Thursday, October 15, 2015

Politics of Positivity!

1
I believe in a Politics of Positivity!
A politics:
    That is inclusive, where everyone is respected and their dignity is uncompromising
    That is progressive, in ideology and thoughts,
    That is liberal, devoid of any sort of imposition or rigidity
    That is oriented towards Humanism

I aspire to do Politics. And aspire to change the way of doing politics.
No opponents, I want Partners.
No criticism, I want suggestions.
No treasury benches, No blame-game.
Don't accuse, this is not my govt., it is ours!





Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Int'l Women's Day

1

Gloria Steinem said, and I quote:

"The story of women's struggle for equality belongs to no single feminist nor to any one organization but to the collective efforts of all who care about human rights."

It was the collective efforts of the Socialist Party of America, which honoured the 1908 garment workers. It was the collective efforts of those who fought for achieving “Universal Suffrage” for women. It was the collective efforts of Organisations like United Nations. And it is the collective efforts of Amity University, today, to celebrate this International Women’s Day, even if belatedly- for greater realization of equality and justice to women.

Friends! Celebration of Women’s Day is for fairer recognition of Women’s rights…for greater awareness of Women’s equality…for elimination of all forms of exploitation of women…for an impressive participation of Women in Science, politics and technology. However, all these sound theoretical when divorced from the reality.

At the very outset, let me take the opportunity to give you a glance of such reality and hard facts about the society, we live in; about the world, which is so unfriendly towards women.
According to World Health Organization Review, 2013, 35% of women worldwide have experienced either physical/ sexual violence. However, some national studies show it to be 70%.
Approximately 140 million girls and women worldwide suffer female genital mutilation.
Trafficking ensnares millions of women into modern-day slavery. Out of 4.5 million victims of sexual exploitation, 98% are women.
Rape has been a rampant tactic in modern wars. Conservative estimates suggest that 20 thousand to 50 thousand women were raped during the 1992 to 1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, while approximately 2 lakhs to 5 lakhs women were raped in 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Numerous efforts have been made and actions have been taken to prevent and address exploitation of women in all forms. The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on 10 December 1948 at Paris. The Declaration recognizes the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of all without the discrimination of sex for social progress and better standards of life. Article 7 guarantees equality of all before the law, and equal protection of the laws. Article 16 and 25 ensures entitlement of equal rights of both men and women in marriage and dissolution of marriage; and adequate standard of living.

The most significant convention relating to women is: The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which proscribes any form of discrimination, distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex. It mandates States Parties to take measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women. Embodiment of these principles of equality in national Constitution and other legislations; prescribing sanctions for any act of discrimination through tribunals; and importantly; repealing existing laws inter alia penal laws; and modifying customary practices prejudicial towards women -are some of the major obligations casted upon the State parties. Article 7 endorses the concept of “Universal Suffrage” and talks about the voting right and the participation of women in policy formulation and implementation thereof. Apart from recognizing all sorts of equality enshrined in ICCPR and ICESCR, the declaration provides for setting up of Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women for effective implementation of the convention.

            Apart from these conventions, many States have carried out legal reform; including the introduction of specific criminal offences relating to women, inclusion of aggravating circumstances in sentencing provisions, increasing penalties for gender based violence; and expanding protection and support for victims etc.
Adherence to relevant international instruments continues to increase. Legal, policy and institutional frameworks have been strengthened, and efforts aimed at bilateral and multilateral cooperation have been reinforced. Despite these developments, violence, abuse and trafficking of women still persist…Existing and new laws are often ineffectively enforced…And Prosecution rates continue to be low. In India, there were 2 lakhs 28 thousand reported incidents of crime against women in 2011 with an increasing trend of 7.1% annually, as compared to 2010. Out of which 24,206 were cases of rape while 2,435 were cases of trafficking, as per the National Crime Records Bureau. The number of dowry related offences and domestic violence cases, we as  lawyers come across each day, is vexing. Alarming numbers of female foeticide and bride burning make us question ourselves as to: whether we are the same country which has been preaching the world "Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra Devata…" (wherever women are given their due respect, even the deities reside there…) Though abolition of Sati and reduction of child marriage are some accomplishments of our civil rights groups, however, we as a society are yet to realize, there is no virtue in not sending our girls to school. Therefore, a greater campaign of awareness and accountability mechanisms has to be put in place. Political commitment at all levels is sine qua non and collaboration has to be intensified with private sector and media. Comprehensive, coordinated, and cohesive approach among all stakeholders is the need of the hour.

