counsel Fali S. Nariman and Arun Jaitley, who told the court that even Dogra had been suspended by this government last October but was reinstated later on the orders of the Delhi High Court.

While refusing to suspend the amendments, the bench agreed with Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanian's contention that "a parliamentary law cannot be rendered illegal on the grounds of malafide" of the government.

"The allegations of malafide (by the government) in passing the law cannot be transferred to parliament," contended Subramanian.

The government's law officer, however, had to face quite a few grilling questions from the bench.

"Can a law be passed to target a single individual?" asked the bench.

Subramanian replied that the government had enacted the law as per a Delhi High Court ruling last October, which had asked the government to enact a proper law governing the tenure of the AIIMS director and save it from the prospects of litigations and enhance its prestige.

At this, Nariman contended that the ruling, on the grounds of which the government was justifying the law, had been challenged by the government itself before the apex court.

He contended that by enacting the law, the government has encroached upon the domain of the judiciary, ignoring the principle of separation of powers in the parliamentary democracy.

Making a fervent plea to suspend the law, Jaitley pointed out to the court that this law would be applicable to only one person, namely Venugopal. - IANS

Supreme Court grants bail to Sanjay Dutt

Nov. 27 - Sanjay Dutt granted bail by Supreme Court today. The apex court had earlier deferred the hearing of the bail plea on November 20.

A bench comprising Justices K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V. Ravindran and J.M. Panchal granted bail to the actor who has been serving his sentence in Pune's Yerwada Jail.

Dutt had approached the apex court following his conviction for illegally keeping arms - an AK 56 rifle and a pistol, relating to the 1993 Mumbai blasts case.

Dutt’s lawyer argued that the apex court should grant him bail on the ground of his conduct, and that he has never broken the law in the past one decade since he was first granted bail in connection with the case.

Sanjay Dutt, son of late Sunil Dutt, who was one of the best actors the country has produced and a Congress party leader has challenged his conviction by TADA court late last month. He has sought bail until the petition was heard.

CBI probe into irregular allotment of Noida plots upheld

New Delhi, Nov 22 (IANS) The Supreme Court Thursday upheld an order for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the irregular allotment of 1,250 residential plots in Noida to a host of prominent personalities in 2005.

Upholding an October 2005 ruling of the Allahabad High Court, a bench of Justices H.K. Sema and Aftab Alam also endorsed the cancellation of plots and holding of a fresh draw.

In late 2004, the Noida Authority had mooted a housing scheme for common citizens of the country and had invited applications for the allotment of 1,250 plots - of various sizes ranging from 100 sq m to 500 sq m in various sectors in the satellite town on the outskirts of the national capital.

The application fee for the applicants was fixed at Rs.100,000 or more depending upon the size of the plot. There was overwhelming participation with a million applicants.

The draw for allotment was supposed to be held within three months of the last date of application, Dec 31, 2004. But when it was eventually held after repeated postponements, only the influential from amongst the executive, the legislature and the judiciary and a few from the media could make it.

People who were allotted the plots included former chief justice of India Y.K. Sabharwal's daughter-in-Law Sheeba Sabharwal, Samajwadi Party MPs Toofani Saroj, Rewati Raman Singh, Rasheed Masood and Jai Prakash.

Others included state legislators, senior bureaucrats, police officers and lawyers.

Following a hue and cry in the media, Noida Authority cancelled the entire allotment. On some public interest lawsuits, the Allahabad High Court ordered a CBI probe into the matter to fix the criminal liability of officials and politicians in the scam.

Apex court extends stay on radio jockey Nitin's arrest

New Delhi, Nov 19 (IANS) Red FM radio jockey Jonathan Brady alias Nitin was granted immunity from arrest by the Supreme Court Monday till his petition challenging a criminal case against him over his alleged insulting remarks about "Indian Idol" Prashant Tamang is decided by the court.

A bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice J.M. Panchal exempted Nitin from arrest, extending its last week's order till Monday.

The Red FM jockey faces arrest following registration of a case in Siliguri, West Bengal, accusing him of inciting communal violence and creating hatred between the Nepalese Gurkha community and others by his remarks during a radio show.

He has also been accused of hurting feelings of the Nepalese by his jocular remarks during a live radio programme that "shopkeepers will now have to make their own security arrangements as Gurkhas have taken to singing".

He made the remark on his new programme, "Khurafati Nitin", on Red FM in the wake of Tamang emerging as winner of the "Indian Idol" television talent show.

The remark triggered clashes between Tamang's fans and locals in Siliguri and the police had to resort to firing to contain the mob.

The police registered a case against Nitin for inciting communal violence and a Siliguri court issued a non-bailable arrest warrant against him.

The radio jockey subsequently moved the Calcutta High Court seeking anticipatory bail and quashing of the criminal proceedings. But the high court dismissed his petition and he approached the apex court in appeal.

SC refuses to cancel bail of Amarinder's son

New Delhi, Nov 19 (IANS) The Supreme Court Monday refused to cancel the bail granted to former Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singh's son Raminder Singh, who is facing prosecution for his alleged role in a land scam in Ludhiana.

A bench of Justice A.K. Mathur and Justice Markandey Katju refused to accede to the Punjab government's plea to cancel Raminder Singh's bail on the ground that he was not cooperating with the investigative agency.

Raminder Singh was earlier granted bail by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The apex court bench said if Raminder Singh was not cooperating with the police in the probe of the case, the state government was free to approach the high court to seek the cancellation of his bail.

Raminder Singh is an accused in the what has come to be known as the Ludhiana City Centre scam, involving loss to the state exchequer worth several billion rupees following irregularities in allotment of prime plots of land to a few builders by the erstwhile Amarinder Singh government.

Amarinder Singh himself had ordered the probe into the matter before the 2006 assembly elections in the state in which his Congress party was defeated by the Akali Dal-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) alliance.

He too now faces the probe into the case along with his several relatives, including son Raminder Singh.

Appearing for the state government, Ravi Shankar Prasad contended that the high court had passed a blanket order of bail to Raminder Singh. He pointed out the high court should have given bail to Raminder Singh only in some particular case or against a particular first information report (FIR) lodged, and not in all cases already registered or are likely to be registered in future as offshoots of the scam.

Acceding to this plea, the apex court asked the high court to amend its bail order.

Supreme Court dismisses petition on Nandigram

New Delhi, Nov 19 (IANS) The Supreme Court Monday refused to entertain a petition seeking its intervention in West Bengal's violence-hit Nandigram.

A bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan refused to entertain the petition saying it cannot issue direction to the central government to act in accordance with West Bengal Governor Gopal Krishna Gandhi's report on the situation there or direct it to impose president's rule in the state.

The bench dismissed the petition by Kedarnath Yadav as it had also partly lost its relevance. The petition had been filed over three months back.

At least 34 people have been killed this year in police firing and clashes between the ruling Communist Party of India-Marxist activists and an anti-land acquisition group in Nandigram, in East Midnapore district.

As the matter came up for hearing, the chief justice told the petitioner that the state governor has already sent his report to the central government.

No harm in taking oath in name of Allah: Supreme Court

New Delhi, Nov 16 (IANS) There is no harm if elected legislators and parliamentarians take oath in the name of Allah, the Supreme Court has observed.

A bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan made the observation Friday while dismissing a public interest lawsuit questioning the legality of the oath of office taken in the name of Allah by 13 Kerala assembly legislators in 2006.

The bench, which also included Justice R.V. Raveendran, dismissed the petition, saying "What's the problem if one takes the oath in the name of Allah?"

"Allah is an Arabic word. Translated into English, it means god and the constitution permits one taking oath in the name of god," the chief justice told Madhu Parmala, while dismissing her petition.

The petitioner had contended that at the time of filing of nomination papers, the 13 MLAs had sworn in the name of god about the veracity of the facts mentioned.

But after their election, they took oath in the name of Allah, which the petitioner contended rendered their oath constitutionally invalid. She said that without taking a constitutionally valid oath they could not be treated as members of the assembly.

Dismissing her contention, the bench said: "If a person cannot read English and the prescribed form of oath is translated into the language he or she understands, will it be a violation of the constitution."

The chief justice chided the petitioner, saying, "You too have filed this petition for popularity."

Supreme Court has more "Chuttis" than working days

New Delhi, Nov 11 (IANS) Ever wondered what is common between school-going children and the high priests of judiciary? Saturdays, Sundays and "a lot of fun-days", feel a section of lawyers.

As per the Supreme Court's calendar for 2007, out of the 365 days a year, the Supreme Court has only 176 working days. The remaining 189 days - more than half the year - are holidays.

They include roughly 104 Saturdays and Sundays, nearly two-and-a-half months of summer vacation, a fortnight of winter vacation besides several other offs, ranging from a day to a week. And all this in the backdrop of a huge backlog of cases.

"Even the highest US court, where individual judges do not have to adjudicate more than 150 cases a year, does not have more than three to four months of holidays," said senior advocate K.K. Venugopal.

The Supreme Court is currently on a weeklong Diwali vacation, which began Nov 5. The apex court will reopen Oct 12.

The ongoing apex court vacation has come barely a fortnight after the Dussehra break from Oct 15 to Oct 20. Beginning Dec 17, the Supreme Court will have the usual fortnight-long winter break till Jan 1.

The British legacy of a nearly two-month-long summer vacation - the mother of all vacations of the apex court - continuing year after year since Independence can leave even children bored to death. The apex court had its summer vacation from May 21 to July 8 this year.