Friends! In our Constitution, we have resolved to ensure our citizens the gender based equality and opportunities. Article 14, 15, 16, 39(a)(d) and 42 obligated the States to ensure equality and violation of which can be redressed under the constitutional remedies under Article 32 and 226. Yes! At times we have failed in ensuring such equality. But it is also the flaws that help us appreciate beauty when it shines through. This year, the IWD official UN theme is “Equality for Women is Progress for All”. And, as I have said, there are huge imparities in accomplishments of the same. Hence, the requirement is a Change…A change, not cosmetic rather a real one. And specifically, the historical unequal power relations between men and women, which led to such domination over and discrimination against women must change.
At last, Friends! It is an occasion for looking back on past success and struggles, and importantly, for looking ahead to the unexplored potentials and possibilities that await future generations of women. Accepted! It is an occasion of respect, appreciation and love towards women. But am glad, as am told, in this programme we will celebrate their achievements and honour their talents. I thank everyone for their patient hearing and Mrs. Mamata Ma’am for inviting me for this programme.
*      Wishing you all a belated Happy Women’s Day…Thank you!


Friday, September 27, 2013

Shave your beard! Mr. Rahul Gandhi

0
When the country was debating over the landmark judgment of the Apex Court, which entitles them to register their “democratic dissent” over EVMs; something very weird was orchestrated by the first family of the Congress party. Mr. Ajay Maken kept down his phone and announced that the Hon’ble Vice-President of the party padhar rehe hain...

He rushed in! He said what he was asked to say! And he rushed out!!

This Ordinance, in its process and content, is no good. And it does not require any imprimatur from Mr. Rahul Gandhi, the Silent second-leader-on-command. However, he speaking and using hard words raised many eye brows both inside the government and outside.
“It (the Ordinance) is complete non sense. It should be torn up and thrown away. It is my personal opinion.” He said.

I could recall, Mr. B.R.Ambedkar using similar language in Rajya Sabha on 2nd September 1953, where he said, 
“…I shall be the first person to burn it (the Constitution) out. I do not want it.”

Ambedkar’s frustration is clearly understandable. He said, he was a ‘hack’ and he did what he was asked to do, much against his will. Moreover, in his opinion, “(the Constitution) does not suit anybody”. But when RaGa chooses these languages I politely ask: Why you? Why now?

This Ordinance was placed before the Cabinet and the Representation of People (Second Amendment) Bill, 2013 was introduced in Rajya Sabha under your nose! Were you not aware of? Why this sudden rise of conscience now? Why this grandstanding after Milind Deora’s criticism and BJP’s President meet? Mr. Gandhi, You have to explain! And you have to explain more… why this new Congress line now? Is this UPA government not led by your party? Or have you decided to kick Lalu Prasad out and go ahead with Nitish? 
Importantly, Mr. Rahul! Your bossy élan! Ridiculous! By the way, was it an off-late image building from ‘jack’? Or was a desperate attempt to assert leadership? Have His Excellency tutored you well? Or have you realized that your Rasheed Masood can’t go through and will get pressed down hard under NOTA button, in any case?

Mr. Gandhi! As Mr. Jaitley said ‘damage control exercise’ won’t help! Everyone can see through. You could have been a little more honest. Belated realization, if any could have been communicated better. Snubbing the Prime Minister, when he can’t fight back and using these languages only shows your political iniquity. If you want to look good, shave your beard instead of lathering Manmohan’s. Contrarian approach and Back biting won’t get you vote. Why call this ordinance ‘Non-Sense’, when most of us personally think you to be the one? I sympathize!