Its holiday calendar compares well with the vacations of Delhi schools. For instance, Delhi's Somerville School like most schools in the national capital had a summer vacation from May 15 to July 1, only a day's holiday on Dussehra and a two-day break for Diwali.

As per the provisions of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958, besides the apex court's holidays and vacations, its individual judges are entitled to their own quota of leaves.

Depending upon the number of years a judge puts in the service, he -- there is no female judge at present in the apex court -- is entitled to certain days of leave on full salary, certain other offs on half salary and some more days off on one quarter salary.

"True, the apex court does have a lot of Sundays and fun-days. But what is worse is the fact that some judges have no qualms in going on foreign jaunts in the middle of hearings of important cases," senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan told IANS.

The long vacations continue in the Supreme Court despite the fact that in recent times, the backlog of cases has registered a rising trend.

Data from the Department of Justice reveals that the total number of cases pending in the apex court had come down to 19,806 in 1998 from a whopping 104,936 in 1991. But it's rising again. In the beginning of 2006, it had risen to around 29,000 and by the end of October 2007, it had gone up to 45,290.

Despite the rising number of pending cases in the Supreme Court, senior lawyer P.P. Rao defended the long vacations saying: "One has to remember that apex court judges have tremendous work pressure.

"Every day a bench of two to three judges hears around 50 matters. The cases listed on Mondays go up to 70 while it's around 40 on Fridays. They also have to read the voluminous files every evening before hearing them the next day," said Rao.

"They also need time to write judgements, which cannot be written in open courts. And they end up doing all this work during holidays or vacations, which they very much deserve."

But Venugopal said: "It's true that Supreme Court judges end up doing a lot of work at home and in their chambers when they are not in the court rooms. Yet, the apex court needs to arrest the rising trend of a backlog in cases and reducing their long vacations may be one way out."


By Rana Ajit

Supreme Court issues notices to Karunanidhi, Baalu

New Delhi, Oct 29 (IANS) The Supreme Court Monday issued notices to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi and Union Surface Transport Minister T.R. Baalu among others for defying the court orders against a shutdown in the state Oct 1.

The notices were issued on a petition by the AIADMK seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the two.

The shutdown was called by DMK on Oct 1 in support of the Sethusamudram canal project, aimed at building a shorter navigational route for ships.

Hindu groups and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have protested the cutting of the Rs.240 billion canal through a geographical formation known as Adam's Bridge or Ram Sethu, which they believe was built during Hindu god Ram's time.

Supreme Court chides judge ordered back to law school

New Delhi, Oct 26 (IANS) Additional Sessions Judge Rakesh Tewary, who was ordered early this month to go back to law school to learn the basics, was Friday chided by the Supreme Court for approaching it against the high court order.

A bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan castigated ASJ Tewary for "showing his magistracy" for which he was ordered Oct 5 by Justice V.B. Gupta of the high court to undergo a refresher course at the Delhi Judicial Academy for at least three months to learn the basics of criminal law.

"That's a strange way to show your magistracy," Chief Justice Balakrishnan said, castigating counsel for Tewary as he pleaded to the court to expunge the high court's remarks against his client and stall its order.

Even Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, the other judge on the bench, voiced his ire over Tewary for declaring a person, allegedly involved in power theft in the capital, as a proclaimed offender, remarking, "It's atrocious."

"Don't you know that declaring a person a proclaimed offender has serious civil consequences," remarked the bench, which also included Justice R.V. Raveendran.

The bench, however, in a temporary reprieve to Tewary, stayed the high court's order for a fortnight and asked him to go back to the high court for getting its remarks against him expunged.

While ordering Tewary back to law school, Justice Gupta had in his order said, "Since ASJ Tewari does not have even elementary knowledge of the Criminal Procedure Code, it would be appropriate if he undergoes a refresher course at the Delhi Judicial Academy for the law at the earliest for three months."

Irked over a wrong judgement given by Tewary, Justice Gupta had said, "It also seemed he did not know that the subordinate courts are constitutionally bound by the decisions of the high courts."

Tewary had earned the high court's wrath while dealing with the case of one Rohit Kumar, who was accused of power pilferage and had been declared a proclaimed offender by the lower court even as he was trying for bail to evade arrest under the orders of the trial court.

Declaring a person proclaimed offender leads to seizure and attachment of his moveable and non-moveable properties. A person is declared a proclaimed offender only after repeated attempts to arrest him fail.

In his petition to the Supreme Court, Tewary pleaded that the high court's order would do immense harm to his professional career and reputation. He pointed out that before his selection as additional sessions judge, he had worked for 13 years as a public prosecutor and used to teach at the Delhi Judicial Academy, the institution where he has been ordered to undergo a refresher course.

Tewary also contended that even it be assumed that the order passed by him was wrong, it did not imply that he had no elementary knowledge of law and needed to be sent back to law school.

"Day in and day out, judgements of the lower courts are reversed by the high courts and judgements of high courts reversed by the Supreme Court," said Tewary in his petition.

"But this does not imply that the judges, whose judgements are reversed, have no elementary knowledge of the law and need to be sent to the law school," he contended.

Supreme Court wants all Marriages to be registered

The Supreme Court Thursday directed all states and union territories to enact laws within three months to make registration of all marriages mandatory.

A bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat also sought compliance reports from various governments within three months.The bench noted that several states had made registration of marriages compulsory only for members of the Hindu community, while the court had earlier asked for mandatory registration of marriages in all communities.

A Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice P. Sathasivam passed this order on a petition filed by a divorcee, Seema, seeking directions for making registration of marriage compulsory. The Bench reiterated that marriages should be compulsorily registered “in respect of persons who are citizens of India even if they belonged to various religions”. In February last year the Court had held that compulsory registration of marriages of all religions would be a step in the right direction for prevention of child marriage – a practice still prevalent in many parts of the country. The Court had said that one way to curb the practice was to make it mandatory legally for all to register their marriage, mentioning their age at the time of marriage.

Khalid Rashid, member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, said the judgment interferes with his community’s personal law. "Marriages in Islam are a religious affair completely. If registration is made compulsory it will bring unwanted hindrances in the solemnization of nikaahs (marriage), so our request to the court and governments is it should be made voluntary and not compulsory. We ourselves keep records of all marriages at our institutions and we don't think there is any need to compulsory registration, which will bring problems, particularly in villages," he said.

Supreme court order on forest land dampener for all parties

Ahmedabad, Oct 8 (IANS) The Supreme Court's recent order restraining the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Gujarat from vesting ownership rights over forest land to tribals can also impact the state's opposition Congress amid a tussle for votes in the state's forest belt.

Chief Minister Narendra Modi on Oct 2 handed over pattas or ownership rights to 30 tribals in a symbolic move pre-empting the central government, but the apex court Friday directed the state to immediately cancel the pattas as the announcement violated its orders.

Modi's move was in keeping with the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, 2006, which was passed by parliament in December 2006, but is yet to be notified.

The Supreme Court's restraint order was seen as a setback for Modi, but the Congress too stands to lose.

The Congress has been exhorting tribals to claim their rights on forest land in a campaign since January with a view to regain its dominant position in the tribal belt of the state.

According to Congress sources, the party had distributed application forms for land ownership rights among 30,000 tribal families in Sabarkantha district and 13,000 families have already filled up the forms, providing details of the land they live on and the land they cultivate.

The families are expecting the Congress to help them gain rights over the plots, but the apex court order has applied brakes on the party's efforts.

Madhusudan Mistry, the Congress MP from Sabarkantha, however, does not think that the court order will affect the party's campaign.

He said the filled-up application forms had been sent to the state government for the grant of rights.

"At any rate, we will confer the land rights to the tribals when we form the government," Mistry told IANS.

Both the BJP and the Congress have taken up the land rights issue with an eye on the tribal votes.

While people in the forested regions in Dahod and Panchmahals districts along the state's border with Madhya Pradesh traditionally voted for the Congress, the party lost ground in the December 2002 assembly polls when the BJP defeated it on all the 13 seats there in the aftermath of communal violence in the state.

Modi's decision to grant pattas was part of a two-pronged strategy to retain his hold over the tribal belt in the next assembly poll, due by December.

The first part of the strategy was a Rs.150 billion package for the development of the tribal belt, which was announced after Congress president Sonia Gandhi's visit to Devgadh Baria near Dahod drew a huge crowd early this year.

The second element of the strategy was to grant ownership rights to tribals if the central government did not do so.

In his Independence Day address at Mehsana, the chief minister had declared that the state had sent to the centre many applications seeking ownership rights to tribals but there had been no response. He then declared that if the centre did not give its nod by Oct 2, his government would take steps to grant the pattas on its own.

SC refuses to stay order on investment firm

New Delhi, Oct 5 (IANS) The Supreme Court Friday refused to suspend a Delhi High Court order halting criminal proceedings against finance and investment firm CRB Capital Markets for allegedly duping 135,000 small investors and many financial institutions of Rs.12 billion in the 1990s.

A bench of Justice Ashok Bhan dismissed a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) plea to reserve the high court ruling on the grounds that the agency had delayed in filing the appeal against the ruling.

The CBI, which had launched a probe into allegations against the firm, contended before the apex court that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to annul the charge sheet filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before the Mumbai special judge.

The agency contended that the high court had not only stayed the criminal proceedings, but had also approved the revival scheme of CRB Capital Markets in January this year.

The CBI had registered a slew of cases against CRB chairman Chain Roop Bhansali, State Bank of India officials and others for duping the Bank of Baroda of Rs.34.3 million and State Bank of India of Rs.570 million in 1997.

Supreme Court threatens Tamil Nadu government with dismissal

New Delhi, Oct 1 (IANS) Enraged over non-compliance of its order banning a shutdown in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court Monday warned that the state government could be sacked and contempt of court proceedings initiated against Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi and the chief secretary.

An apex court bench of acting Chief Justice B.N. Aggarwal and Justice P. Sathasivam said: "If there is no compliance with our order, it is complete breakdown of constitutional machinery. We will then have to direct the (central) government to impose President's rule."

The state's main opposition party AIADMK had approached the court alleging that Sunday's order was not being followed and government buses were not plying across the state.

The judges told the AIADMK lawyer that he could file a contempt of court petition against the state government if he wanted to do so.

The lawyer for the ruling DMK, however, told the Supreme Court that party leaders were on fast and only trade unions could be blamed for the disruption of normal life in the state.

Supreme Court orders deportation of 13 Pakistani prisoners

New Delhi, Sep 28 (IANS) The Supreme Court Friday ordered the deportation of 13 Pakistanis languishing in several Indian jails for periods exceeding their sentences for various offences they had been charged with.

While examining the cases of 52 Pakistani nationals detained in various Indian jails, a bench of Justice B.N. Agarwal and Justice P.P. Naolekar ordered the Jammu and Kashmir chief secretary to recommend to the centre to deport nine Pakistani prisoners by Oct 10 and four others by Oct 31.

The bench issued the direction in response to a petition by Jammu and Kashmir Panthers' Party president Bhim Singh, alleging that as many as 52 Pakistanis were detained in various jails - some without trial and others for periods exceeding their possible sentences for the offences they had been charged with.

While the state government told the court that it had already sent to the centre its recommendation to deport nine prisoners, the central government denied receiving any such recommendation.

On being quizzed by the bench, the Jammu and Kashmir government was unable to substantiate its claim with valid documents that it indeed had sent its recommendation.

Upset over the state government's casual approach, the bench sternly ordered the state chief secretary to make his recommendation to the Centre by Oct 10. It also ordered that the state send by Oct 31 its recommendation to the Centre to deport another four Pakistani prisoners, who have been languishing in various jails for between two to twelve years after completing their sentences.

After examining the cases of 13 Pakistani prisoners, the bench adjourned the matter for further hearing on Oct 8.

SC stays Muslim quota in Andhra Pradesh

New Delhi, Sep 28 (IANS) The Supreme Court Friday stayed further admissions in educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh against a newly-enacted state law granting four percent quota to Muslims students.

A bench, headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, stayed further admission in the state's professional colleges, while granting immunity to those Muslim students already admitted against the quota.

The stay comes two days before the last date, Sep 30, for admission into professional colleges in the state. The bench has adjourned the mater for further hearing to next Friday to examine the legality of having quota on the basis of religion.

The bench, which also included, Justices R.V. Raveendran and V.S. Sripurkar, stayed the admission while questioning not only the legality of religion-based quota but also on the government's methodology in determining backward classes among Muslim.

Senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for the petitioner Murlidhar Rao, pointed out to the court that the Andhra Pradesh commission for backward classes was asked to determine who among the Muslims were backward rather than determine who were backward classes, irrespective of religion.

Salve also pointed out to the court that the commission left out 10 sects like Pathan, Irani, Sayed and Moughals and ruled that all other Muslims were backward.

Salve said that the sects among the Muslim community that were excluded from the backward classes list existed in the state in miniscule percentage. This left the bench wondering if the state commission had done its job properly.

Questioning the legality of the law, the bench observed that instead of giving an exclusive four percent reservation to Muslims, why can't the government include certain sects in the general backward community list and provide them general reservation as is being done in other states.

The apex court was hearing a petition by T. Murlidhar Rao, who had approached the court against the Andhra Pradesh High Court interim order that had refused to suspend the law earlier and permitted the admission process to go on, subject to its final judgement.

Rao contended that the high court judgement, which allowed temporary admission to Muslim students on the ordinance based on religion, would deprive the general category students of four percent of the seats in professional colleges.

Andhra Pradesh had promulgated the ordinance for four percent reservation to Muslim students on July 6, 2007, providing reservation to several sub sects within the Muslim community by treating them as Backward Classes.

Rao's petition contended that the government issued the ordinance even though a five-judge bench of the high court had earlier declared illegal a similar law by the state government, giving five percent reservation to Muslims.

He contended that the state government proclaimed the ordinance in July though the Supreme Court had earlier refused to stay the state high court's verdict, which declared as illegal five percent exclusive reservation for Muslims.

Supreme court stays sentencing of Mid Day journalists

New Delhi, Sep 28 (IANS) The Supreme Court Friday stayed the Delhi High Court order sentencing four employees of the tabloid Mid-Day to jail for publishing news reports about former chief justice Y.K. Sabharwal.

The apex court stayed the high court's Sep 21 ruling sentencing two journalists, a cartoonist and the publisher of the afternoon tabloid to four months imprisonment each for contempt of court following news reports suggesting that Justice Sabharwal, as the chief justice, had passed orders favouring his sons, who are close associates of mall developers, during the sealing of commercial property in the capital.

Those sentenced were the resident editor Vitusha Oberoi, city editor M.K. Tayal, publisher A.K. Akhtar and cartoonist Irfan.

SC admits plea against female foeticide

New Delhi, Sep 21 (IANS) The Supreme Court Friday admitted a petition seeking direction to the union health ministry to take foolproof and effective measures to curb the growing female foeticide in the country.

Admitting the petition by a social activist, Prabhakar Deshpande, the apex court bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan tagged it for hearing with another similar petition.

In his petition, Deshpande contended before the bench, which also included Justices R.V. Raveendran and D.K. Jain, that on an average one million female foeticides take place in the country annually through illegal abortions and this was heavily skewing the gender ratio of the society.

Deshpande contended that female foeticide continues at an alarming rate because of the government's failure to effectively implement the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Test Act of 1994.

Contending that the government has neither the requisite manpower nor the necessary funds and infrastructure to implement the act, Deshpande sought the court's direction to the government to increase its manpower and hike funds for the purpose.

He also sought the court's direction to the government to limit the number of ultrasound machines in the country to a bare minimum, to be installed at only major government hospitals so that the machines could not be misused by unscrupulous doctors and health workers to determine the sex of an unborn child.

Government invites SC ire over overstaying officials

New Delhi, Sep 18 (IANS) The central government came in for a rebuke from the Supreme Court Tuesday over its lackadaisical approach on the issue of evicting senior government officials and politicians overstaying in official accommodations.

A bench of Justices B.N. Agrawal and D.K. Jain expressed open ire when the government's counsel, including Additional Solicitor General Amrendra Saran, betrayed signs of confusion and ignorance over the court's last order on July 24 on the issue.

The bench had slated Sep 18 to examine the criminal culpability of government officials and politicians who were overstaying, while it had fixed Sep 19 to examine the matter of recovering penal rents from them.

In its July 24 order as well as later, the bench had repeatedly asked the government to prosecute the erring officials and politicians for the offence of trespassing under section 441 of the Indian Penal code.

The bench had also sought the government's stand on amending the IPC to make the offense of trespassing a non-bailable and cognizable one.

The bench got angry when Saran said that he was told by his subordinates that the matter would come up for hearing on Sep 19.

"That implies that you don't even read the court's order. That shows your seriousness over the issue," the bench fumed.

The court bluntly told the law officer that even if the matter was listed for Sep 19, the government was yet to file its affidavit.

"When will you file the affidavit and when will we read it," the bench asked.

As the bench demanded the list of people overstaying in government bungalows, the law officer was again not able to respond to the demand immediately, which infuriated the bench even more.

"How many politicians have you got evicted in Delhi. You only evict peons and clerks, but don't have the guts to touch politicians or senior government officials," said the bench.

"And whatever you do, you do it only on the strength of court orders. You don't do anything on your own," the bench lamented.

Child cannot be compelled to disclose caste: SC

New Delhi, Sep 17 (IANS) The Supreme Court Monday observed that no school in the country can compel a child to disclose his caste at the time of admission.

A bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan made the observation, saying the disclosure of one's caste could only be optional and not mandatory.

The bench dismissed a plea by an 81-year-old Gandhian from Tamil Nadu, Salemvelu Gandhi alias Velu, while yet terming the petition as having "laudable objectives".

The Gandhian had sought the court's direction to schools against seeking information about a child's caste at the time of admission, and pleaded this perpetuated casteism in the society.

The court said it was constrained to dismiss the petition owing to the practical difficulties in issuing the directions as several castes, including the Schedule Castes and Tribes and the Other Backward Classes, depend on the caste certificate issued by schools to avail the benefits of various affirmative actions of the state.

The bench said it cannot pass any direction on the issue as it would create problems for those who want to avail free scholarships and other benefits.

Dutt out of jail for a month

Mumbai, Aug 27 (IANS) Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt, who is currently out on interim bail, Monday got temporary relief for a month as he will get a copy of his court verdict only Sep 27. He is supposed to surrender once he gets the copy.

Dutt, 48, appeared before P.D. Kode, judge at the special anti-terror court here, along with his lawyer Farhana Shah to receive his copy of the verdict, which will now be given to him a month later.

Dutt was sent to jail July 31 after the special TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities) court sentenced him to six years rigorous imprisonment for illegal possession of arms in connection with the 1993 Mumbai bombings. He was moved to Yerawada Jail in Pune Aug 2.

He was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court Aug 20 and was released from jail last week.

The actor is required to mark his attendance before the Central Bureau of Investigation office here every Friday.