Monday, June 17, 2013

A Split

0


 A Split, both telegenic and telly-bugging... A departure based on apprehension and assessment… A break up where both the partners play victim and no one takes the blame. Yes! It’s not Jiah Khan. Am talking about Janata Dal(U) and its divorce from BJP!

Here is a split, which not only shrivels the already slim NDA but has weakened the force that is anti-Congress. A split that speaks less on Narendra Modi’s polarization and more on Nitish Kumar’s dichotomy. Is it purely a clash of issues and Ideology; or there are things we do not know of? Not being privy to both the camps, it will be unjust if I endorse Sushil Modi, when he says JD(U) is apprehensive of its support base being dented; and equally it will be unreliable if I comment on the tightness of JD(U)’s embracement to the 3rd resolution in our preamble, which Sikri, C.J. and Chandrachud J. calls to be the basic. But incredible is our political archives and incredulous is our political developments.
As a mugwump when I see it, I find it interesting. It is not after the “coronation” of Modi at Goa; it was already in the air before. And everybody heard it when Nitish screamed the necessity of using topi at the Ramlila Maidan. Their resolution might not have mentioned the Bad Boy’s name but, they say, it is indication enough. Surprising was when they set a dead line for BJP to declare their Prime Ministerial candidate because the Nation’s mood is increasingly tilted towards a Man, who is causing irritation to the Bihar Chief Minister. And even more surprising was when Nitish mistook 16th June as 31st December and calls it Off!
Nitish didn’t have any objection and was part of the alliance when the saffron party was satiated with Ram Bhakti. And the latest released video clearly confirms that Nitish was not suffering from NaMonia in 2003. Am glad Nitish didn’t call them concocted, and those pics there suggest that Modi was no-untouchable post Godhra. Ram Vilas Paswan stepped down. But where was Nitish then? Lalu’s allegation of ‘failing to order a probe’ holds some water and can’t be dismissed.
The country would have appreciated, if Nitish would have said- I want to split because I don’t like the tunic of a person, who is anointed as BJP’s campaign committee chief; but the jerry-built reason given is easily seen through. An agreement with SCS as consideration may be a possibility, Ineludible!


Monday, May 6, 2013

Welfare of Advocates

0


Dear Eminent Scholars on the dais, Hon’ble Judges, Senior Advocates, Advocates, and my dear colleagues from the Bar Council.

Today, I am glad to address you all on a topic, which we often discuss and least implement. A topic which is discussed in the corridors of the court rooms... A topic which is vehemently demanded in the bar meetings… And a topic which is always talked about wherever we meet... Friends! The topic for today’s deliberation is- The welfare of Advocates.

To start with, I am neither an idealist nor a cynic. Being a pragmatic, today I have bestowed upon myself the obligation to highlight, within limited time, the issue of Welfare of Advocates with a Solution-Oriented-Approach. Something which is practical; something which can be implemented; and something that can be acted upon… In a Welfare State like India, something that is ‘not fare’ is ignoring the ‘welfare’ of the Advocates. The black-coated tribe which is responsible for upholding the Constitutional guarantees is today the neglected lot. I believe no one in this hall will disagree with me that- Bar is the mother of Judiciary and it is the Advocates, who uphold the values; which our tradition teaches, which our philosophy preaches, and which our Constitution practices. Now it’s the time to recognize their welfare. Now it’s the time to give them back for their contributions.

Well! What is Welfare? When we talk about welfare, what do we want to accomplish? We here are not interested in going into what John Bronsteen had in mind when he wrote “Welfare as Happiness”, nor are we inclined towards Amartya Sen’s Welfare Economics. For us, Welfare simply means something that aids and promotes well being. It can be financial welfare, professional welfare, or any other. Friends! To put it straight, as a beginner, I want my pocket money at least. As an indigent/ disabled, I want ex-gratia at least. As an Advocate, in advanced age, I need my sustenance at least. As a less informed, I should have something to look upon at least. As a contributor to the jurisprudence, I should be recognized at least. And after my death, my heirs may expect a claim at least.