Supreme Court: CAs, Architects to Pay Service Tax

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Parliament’s legislative competence to levy service tax on chartered accountants, cost accountants and architects.

Rejecting the contention of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners, a bench of Justice SH Kapadia and Justice B Sudershan Reddy said, “Service tax is a tax on each activity undertaken by a chartered accountant, a cost accountant or an architect. For each transaction or a contract, they render professional-based services.”

The bench further observed that although from the point of view from these professionals the activity undertaken by them is based on their performance but, from a client’s perspective, they are service providers. While upholding the Central Government’s law to levy service tax through Finance Act 1994 and 1998 the bench also distinguished between a service tax and a professional tax. Rejecting the appellant’s argument that the word “profession” was synonymous with the word “service,” the bench held that service tax and professional tax were distinct.

Professional tax, according to the court, is a tax on an individual, person, a firm or a company. And, therefore, the state legislature was entitled to levy the same. However, service tax was a tax on the “status of a cost accountant or a chartered accountant.” Read Complete News

Supreme court raps government over food safety law

New Delhi, Aug 17 (IANS) The Supreme Court Friday pulled up the central government for its failure to implement a food safety law that makes it mandatory for soft drink majors Pepsi and Coca-Cola to mention the ingredients on their drink bottles.

A bench of Justices A.K. Mathur and Dalveer Bhandari directed the government to file a detailed affidavit explaining its failure in notifying the Food (Safety and Standard) Act, 2006.

Earlier, counsel for petitioner Centre for Public Interest Litigation, Prashant Bhushan, contended before the court that the government was deliberately avoiding implementation of the law.

Bhushan alleged that the government may be avoiding the notification of the law under the influence of multinational companies like Pepsi and Coke, which have been opposing statutory measures that might force them to mention the contents of their soft drinks.

The petitioner contended the companies had been opposing the law in the aftermath of findings that soft drinks had traces of harmful chemicals, including pesticides, which could damage the health of consumers, a majority of whom are children.

He also suggested that the court constitute a committee comprising of experts to examine the issue of enumerating all ingredients of a food product and soft drink on the packets.

Bhushan suggested the name of eminent scientists Prof Yashpal and P.M. Bhargava for inclusion in the expert committee.

The court adjourned the matter for further hearing on Sep 5.

Apex court stops Haryana from perforating Bhakra canal

New Delhi, Aug 17 (IANS) The Supreme Court Friday temporarily restrained the Haryana government from making a hole in the Bhakra Canal in Kaithal district to feed a water channel being built by the state to irrigate farm land.

A bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice R.V. Raveendran, in an interim order, stalled the Haryana government till Sep 5 from making the canal, on an application by the Punjab government opposing construction of the water channel.

The bench issued notice to the Haryana government seeking its response to the Punjab government's opposition to the construction of the water channel.

The bench, however, refused to stay the ongoing construction of the 20-km-long water channel, called 'Hansi Branch Butana Branch of the Multipurpose Link Channel', being built to link with Bhakra canal through a perforation near Ajimgarh village in Kaithal, Haryana.

The water channel runs from west to east, adjoining the territory of Punjab. It is to have a 10.2-feet-high embankment for the first 11 km and taper to a seven-feet-high embankment along the subsequent nine km run.

The counsel for Punjab government Rajiv Dhavan contended that the embankment would obstruct the free flow of surface water from north to south and result in flooding the territory of Punjab.

He said the water deluge in turn would result in submergence of 20,756 acres of Punjab land in 32 villages and require displacement of over 100,000 people in the state.

Objecting to the construction of the water channel by the Haryana government, Dhavan said that the project would also ruin the existing irrigation system as well as communication system in the state and inflict other damages.

Terming the construction by Haryana as "violation of territorial rights of Punjab", Dhavan pointed out that even the farming land in the Yamuna basin that Haryana proposed to irrigate through the channel was not part of the areas identified for irrigation in the Bhakra Nangal agreement of 1959.

Dhavan said Haryana's project was akin to "creating an extra-territorial nuisance" against Punjab and amounted to trespass into its territory.

The apex court restrained Haryana from perforating the canal, rejecting the contentions by its counsel Shanti Bhushan that the court could not restrain the government from perforating the canal without hearing its arguments.

The court, however, observed that it was an "original suit" between two states, where the court was empowered to restrain a state through interim orders.

Justice that is delayed is forgotten: chief justice of India

Delayed justice and the tardy disposal of cases could result in people losing faith in the judiciary, Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan said Wednesday after hoisting the tricolour at the Supreme Court.

"The people's faith in the judicial system begins to wane, because justice that is delayed is forgotten, excluded and finally discarded," the chief justice told a gathering on the occasion of India's 60th anniversary of independence.

He said the backlog of cases continued to mount despite the best efforts of the judiciary and urged the government to improve infrastructure so cases could be disposed of faster.

Balakrishnan called for setting up of "high quality and modernised training academies" for judges and lawyers to dispose cases faster. - IANS

Such academies needed to be set up at the lower judiciary level, he said.

"The lower judiciary is hindered with the problem of inadequate infrastructure, as well as poor working conditions in certain areas. This is a pressing concern, since most cases do not go beyond the lower judiciary.

"It is thus imperative to modernise the lowest rungs of the judicial system and introduce high quality and modernised training academies for the judges and lawyers. This will make for a better workforce," he observed.

He expressed his satisfaction at the innovative evening courts, mobile courts and e-courts set up by various high courts to make justice accessible to people living in the remotest parts of the country.

According to the latest figures, there are 25 million cases pending in the lower court, 3.6 million in the high courts and 43,580 in the Supreme Court.

Andhra Pradesh move to free 1,500 prisoners halted

New Delhi, Aug 16 (IANS) The Andhra Pradesh government's proposal to release 1,500 prisoners, including the convict husband of a Congress legislator, to mark the 60th anniversary of the country's independence was halted by the Supreme Court Thursday.

A bench of Justices B.N. Agarwal and D.K. Jain also issued notice to the government seeking its reply within four weeks, following a petition by R. Chandrashekhar Reddy, a lawyer from Andhra Pradesh.

The bench questioned the rationale of releasing habitual criminals, convicted on heinous charges.

"At this rate you might as well release the people involved in the Nithari killings and the Mumbai blasts," the bench remarked sarcastically, questioning the Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy government's rationale for setting free 1,500 of the 6,500 prisoners in the various jails of the state.

Rejecting Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam's argument that the state was finalising the list of the prisoners for release after detailed evaluation of their behaviour and conduct in the jails, the bench shot back: "What about their heinous crimes outside the jail?

"Such habitual offenders are menace to society. We also need to consider the impact of their crime on the society," it said.

It, however, allowed the government to continue preparing the list of prisoners eligible for release after evaluating their conduct.

The prisoners set to be released included ruling Congress legislator Charitha Reddy's husband Gouru Venkat Reddy, convicted on charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and jailed for 10 years.

Reddy had been given life sentence by the trial court on charges of murder, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court reduced his jail term after convicting him on the lesser charge of culpable homicide.

Reddy was in 2005 granted pardon by then state governor Sushilkumar Shinde, currently union power minister. Shinde's order granting remission to the legislator's husband, however, had been set aside by the Supreme Court last year.

The state government's move to set free a large number of hardcore and notorious criminals was challenged Tuesday by advocate Reddy who practises at the apex court.

In his petition, the lawyer has contended: "The release of such a huge number of prisoners has become a regular phenomenon in Andhra Pradesh. While releasing such prisoners the government pays scant regard to the sentiments of the victims of these criminals. It neither assesses its impact on the morale of the police force nor on the criminal justice system of the state."

He also challenged the state government's tendency to relax the eligibility criteria to grant remission to the prisoners.

"Earlier the lifers were eligible for remission of their sentences only after serving 14 years of jail term. But since 1995, the government has been consistently relaxing the norm for grant of remission to the prisoners," said Reddy.

"The government has now begun giving remission to lifers up to three years even after the completion of seven years of jail term by them," he said, adding that other prisoners, jailed for less than life term too become eligible for remission of their sentences after completing half of their terms.

The petitioner termed the government's decision to release 1,500 prisoners as irrational, illogical and illegal.

SC cancels anticipatory bail to Gujarat police officer

New Delhi, Aug 13 (IANS) The Supreme court Monday cancelled the anticipatory bail to a suspended Gujarat police officer allegedly involved in the November 2005 staged killings of Ujjain resident Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his wife, paving the way for his custodial interrogation in the matter.

A bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and P.K. Balasubramanyam annulled Deputy Superintendent of Police Narendra Kumar Amin's anticipatory bail after a first-hand scrutiny of an Ahmedabad court's order granting him bail.

The bench cancelled Amin's bail on an unusual special leave petition filed by the Gujarat government challenging the session court's order directly before the apex court, without first going to the Gujarat High Court.

With the cancellation of bail, the apex court paved the way for Amin's custodial interrogation to unravel his alleged role in the larger plot to eliminate Sohrabuddin, his wife Kausar Bi and his friend Tulsiram Prajapati.

On Friday, the bench had reserved its verdict on the Gujarat government petition. Amin is suspected to know how exactly Kausar Bi had been killed and how her body was disposed of.

Earlier Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam, who is assisting the court in the case, had pointed out that the charge sheet filed by the Gujarat police team, headed by its Inspector General of Police Geetha Johri, was silent on how exactly Kausar Bi had been killed.

Seeking continued monitoring of the case, even after the investigation is over, Subramaniam had argued that of the police officers Amin, who is suspected to have some knowledge in the case, had never been put to custodial interrogation as he had secured anticipatory bail.

He had argued that even the government was not interested in putting him to custodial interrogation as it never sought to challenge the Ahmedabad sessions court's bail order, despite the lacunae.

It was this argument which prompted the apex court to direct the Gujarat government to directly file a special leave petition before it to let it undertake a first hand scrutiny of the sessions court's bail order for Amin.

Supreme court slams Allahabad High Court for murder acquittals

New Delhi, Aug 13 (IANS) The Supreme Court has severely castigated the Allahabad High Court for the "casual way" in which it acquitted three people - one sentenced to death and two to life imprisonment - convicted for double murder by the Hamirpur sessions court in Uttar Pradesh.

The high court had to face the apex court's wrath for the "casual and summary way of disposing the appeals against the sessions court judgement (made by two lifers) and the reference (made to it by the sessions court) for confirmation of the death sentence".

Expressing its rage over the high court's "perfunctory ways" in dealing with the issue, a bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and D.K. Jain said Friday: "To say the least, the approach of the high court is clearly unsupportable. This is not the way an appeal or reference for confirmation of death sentence is to be dealt with.

"The high court (while acquitting the convicts) did not even bother to analyse the evidence or to refer to any findings of the trial court (on the basis of which it had convicted the accused)."

The apex court bench made the caustic comment while hearing an appeal from the Uttar Pradesh government challenging the acquittal of two lifers and one condemned prisoner by the high court.

The Hamirpur court sentenced Govind Das to death for the murder of Loknath and Naval Kishore and gave life to two others while acquitting a woman.

While it referred the case to the high court for confirmation of the death sentence, the two lifers also approached the high court challenging their sentence.

The high court acquitted all three on the simple fact that the trial court had acquitted one of the co-accused.

Reminding the high court of the legal position that acquittal of one co-accused cannot be a ground of acquittal of all, the apex court bench directed the high court to adjudicate the two appeals and the trial court's reference afresh.

The apex court also asked the high court to dispose the matter within six months as it had taken "very long" in doing so the first time.

Supreme Court - Murders in 'fit of passion' don't deserve death

New Delhi, Aug 12 (IANS) In what has alarmed friends of slain Delhi University law student Priyadarshini Mattoo, the Supreme Court has held that even a double murder committed "in a fit of passion" after an abortive rape bid does not deserve death penalty.

A bench of Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Markandey Katju earlier this week upheld a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling, which commuted a death sentence imposed on a double murder convict by a lower court to life term.

Kulvinder Singh had in August 2002 hacked Hardeep Kaur to death in a Punjab village after she resisted his bid to rape her. He also killed the girl's grandmother who tried to save her.

"While upholding the conviction of the accused for murder, we reduce the sentence to life imprisonment since it appears that the crime was committed in a fit of passion and does not come within the category of the 'rarest of rare' to deserve death penalty," the apex court bench ruled.

The sessions court had sentenced Kulvinder Singh to death saying: "The conduct of the accused depicted him as a person who constituted a threat to the society. He has forfeited his right to life by his barbarity."

The Supreme Court ruling has alarmed Priyadarshini Matoo's friends and relatives. The 23-year-old was raped and murdered in January 1996 by Santosh Singh.

Santosh, son of senior police officer J.P. Singh, had been allegedly stalking the girl for over a year.

Aditya Raj Kaul, who spearheaded the campaign 'Justice to Priyadarshini Mattoo' after a Delhi court acquitted Santosh, said: "It's a shocking ruling from the highest court of the country."

"At this rate, Santosh Singh's lawyer may also argue before the apex court that he committed the crime in a fit of passion after he failed to rape her and may escape the gallows.

"After all Santosh Singh and his lawyers can conveniently cite his past conduct of consistently stalking her and convince the court that he had a passion aflame for Mattoo," he added.

"This judgment has alarmed us. I will soon discuss it with our friends about what we should do in such a situation," Kaul said.

Sanjay Dutt Bail hearing scheduled for Aug. 20

Aug. 10 Supreme Court Issues Notice to CBI on Sanjay Dutt's Case

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the CBI and posted for August 20 Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt`s interim bail application.

"We are not going to pass any order now. We will consider all connected matter on August 20," a bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan said when senior advocate Fali S Nariman mentioned this matter for urgent hearing.

"We want to follow uniform approach," the bench said. Dutt was given a 6-year jail term in the 1993 serial blasts case by the TADA court on July 31.

The court declined Nariman`s plea that Dutt`s bail plea be heard on Monday.

While seeking early hearing, he said the actor is yet to receive a copy of the judgement and it was not likely to be available by August 24.

Some of the other persons convicted in the case have also applied for bail.

Source: ZEE news

Supreme court to hear Sanjay Dutt's appeal on Friday

New Delhi, Aug 8 (IANS) The Supreme Court has fixed Friday for hearing Bollywood star Sanjay Dutt's petition seeking bail and challenging his conviction under the Arms Act in the 1993 Mumbai bombings case.

The day was decided after senior counsel Fali S. Nariman Wednesday mentioned the matter before a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan that is also hearing the issue of reservations for backward classes centrally-funded educational institutions.

The other members of the bench are Justices Arjit Pasayat, C.K. Thakkar, R.V. Raveendaran and Dalveer Bhandari.

Dutt, who is in a Pune jail, has been sentenced to six years by an anti-terror TADA court that convicted him for being in possession of illegal weapons, which he later destroyed.

The actor has sought interim bail pending a decision on his appeal challenging the verdict of the anti-terror TADA court in Mumbai.

He said he deserved relief from the court as he had earlier been on bail for about 12 years and had never given the investigating agency or the trial court any reason for complaint.

Dutt, who has served 16 months in jail, added that he had exhibited exemplary conduct while he was on bail.

He has also challenged his conviction on grounds that he could not have been convicted on his confessional statement for possessing weapons as he had retracted it later.

Supreme Court Refuses to revoke Stay on OBC QUOTA

Supreme Court says no to OBC quotas

New Delhi, Aug 8 (IANS) The Supreme Court Wednesday refused to revoke the stay on quota laws for other backward classes (OBC) students in centrally funded higher educational institutions.

The law had been suspended on March 29.

The Supreme Court decision has come despite the government offering a compromise formula for the same. Besides being embarrassing for the ruling UPA government, the refusal is especially disillusioning for Human Resource Development Minister Arjun Singh who had been trying to push the stay.

Refusing to lift the freeze, a five-judge Constitution Bench ruled that the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act 2006 cannot be implemented until the main petitions challenging the validity of the Act is decided.

"We are not going to pass any interim order," the Bench, headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, said.

The Bench said it will hear the main petition to examine the Constitutional validity of the Centre Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2006 soon.

Supreme court probes bail to Gujarat police official

New Delhi, Aug 6 (IANS) The Supreme Court Monday initiated the process for first-hand scrutiny of a sessions court order giving bail to a Gujarat police official suspected to be involved in the staged killing of Ujjain resident Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife and a family friend.

A bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and P.K. Balasubramanyam began the process of scrutinising the bail to Gujarat police official Narendra Kumar Amin by admitting a special leave petition filed by the state government as per its directions last Monday.

The bench issued notice to Amin, deputy superintendent of police, who had been granted anticipatory bail by an Ahmedabad sessions court. Amin is presently posted in the Crime Investigation Department of the state's police force.

The bench fixed Friday to hear the petition against bail to Amin.

Last Monday, the bench had asked the Gujarat government to directly file an appeal against the sessions court order giving bail to Amin after Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam had pointed out a series of inconsistencies in the state government probe into the November 2005 killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his wife.

Elaborating on lapses into the probe, Subramaniam, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the case, had pointed out that the Gujarat government was so biased in favour of the erring police officers that it did not even challenge before the Gujarat High Court the anticipatory bail granted to Amin.

Reading the sessions court order, Subramaniam pointed out that the order virtually sounded like a character certificate to Amin, against whom a police head constable had given a statement that he might be involved in the killing of Sheikh's wife Kausar Bi.

At this, the bench had asked counsels, including the Gujarat government counsel K.T.S. Tulsi, if it had the power to directly entertain a petition against the order of a sessions court.

A petition against a sessions court generally goes to the high court, before reaching the Supreme Court.

As the counsel assured the apex court that it had enormous power under the constitution, the bench asked the state government to file a petition directly before it to challenge the sessions court bail order to Amin.

SC dismisses petition against Indo-US nuclear deal

New Delhi, Aug 3 (IANS) The Supreme Court Friday declined to entertain a petition seeking direction to the government to obtain parliamentary approval before implementing the Indo-US civil energy nuclear deal.

A bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan dismissed the petition "as withdrawn" saying "these are all parliamentary procedures and that's why we will not interfere".

The bench, which also included Justices Tarun Chatterjee and R.V. Raveendran, refused to intervene in the issue, saying: "The government's treaty making power was beyond judicial review."

Former chief justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court P.S. Mishra, appearing for the petitioner, Bhopal resident Anil Chawla, had pleaded for directions to the government to seek parliamentary ratification of the joint Indo-US statement on the civil nuclear deal.

The apex court, dismissing the petition, also said: "Your main grievance was that it (the Indo-US nuclear agreement) was not approved by parliament. But it may be placed before parliament in due course," observed the chief justice, apparently taking note of the government's proposed plan to table the deal in parliament.

"It's for the constitutional authorities like the prime minister and Lok Sabha speaker to decide," observed the bench, adding, "we cannot ask the parliament to conduct so and so business and pass such and such legislation.