As a beginner:
Friends! Gone are those days when students come to Law Faculty because they didn’t get through a Medical or an Engineering college. Now studying law is not a compulsion, it’s a Choice. And it’s an informed choice. In recent times we see the infusion of best minds into the law colleges and to the bar. The enrollment register of BCD speaks all for itself. However in comparison to the corporate entrants, this figure is negligible and the left-outs rate cannot be brushed off. The objectives of National Law School concept missed somewhere; and from the young minds, the cachet of this profession dried down somewhere. And the reason is- “Initial Hardships”. It becomes really tough for a junior advocate, not having a forefather, to sustain himself. No co-operative work culture, No contacts, No money…And Ahh! A beginner coerces himself and says Enough! We at the bar loose a member, and we as a country loose a litigating lawyer. When an illiterate labourer has the right to minimum wage; denying the same to a young Advocate discourages him.

In countries like Scotland, Advocates are regulated by the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh. The Faculty has a service company, namely, Faculty Services Ltd.; which is responsible for fee collection. This gives a guarantee to all new advocate a place and money. In India, I agree this system is not feasible. But widening our concept of Welfare Fund and granting remunerations through different schemes may be tried out. Secondly, we may conceptualize a Placement Cell, which will be responsible for placing the students under seniors as per their merits and choice; and will guarantee them their payments from the senior’s office. Until 2007, a number of young European lawyers were given a placement with advocates under the European Young Lawyers Scheme, organized by the British Council.

Friends! This is a challenge before us and it has to be done very professionally and diligently. The beauty of this profession is it welcomes all with a wide open arms but unfortunately it doesn’t embrace them with such tightness!

As a Member of the Bar:
To be frank, if we have Advocates who are among the top tax payers of the country; we also have Advocates who require financial assistance. We can’t afford to close our eyes to them; if at all Bar Council wants to remain as an effective body. Assistance to Advocates ahead of festivals, assistance for daughter’s marriage etc. are small steps, but it is a step ahead. Am glad to know from the Telegraph newspaper (dt: May 31, 2012) that the Chhapra Bar Association at Bihar has proposed to provide financial assistance between Rs 800 and Rs 1,000 to advocates ahead of festivals such as Dussehra, Id, Chhath and Diwali and has also proposed to help the advocates with Rs 25,000 before their daughters’ marriage. We at the Bar Council of Delhi may think and work upon something in this line. Inspiration lies within!

The Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 2001 has duly recognized that the member of the Fund may receive ex-gratia grant from the Fund in case of hospitalization or involving major surgical operation; or if he is suffering from tuberculosis, leprosy, paralysis, cancer, unsoundness of mind or from such other serious disease or disability. This has to be enforced in all its seriousness. And members should be made aware of such schemes.

As a less informed:
Ignorance of law is not an excuse. And repeating this is neither one. Friends! Our society, our laws and our relationships are changing so fast these days that we need to be updated. We need to be updated, as a practitioner, about the developments in Anti-trust laws, marine laws, regulatory laws etc. In United States, the lawyers have something called “Learning hours”, in order to keep them updated. In India, the Chartered Accountants have similar learning hours. But we don’t see any such practice among Indian lawyers. And there suffers our profession and our practices. Secondly and most importantly, we face the problem of language. The language of the court is neither the language of the litigants nor the language of majority of lawyers. Therefore there is a need for continuing legal education and professional development programmes to impart expertise, skills and other things to the interested Advocates at a subsidized rate. The Bar Council need to come up with an Advocates’ Academy in the line of American Lawyer Academy, or International Academy of Trial Lawyers; and the government should encourage this. When we have a Judicial Academy for judges, why not to have an Advocates’ Academy for Advocates? It’s welfare as well!