"We are in a democracy and in a democracy, the executive is answerable to parliament," the bench observed.

"You cannot ask the judiciary to direct government to notify the agreement and invite public objections to it," the Chief Justice observed in the bench agreement.

As Mishra sought to raise public concerns over the deal on various counts, the chief justice observed: "We do not say these are minor things. They indeed are serious things, very, very serious things."

The bench however, sought to allay the petitioner's apprehension saying: "There are several scientists to advise the government also."

As Mishra again insisted that the court pass some positive direction on the issue, the bench gave him hints that he may leave the matter pending with the court to be undertaken later.

"You wait till the matter is laid in the parliament," said the chief justice, expressing his disinclination to pass any order at this juncture.

Gauging the bench's unwillingness to interfere, Mishra sought the court's permission to withdraw the matter so that he could approach the court later.

SC threatens action on overstaying MPs

New Delhi, Aug 2 (IANS) Cracking the whip on illegal occupation of government accommodation across the country, the Supreme Court Thursday threatened to issue notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee on the 30-odd former parliamentarians who were overstaying in such houses in Delhi.

The court also pulled up three state governments for not doing enough to evict bureaucrats and politicians who were illegally occupying government accommodation.

"If you can't take action, we will issue notice to the speaker," a bench of Justice B.N Agarwal and P.P. Naolekar told government counsel Wasim Ahemad Quadri while dealing with the issue of 30-odd former parliamentarians overstaying in government accommodation and the recovery of penal rent from them.

"Central government officials and politicians are not on a different footing from those of state governments," said the bench, which had minutes earlier rapped Andhra Pradesh for its inaction in evicting 60-odd government employees who were overstaying in their official accommodation.

The bench's threat to issue notice to Chatterjee came after it found a government affidavit on the issue "vague" and bereft of details like the action that was being taken to get the houses vacated and to recover penal rent from the occupants.

The bench was especially upset when it noticed that 30 former parliamentarians were illegally occupying government houses in Delhi.

When the bench asked Quadri about the action being taken against the offenders, Quadri sought to shift the focus from the government by saying the houses had been shifted from the central pool to the parliamentary pool.

At this, the bench asked him to approach the relevant committee of parliament for taking remedial measures and threatened to issue notice to the speaker if this did not yield the desired results.

Minutes earlier, while dealing with the issue of unauthorised occupation of government bungalows in Hyderabad and Patna, the bench had ordered the Andhra Pradesh and Bihar governments to immediately suspend 60 and 56 government officers respectively who were overstaying in government bungalows in the two cities.

"Put them behind bars. Let them be IAS (Indian Administrative Service) officers. They may be senior IAS officers, judicial officers or MLAs but they do not have immunity from the law. They all are equal," an angry bench remarked while dealing with the case of unauthorised occupancies in Hyderabad.

While dealing with a similar issue in Madhya Pradesh, the bench termed as "peanuts" the recovery of Rs 300,000 against arrears of Rs 50 million. It also asked the state government to file an affidavit detailing what it was doing to recover penal rent from the unauthorised occupants.

Supreme Court asks Kerala to provide security for examination

New Delhi, July 24 (IANS) The Supreme Court Tuesday asked the Kerala government to deploy an adequate number of police personnel at examination centres where private medical colleges will conduct an entrance test in August. Students unions affiliated to the ruling communists had disrupted the test earlier.

A bench of Justice B.N. Agarwal and Justice P.P. Naolekar gave the directions to the state government while disposing a plea by a consortium of private medical colleges of the state seeking deployment of central paramilitary forces for holding medical entrance tests Aug 5 for the 2007-08 academic session.

The court impressed upon the state government that it was its duty to provide adequate security during the conduct of the examination irrespective of whether it was conducted by private medical colleges or government run institutions.

The bench asked the government to have the tests conducted under the supervision of the state's statutory Admission Supervisory Committee.

The Kerala Private Medical Colleges Managements Association had approached the court Friday for a directive to the central government to provide paramilitary forces for security during its Common Entrance Test (CET) for admission to four private medical colleges in the state for 2007-08.

The Kerala medical colleges, in their petition, had said they were not able to conduct the entrance test on two earlier occasions due to "state-sponsored terrorism", as students affiliated to communist unions prevented the conduct of the test and the police remained mute spectators.

The petitioners said the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government through its student organisations, the Students Federation of India (SFI) and the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), had publicly protested against the medical colleges conducting the test.

The private medical colleges said that the student wing of the ruling left parties had created political unrest in the state. The students had announced that they would not allow the CET to be conducted.

The petitioners said they were forced to cancel the entrance test June 23 after the activists of the SFI and All India Students Federation (AISF) disrupted the conduct of the test.

The petitioners alleged that the police had left the venue of the test at 7.45 a.m. before the arrival of the student activists and it looked as if it was stage-managed by the government.

The Kerala government has, however, denied the allegations contending that the deployment of central paramilitary forces on such flimsy grounds would undermine the federal structure of the country and strain centre-state relations.

Supreme Court orders cancellation of Monica's passport

New Delhi, July 23 (IANS) Monica Bedi, girlfriend of mobster Abu Salem, can now walk free with the Supreme Court ordering cancellation of her original passport Monday. Monica said the passport had been seized by authorities in Lisbon after her arrest there and could not be surrendered in Hyderabad for her release.

A bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan ordered the Mumbai regional passport office to cancel her passport, bearing number B-0195737 and issued on June 24, 1999.

The bench, which included Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice R.V. Raveendran, ordered Bedi's release on bail on a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with a surety of the same amount.

Bedi had moved the apex court Friday seeking exemption from surrendering her original passport to secure her release from a Hyderabad jail as per an apex court order, which had earlier granted her bail.

As the bench took up Bedi's petition for hearing, Additional Solicitor General Amrinder Saran, doubting her claims that her passport had been seized in Lisbon following her arrest with Abu Salem, contended that her passport was still valid.

At this the bench suggested cancellation of her passport and it was accepted both by the government's law officer as well as Bedi's counsel K.T.S Tulsi.

She was acquitted last week by a Bhopal court in a fake passport case. A Hyderabad court had earlier convicted and sentenced her to five years jail for possession of yet another fake passport. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, however, reduced the sentence to three years.

While reducing her sentence, the high court dismissed her bail plea.

The apex court, to which she appealed against the high court order, granted her bail on condition that she surrender her passport to the judicial magistrate in Hyderabad.

Monday, the apex court ordered her passport cancelled.

Bedi was arrested along with Abu Salem at a Lisbon shopping mall Sep 18, 2002, following an Interpol red corner notice issued at the behest of the Central Bureau of Investigation.

She was brought back to India with Salem Nov 11, 2005.

SC notice to Babloo in murder case

New Delhi, July 23 (IANS) The Supreme Court Monday issued notice to underworld don Om Prakash Srivastav alias Babloo Srivastava on a Delhi government plea challenging his acquittal by the Delhi High Court in the murder of businessman Lalit Suneja 15 years ago.

A bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan also issued notice to his accomplice Nitin Gunwant Shah, who had allegedly hired Srivastava to kill Suneja.

A division bench of Justices R.S. Sodhi and P.K. Bhasin of the Delhi High Court had acquitted the two due to lack of evidence, setting aside a trial court verdict that had sentenced them to life for hatching the murder conspiracy.

While acquitting the duo, the high court had ruled, "It appears that the trial court has based its judgement only on an assumption that the appellants (Srivastava and Shah) are guilty of conspiracy to murder the businessman."

"In the totality of the circumstances, we find that there is nothing on the record to show that any of the two appellants had anything to do with the murder of Suneja," it added.

Suneja was allegedly shot dead by Manish Dixit and Virender Pant, the two killers allegedly hired by Babloo, while he was returning to his Shakarpur residence in east Delhi after offering prayers at a nearby temple on Aug 2, 1992.

Dixit and Pant had died during trial.

Babloo, who divides his time among various jails in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh and faces trial in several cases, was extradited from Singapore in August 1995.

New Supreme Court Cases CD launched

Indianlawcds.com launced the new SUPREME COURT India Judgments CD (Full Text) -
Very Powerful & Fast Search, Over 37000 Judgments, Auto Summarizer , Automatic Spelling Correction at Unbelievable Price:

Features of the CD

• Very Easy to Use: Just enter the details of your case in plain English to get the list of Supreme Court Judgements.
• Very Fast Search: It takes less than five seconds to get the list of Supreme Court Judgements.
• Automatic Spelling Correction: If user enters a wrong word, it suggests correct spelling. If user clicks on "Yes" button, the corrected words are used for search. This feature is available only in this Software and not provided in "On Line Search".
• View Full Text: Once Supreme Court Judgements are listed, you can view Full Text of any judgment.
• Save Cases: Allowed to save case details for future reference. You can search and retrieve it later by just entering first few letters.
• Auto Summarizer: There is a facility to generate automatic summary of the judgement. The user can enter the number of words for summary.
• Advanced Search: Advanced Search allows to search on multiple fields like:
  1. Name of Petitioner or Respondent
  2. Name of Petitioner
  3. Name of Respondent
  4. Name of judge
  5. Name of any judge from bench
  6. Citation
  7. First two digits of Date of Judgment
  8. Month Name (First Three Letters. Ex. Jan Feb Mar etc.)
  9. Year in which Judgment given
  10. Week Day of Judgment (First Three Letters. Ex. Mon Tue etc.)
  11. Search Full Text
  Click here for Details
  

Apex court slams Tamil Nadu government over MBBS Admissions

New Delhi, July 19 (IANS) The Supreme Court Thursday criticised the Tamil Nadu government for making last-minute changes in its admission rules for state-run medical colleges, thereby depriving some students who were studying in other colleges from taking admission.

A bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan pulled up the state government while staying a July 10 order of the Madras High Court order banning over 400 students, who were pursuing professional courses in other colleges of the state from participating in the counselling for admissions to medical colleges for the new academic year.

The high court passed the order after the state's advocate general said that the government would strike down the rule allowing these students to compete for admissions.

Upset by the government's approach on the issue, an irate chief justice went said that the government's action was tantamount to "stifling the education" in the state.

"By doing this you are stifling the education," said the chief justice adding: "Everyone has the right to get admission in a medical college. How can you deny this right?"

"There is a huge disparity between the fee of the government colleges and private colleges, particularly for medical courses. How can you deprive the students of their chances in a government college?" he asked.

"Don't stretch the provision of the constitution too far to deny the rights of the citizens," he snapped.

The bench, which also had Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice Dalveer Bhandari on it, allowed the affected students to participate in the second round of counselling for admission from Monday.

The bench, however, said that the students already admitted to medical colleges after the first round of counselling between July 9 and 16 will not be affected by its order.

The apex court's order follows a petition by eight Tamil Nadu students, who had taken admission last year in other private colleges after they failed to get admission in state-run medical colleges.

When the state began admissions for 2007-08, the students again took the entrance test.

Out of around 1,500 students who made it to the merit list in the entrance test, around 400 were those who had taken admission in professional courses in other colleges.

Some students who had taken the entrance test for the first time moved the Madras High Court saying that by admitting students who had already taken the test a year ago and were pursuing courses elsewhere to the new session, the seats in the other colleges vacated by them would go waste.

Allowing their petition, the high court had asked the government to change the rule to deny the old students admission to the state-run medical colleges.

SC to hear government's quota plea July 31

New Delhi, July 17 (IANS) The Supreme Court Tuesday fixed July 31 to hear the government's fresh plea for the revival of a law for the reservation for other backward classes (OBC) students in centrally funded higher educational institutions.

Denying any immediate relief to the government on its Monday's application for reviving the quota law, a bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan also decided to take a call on formation of a constitution bench to examine the legality of the suspended quota law.

The bench, which also had Justices R.V. Raveendran and Dalveer Bhandari on it, said the matter related to the quota issue would be "listed for direction for placing it before a constitution bench next week."

But with the court likely to refer the entire issue to a constitution bench next week, the government stood a fair chance of having the hearing on its latest plea next week.

As the government's petition for the revival of the quota law, suspended by the court on March 29, came up for hearing, the court initially suggested that it be listed for hearing within next eight weeks.

This was stoutly opposed by Solicitor General G.E. Vahanvati, who said the government's entire purpose would be defeated in moving the court as the OBC students would not be able to avail reservation in the academic session 2007-08 owing to the stay on the law.

The bench then suggested its listing on July 31, while advocate Rajeev Dhawan, appearing for various petitioners challenging the legality of the law, suggested that the entire issue be listed for hearing by a constitutional bench at the earliest.

The bench acceded to his request and said that it would take its call on forming a constitution bench next week. This partly satisfied Vahanvati as well, since the government's petition would be heard earlier this way.

Arguing before the court to revive the suspended quota law, Vahnavati earlier said the government has approached the court with fresh grounds to seek the revision of its March 29 order.

Vahanvati pointed out that Supreme Court, while hearing some petitions against the quota laws of Tamil Nadu, had asked the state to increase the seats for the general category students in its medical colleges in appropriate proportion.

He said the court had given this order after it found that the state reserved up to 69 percent seats for various categories of underprivileged students - 19 percent over and above the 50 percent limit fixed by the court.

He recalled that the court had asked Tamil Nadu to increase the number of seats for general category students after it found that the students figuring high in the merit lists of the medical entrance examination in the state were not able to secure admission in the colleges of their choice with their preferred courses.

Vahanvati added that in May this year, the court endorsed its 1994 order for increasing the general category seats in Tamil Nadu.

He argued that just as the court permitted an increase in the number of seats for general category students in Tamil Nadu to implement the quota policy, it should allow the central government to do the same as per the provisions of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006.

Supreme Court Refuses to halt Kohli's extradition

New Delhi, July 13 (IANS) The Supreme Court Friday refused to halt the extradition of Maninder Pal Singh Kohli - the alleged killer of British teenager Hannah Foster - to stand trial for her rape and murder in Britain.

A bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice R.V. Ravindran refused to grant legal reprieve to Kohli saying: "This case does not deserve any stay."

It was hearing a petition filed by Kohli challenging additional chief metropolitan magistrate Kamini Lau's recommendation to the Indian government to extradite Kohli to Britain, which was endorsed by the Delhi High Court.

Kohli is accused of raping and murdering Foster after kidnapping her March 14, 2003 from a place near her home in Portswood, Southampton, where she had gone on a weekend picnic with her friends.

SC asks Govt. to frame telemarketing guidelines

New Delhi, July 12 (IANS) Terming unsolicited telemarketing calls to Mobile phone users as "nuisance", the Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Government to frame guidelines and regulations to halt the threat.

A two-member bench headed by Justice A. K. Mathur asked the government to present its guidelines against telemarketing calls and needed to be stopped.

The bench asked the government to submit the rules and regulation by the next date of hearing July 27.

The move comes after Vivek Tankha, counsel for petitioner Harsh Pathak, told the court that despite the government's persistent claims of various steps taken to stop telemarketing calls, it has done nothing to put an end to the woes of the telephone subscribers and protect their privacy.

Pathak had filed a public interest litigation (PIL) against indiscriminate telemarketing calls, contending that these calls invaded privacy of the citizens as they are made at odd hours without any concern that they might be interfering and distracting the attention of a phone user from a possibly important work.

On Pathak's lawsuit, the court had earlier issued notices to 11 respondents including the central government, various cellular operators and nationalised banks and had sought their response to the issue.

Indo-Asian News Service

Government seeks transfer of canal project pleas to Supreme Court

New Delhi, July 12 (IANS) The central government Thursday moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of various petitions pending in the Madras High Court against the execution of the ambitious Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP) off India's southern coast.

Taking note of the government's transfer petition, a bench of Justices B.N. Agarwal and P.P. Naolekar ordered its listing for hearing Tuesday along with two other petitions against the project pending with the bench.

The bench ordered the listing of the government's petition after Additional Solicitor General R. Mohan apprised it about its filing.

On behalf of the government, the petition was filed by state-run Sethusamudram Corporation Limited that has been entrusted with the task of executing the project.

Sethusamudram envisages a shorter navigational sea route around India's southern peninsula by dredging the peak of Ram Setu or Adam's Bridge between India and Sri Lanka.

India, despite having a peninsular coast of 7,517 km with 12 major ports and 185 medium and minor ports, does not have continuous a navigational sea route around its peninsula through its own territorial waters owing to the existence of the shallow undersea ridge at depth of 1.5 to 3.5 metre, known as Adam's Bridge.

The ships calling at Indian ports on the east coast have to go around Sri Lanka entailing an additional distance of 254 to 424 nautical miles and an additional time of 18 to 30 hours. The project was envisaged 150 years ago, but was cleared by the central government in 2005.

Some Hindus, however, believe Adam's Bridge to Ram Setu, mentioned in epic Ramayana, and believed to be built by Lord Ram's army of monkeys and bears to cross over to Sri Lanka to rescue his wife Sita.

Some environmentalists have also objected to the project.

Janata Party president Subramanyam Swamy and Chennai-based organisation Hindu Munnai's president Rama Gopalan had moved the Madras High Court seeking directions to the government to declare Adam's Bridge as a protected site of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

Arguing that they were not against the execution of the project, Swamy and Gopalan through their petitions wanted to know from the government if it was possible that Adam's Bridge could be dredged only across its limited stretch.

On the petitions by them, the high court has issued notices to the ASI and the central government, seeking their replies before July 23, the next date of hearing of the petitions.

Meanwhile, the apex court is to hear here July 17, several other petitions challenging the execution of the prestigious project.

Supreme Court halts Ujjain professor's murder trial

New Delhi, July 11 (IANS) The Supreme Court Wednesday halted the murder trial of Ujjain professor H.S. Sabharwal in a Madhya Pradesh court on a petition by his son seeking its transfer to Delhi alleging that it was not being conducted fairly.

A bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice D.K. Jain issued the notice to the Madhya Pradesh government on a petition by the professor's son Himanshu Sabharwal.

After hearing the petitioner's counsel, the bench halted the trial and issued notice to the state government, wondering, "if they had made mockery of the justice".

In his petition, Himanshu expressed the apprehension that he would not get justice in the state as the trial was being conducted to "give a clean chit to the accused persons" who happen to be youth wing leaders of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

Professor Sabharwal, a 61-year-old teacher at Ujjain's Government Madhav Inter College, was badly beaten allegedly by a group of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad leaders during the student union election on Aug 28 last year.

Himanshu told the court that his father succumbed to his injuries right there in the college in front of over 70 policemen, including officers of the rank of assistant superintendent of police and a local magistrate, deployed in the college on poll duty.

He said the police officers turned a blind eye to the incident and even refused to promptly register a case of murder after his father died of the beatings.

Accusing the policemen of carrying out a shoddy probe into the case, Himanshu alleged that the trial was not being conducted fairly in the state.

Despite several of the crucial witnesses retracting from their original statements, he said the Ujjain trial court had refused to declare them hostile, which would have an adverse effect on the trial.