As an Advocate in advanced age:
Friends! An Advocate gets neither tired nor retired. It is said, his professional fees increase with his age. However, at one point of time ageing comes in the way. The bodily and cognitive limitations started affecting his work. I agree, there are Advocates who are earning more at the advanced stage but these are exceptions. Friends! Am glad to say that the Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 2001 has provisions for payment of pension to every advocate, who has been a member of the Welfare Fund for a period of not less than five years. However, where a member of the Fund ceases to practice within a period of five years from the date of his admission because of any permanent disability, the Trustee Committee may pay him such amount subject to its satisfaction.

As a late Advocate
Friends! There is an increasing demand for effective implementation of Death claims for Advocates. However, under Section 24 of the Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 2001 there is a provision that the trustee committee may obtain from the Life insurance Corporation of India or any other insurer, policies of Group insurance on the life of the members. Secondly, there is also a provision for payment for the medical and educational facilities for the dependants of the members. And thirdly, where a member of the Fund dies before receiving the ex-gratia amount, there is the provision for his nominee or legal heir to be paid such amount.
Apart from this we have schemes for granting financial assistance to indigent practicing Advocates, we have a scheme for Library Development and many other things. Therefore, we might lack many things. But we have something also. We need to implement what we have. The reasons for non implementation may be genuine; but we can’t blame anyone for that, except ourselves. Friends, I have one grievance to register. It is understandable when we debar a person in receipt of pension from the Central Government to get pension but barring a Senior Advocate under Section 28 does not appear to be a reasonable classification.
I am told by one of my juniors that the Attorney General Mr. Vahanwati during the BCI Golden Jubilee celebrations has proposed to grant “Senior Advocate” status to Advocates practicing in trial courts. Friends! I completely agree and support this move. There are Advocates working tirelessly and contributing a lot. But often they go unnoticed. We should recognize their contribution and the bar should welcome this change. Our Constitution might tell us that Part III is sacred, but history tells us that they aren’t worth a dime unless Advocates push them and protect them for the country. I take the opportunity to request, from this platform, the government in power to take welfare measures with all seriousness it deserves. Friends! Aggression is not my tactic and exaggeration is not my intent. All that I want is the message gets across. To give a pessimistic expression will compound the dilemma more. So, here is an occasion for all of us to stand. Let’s stand to rise, let’s stand to demand and let’s stand to do.

With these words, I thank everyone for your patient hearing and also thank the members of Bar Council for inviting me to keep my words before you all.
Thank you!




Friday, March 29, 2013

Pardon me, His Excellency! You can’t pardon

0


Sanjay Dutt was never in news for his professional career so much, as he is for his recent conviction. Upholding the TADA court verdict, the Supreme Court sentenced him to five years imprisonment in connection with his role in the 1993 serial bomb blasts, which shook India’s conscience and India's financial capital on March 12, 1993. Death of 257 people, with more than 700 getting injured flung Mumbai into chaos. In the mean time, three AK-56 rifles, cartridges, 25 hand grenades and a 9-mm semi-automatic pistol finding their way in Dutt's house threw him behind the bars.

Dutt had been released on bail in November 2007. Recently he pleaded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to let him off on probation on grounds of his past good conduct, but his petition was rejected. The bench of Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan said, “The circumstances and nature of the offence are so serious... they don’t warrant the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act”. While upholding the death sentence of Y A R Memon and the life sentences of 16 (of the 18) convicts the bench further pruned its liberal stand towards Sanjay by saying- We could not have given a sentence less than what is prescribed in law*.
*Section 25 (1(A) of the Arms Act states that if a person has in his possession a prohibited weapon without a licence, he shall be awarded punishment of not less than 5 years imprisonment and not more than 10 years

Fortuitously or regrettably, no verdict of the Highest Court is ever executed in silence. Politicians have to score points, colleagues have to show emotions and people like me have to write blogs… Anyway, Mrs. Jaya Bachchan, Member of Parliament, announced that she will meet Maharashtra Governor K. Sankaranarayanan to pardon Dutt. She subsequently got support from eminent scholars like Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Mr. Majid Memon; and politicians like Mr. Amar Singh and Mrs. Jaya Prada, who were never known to be on the bangs of any mercy controversy ever. Surprising pitched in Behen Ms. Mamata Banerjee showing solidarity to Sanju baba, and also joined in Congress leader Mr. Digvijaya Singh, who went on record to say- "Sanjay Dutt is not a criminal. He is not a terrorist. The atmosphere was bad in 1993 and he reacted to it like any child would."