Himanshu's counsel pointed out several other lacunae in the ongoing trial, prompting the court to issue notice to the state government.

Ban on rickshaws challenged before Supreme Court

New Delhi, July 11 (IANS) The Supreme Court Wednesday issued notices to the central and Delhi governments among others on a petition challenging a Delhi High Court order banning rickshaws in Chandni Chowk in the old walled city area and other arterial roads.

A bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice R.V. Raveendran issued the notices also to the city police and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on a petition by non-governmental organisation, Initiatives for Transportation and Developmental Programmes.

The NGO challenged the high court's Oct 16, 2006, order banning the movement of rickshaws in Chandni Chowk and nearby arterial roads.

Banning the rickshaws, Justice Kailash Gambhir had said in his order: "If the cycle rickshaws are allowed on arterial roads, meant for motorized vehicles, it would not only affect smooth flow of traffic but also create congestion, resulting in long traffic jams and wastage of fuel."

"The rickshaw pullers for their own safety and for the safety of commuters cannot be allowed to ply their cart on arterial roads," Justice Gambhir had said.

The NGO, however, challenged the order, arguing that, "the order portrays a picture as if rickshaws are some sort of menace, which is contrary to the facts".

"Various technical researches show that rickshaws are virtually indispensable for a majority of commuters of Delhi as an efficient, effective and low cost means of transportation for short distances," the NGO said in its petition.

It also pointed out that the Delhi Traffic Police, the statutory authority to control traffic in the capital, had earlier made a proposal to regulate traffic in Chandni Chowk without banning the rickshaws as they had found them indispensable.

The NGO contended that regulating traffic in the city is a technical matter and the high court cannot take a decision on it.

Pointing out the "social impact of banning rickshaws", the NGO said there are over 800,000 rickshaws, employing over a million people, who "would lose their jobs and be driven to penury and destitution".

"Rickshaws pulling is a preferred choice for unskilled people, especially migrants, as it does not require huge investment, the work timings are flexible, is less strenuous than industrial or construction work and is reasonably well-paid," the petitioner argued.

Hannah Foster murder accused moves Supreme Court

New Delhi, July 11 (IANS) The alleged killer of British teenager Hannah Foster, Maninder Pal Singh Kohli moved the Supreme Court Wednesday challenging his proposed extradition to Britain to stand trial for the murder and rape of Foster there.

Kohli's counsel Charanjit Singh said he was likely to apprise the bench of chief justice K.G. Balakrishnan Thursday about the filing of the petition.

He said that he would request the court to hear the petition early and "give the requisite relief" to his client.

The Delhi High Court on July 6 had dismissed a petition by Kohli challenging his extradition to Britain ordered by a subordinate court.

Kohli is accused of raping and murdering Foster after kidnapping her on March 14, 2003 from a place near her home in Portswood, Southampton, where she had gone on a weekend picnic with her friends.

- Indo-Asian News Service

SC Notice to Madhya Pradesh in Monica Bedi case

New Delhi, July 10 (IANS) The Supreme Court Tuesday issued a notice to the Madhya Pradesh government on a petition by mobster Abu Salem's girlfriend Monica Bedi seeking transfer of the trial of her forgery cases from the state to Delhi or Mumbai.

A bench headed by Chief Justice K.V. Balakrishnan issued the notice. Bedi is facing trial in Madhya Pradesh for allegedly possessing fake travel documents and passports in her name.

In her petition to the Supreme Court, she had alleged that she is unlikely to get a fair trial in Madhya Pradesh.

- Indo-Asian News Service

Supreme Court notice on security to CAT judicial officers

New Delhi, July 9 (IANS) The Supreme Court Monday issued notices to the central and the Bihar governments on a plea for security to the judicial officers and advocates of the Patna bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

A bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnann and Justice R.V. Raveendran issued the notices following a letter written by the CAT Bar Association seeking security for the judicial officers and the advocates of the Patna bench of the CAT. The letter was treated as a public interest suit.

The letter comes in the wake of the killing of a friend of a judicial officer of CAT in Patna.

The bench issued notices without any time limit for the two governments to reply. In such cases, the reply is expected within eight weeks.

The CAT, with its principal bench in Delhi and auxiliary benches in various state headquarters, is the judicial forum for redressal of the grievances of the central government employees against their employer.

The letter, seeking appropriate security environment in the Patna bench of CAT for its "free and fair" functioning, referred to the May 21 incident at the official residence of CAT member Sadhna Srivastava, in which her guest Suresh Mehta was thrown off the multi-storied building by two miscreants.

Mehta, a senior Tata Motors official, died after the fall from the eighth floor of the building.

- IANS

Bill allowing judges to challenge sacking may change

New Delhi, July 8 (IANS) A parliamentary panel is to recommend changes in a draft bill that it says allows errant high court or Supreme Court judges to mount an elaborate challenge on presidential orders dismissing them, government sources said.

Instead, the panel wants an impeached judge to be entitled to only a brief Supreme Court review of their dismissal order, said a senior law ministry official privy to the proceedings of the parliamentary panel on the law and justice ministry, which last met June 25.

The panel, which examined the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006, is to recommend that the government modify Section 30 which entitles an impeached judge to go in an appeal before the Supreme Court and seek a detailed examination of the president's order.

The bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha Dec 19, 2006, seeks to establish an institutional mechanism to probe charges, such as corruption and inefficiency, brought against Supreme or high court judges. It recommends the establishment of a body - to be known as the National Judicial Council (NJC) - comprising the chief justice of India and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court or high court.

Section 30 of the bill, in its present form, reads: "A judge aggrieved by an order of removal passed by the President or the NJC ... may prefer an appeal in the Supreme Court." The panel wants the word 'appeal' to be replaced by 'review'.

The panel zeroed in on Section 30 after law ministry officials explained the subtle differences between the legal processes of review and appeal. The panel was told that the process of appeal entails a close and detailed judicial examination of the executive's decision - both on the grounds of facts and the law.

On the other hand, a judicial review is limited to a brief examination of a decision only on the grounds of law and not fact, the panel was told.

The panel was told that as the President's decision to dismiss a judge under the Judges Enquiry Bill would be based on the recommendation made by the Chief Justice of India and other senior-most judges, it would be illogical to subject the President's decision to an elaborate examination.

It was also pointed out to the panel that the Supreme Court's power of judicial review is one of the basic features of the Constitution - as held by the Apex court in the Kesavananda Bharati case, in which executive dictates suspending certain fundamental rights during the Emergency had been challenged.

Eminent jurist and former law minister Ram Jethmalani, expressing his opposition to the bill, had told IANS: "Section 30 is the most foolish provision of the bill."

The panel has finished its examination of the bill and is presently drafting its recommendations, hoping to table them in the upcoming monsoon session of parliament.

- By Rana Ajit (C) IANS

High Court paves way for Kohli extradition

New Delhi, July 6 (IANS) The Delhi High Court Friday dismissed a petition of Maninder Singh Kohli, accused in the 2003 rape and murder of British teenager Hannah Forster, paving the way for his extradition to Britain to face trial.

A division bench of Justice Mukul Mudgal and P.K. Bhasin said the earlier decision of the subordinate court in directing the Indian government to extradite Kohli to Britain was right.

On June 9, a magistrate had ordered the extradition of Kohli to Britain to stand trial for rape and murder of Hannah Foster with the stipulation that he be not hanged if found guilty.

Kohli had last month challenged his extradition order before the Delhi High Court saying that the judge of the lower court had erred in considering "false evidence" produced by the British police.

In a detailed petition, counsel for Kohli Charanjit Singh had claimed the subordinate court took into consideration the forensic report which was not scientifically based on DNA tests.

The High Court, however, expunged Friday the trial court remark that Kohli was prima facie guilty of the crime.

The only recourse left with Kohli is to challenge the order before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court dismisses plea against Patil's candidature

New Delhi, July 3 (IANS) The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking directions to the Election Commission to cancel the nomination papers of United Progressive Alliance's (UPA) presidential candidate Pratibha Patil on the ground that she was in debt to the public exchequer.

A vacation bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and P.K. Balasubramanyan dismissed the petition saying there was no ground for moving the court under Article 32 of the constitution, which empowers a citizen to move the court for violation of fundamental rights.

The bench, however, gave the petitioner, advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, freedom to approach other appropriate authorities, including the Election Commission, for redressal of his grievances.

"This petition is filed under Article 32 of the constitution. We find no ground to interfere and exercise our jurisdiction. However, this will not prevent the petitioner from approaching appropriate authorities for redressal of his grievances," the bench said.

The court also scoffed at the petitioner for not having any documentary evidence to substantiate his allegation that the UPA government's presidential nominee was an "undischarged insolvent", indebted to public exchequer.

The bench asked Sharma if there was any court ruling declaring Patil - UPA's presidential nominee supported by the Left and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) - an undischarged insolvent but the lawyer could not satisfy the court.

According to Sharma, Patil owed Rs.177 million to the public exchequer as founder president and chairperson of the Sant Muktai Cooperative Sugar Factory of Jalgaon in Maharashtra, set up in 1973.

The factory, which essentially happens to be Patil's family business entity, was granted the loan by the Mumbai District Co-Operative Bank under her guarantee as the company's president. It is still run by her brother, said Sharma.

He stated in his petition that a person is not qualified to be elected as president unless he or she is qualified to be elected as a member of parliament according to constitutional provisions. And any person indebted to the public exchequer is not qualified to be elected as a parliamentarian, he added.