So pardon him..! If my boss Mr. Ramesh Gupta wouldn’t have been Digvijaya’s lawyer, I would have asked him-Had a common man played this role would he have showed same leniency as he expressed for Dutt?

And interestingly the story didn’t end there. There were more tellers to tell it… Justice (retired) Markandey Katju wrote a letter to Sankarnarayanan, appealing to pardon Dutt. Pleading on humanitarian considerations, Katju J., said the power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution is different from judicial power. The Governor or the President can grant pardon or reduce the sentence of the court even if a minimum punishment is prescribed. Citing extenuating circumstances, he went on to compare this case with the Nanavati case and weighed it, in his great wisdom, to be a lesser crime than that of there. Though it is not unusual to see that a sympathetic ex-judges’ heart melting down for the cloud hovering over a convict’s head, however, the political divide between the Right and Mercy supporters was extraordinary.

However, I along with Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate, are on very basic and fundamental point, which needs to be addressed first. In the chorus for pardon, we have failed to see whether the governor has the power to pardon at all! The queue in which Jaya Bachchan, Amar Singh, and others are standing, whether it leads to right person’s House! Whether Katju J.’s letter carries right address!

When this pardonwale mounted pressure, and media started hankering about Governor’s mercy, as a poor student of Constitutional law I asked myself- why not President? In which cases President pardons? In which cases Governor (as a follow up question)? Excitingly I opened up my bare act, putting aside my watsapp. But that little book told me something strange. How can eminent jurists like Kaju J. go wrong? So many scholars can’t be ignorant! But can’t distrust my reading of law also. At least Prof. Mustafa taught me this much. I can read and tell you what the law speaks, if can’t interpret it otherwise. Fortunately I have a friend who always supports me and listens to me…even if it is going against everyone. She gives me a chance to speak up! And this blog gives me a chance to write down!!

Anyway, coming to the topic straight, will reproduce the provisions of Constitution for those who don’t have one…
Article 161: The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons…the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.

Therefore the power of the governor is not absolute. The bold letters in the above para is self explanatory and determines the scope of governor’s power. However the subsequent article i.e. Article 162 makes it further clear. It reads:
Article 162: “…the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws.”

Therefore Schedule 7, List II i.e. the State List determines where the governor can pardon. But the present case in hand does not find in anywhere in the list except Public order. However arms, ammunitions, terrorism is not part of Public order, as the argument developed by the Union Government while formation of NIA. On the contrary, the most fitted one is entry 5 of List I (Union List) i.e. Arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives. Therefore it is not within the power of state government. And to put it straight, it may be anyone else but not the Governor who have the power to pardon.

Obviously, I don’t enjoy the power, neither does my elected representatives. So it was to be an executive. Anyway the cumulative reading of Article 72(1)(b) and 73(1)(a) gives us an answer. Therefore, in this case the president can pardon Dutt.

Therefore the only recourse available to Dutt is to plead before the President or to file a review petition. Secondly, I will most humbly urge Katju J to stand corrected and request him not to put undue pressure on Constitutional body (President or Governor) by asking for mercy when Dutt has decided to surrender before expiry of the Supreme Court deadlines. When it is nowhere near to the mandate given to him as a chairman of Press Council of India, Self adornment of this duty and claiming right as a citizen simplicitor, doesn’t justify.


Monday, June 25, 2012

Pranab’s tainted Resume!

1
Let’s not get distracted with the competitive ambitions of PM aspirants. Let’s not the pure ego of Lee and Hesh rag us much. Let’s not attach too much importance to what Abu Jundal is singing inside the custody. Let’s focus on the Big News- Mr. Pranab Mukherjee’s ride from North Block to Raisina Hill. Am neither interested in entering into a discussion with Mr. Punj as to Should a failed FM be made the President? nor is willing support the candidature of Mr. Jethmalani, whose grievance is- his friend Pranab concealed the names given by Germans and French. Simply, my problem here is: Am a little worried as Mr. Mukerjee’s questionable integrity might sully the ‘sanctity’ of the post, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.J. Thomas case attached too much import to.
Mr. Pranab Mukherjee
Photo Courtesy: Ennapadam Panchajanya
The importance of this write up is- its Urgency, both in intervention and in fact finding. My close buddy might argue clamorously, but Art 361 will not heed to her Understanding of law and will keep averring “Nothing Doing”. Hence all dust needs to be cleared of and all dirt needs to be absolved before his much Awaited Walk. 
Following are some of the charges against him:


Navy War Room Leak 
Mr. Mukherjee is no relative of Wing Commander S L Surve nor is he the custodian of the 'Directorate of Naval Operation' but his interview to CNN-IBN’s Karan Thapar in 2006 dragged him into the controversy. Handing over the investigation to the CBI on Feb 18, 2006 did lessened public angst but didn’t immune the Defence Minister from further questions. 

·        Why no criminal investigation was carried out against Abhishek Verma, Ravi Shankaran and Kulbhushan Prashar?
·         Why the three commanders- Vijendra Rana, Vinod Kumar Jha and Captain Kashyap Kumar, who were sacked under the “Pleasure Doctrine”, were not Court Martialed?
·         The Outlook magazine pointed out that the delayed response by the Defence Ministry gave Shankaran enough time and opportunity to escape. Therefore question arises why Pranab wanted to shield those who collectively and individually compromised the security of the country by smuggling out “classified naval information”?
·        When CBI in its report to the court clearly states that the information was relating to “National Security” and includes ‘Standard Operating Procedure of PECHORA’ and ‘Highly Sensitive information as to Directorate of Naval Operation’, why Mr. Mukherjee didn’t want an investigation and avoided it saying they were of “commercial” nature? (See para 24 and 26 of the CBI Report).


Scorpene Deal

Don’t give a goggle-eyed expression now. Yes! It is Scorpene- One of India’s largest scandal. On October 2005, Mr. Mukherjee signed an arm purchase contract with Thales, a French company. The allegation is- 4% commission is received by a few middlemen on behalf of the decision makers. To make it easy, the kickbacks are over Rs 500 cr in INR. On Feb 22, 2006, Mr. Mukherjee told the Parliament that the deal had no middlemen. But the email exchanged between Abhishek Verma and Jean Paul Perrier on July 13, 2005 proves otherwise. Pranab defended saying it was 'forge', however, the telephonic conversation with Ravi Shankaran clearly corroborates the allegation.      

Rice Export Scam
Again a Rs. 2,500 cr scam! Compromising India’s food security, non basmati rice was exported to Ghana and other 20 countries at cheaper rate on the grounds of Humanity. But this gesture turned out to be a dubious one. The question here is: Why Amira Food (India) Ltd.? Why wasn’t it a government-to-government deal? Why didn’t govt use the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and Shipping Corporation of India (SCI)? Exporters were facilitated to bypass the ban and capitalize on the rising international market prices (i.e. $670/ton). Mr. John Evans Atta’s government launched an inquiry into this and wrote a ‘Letter of Request for Assistance’ in relation to a criminal investigation conducted by the Attorney-General Deptt, the Bureau of National Investigation (BNI) and the Criminal Investigations Deptt. (CID) of the Ghana Police Service. A seven page letter is received by India from the Attorney General’s Deptt (dated August 13, 2009), requesting under the ‘Harare Scheme’ to investigate into the role of then External Affairs Minister of India along with others.{See: Page 4 of the Letter. Reference No.-AGD/PD*2/5A/01/09 (the exact number becomes difficult to identify as they were hand written)}. But unfortunately no concrete step was taken and an eye wash was done in the form of an internal enquiry by the Commerce Ministry. India’s Commercial Humanity. Huh?
Apart from this, there are other allegations also. For instance, Pranab pressurized SEBI to go easy on Reliance, Sahara, Bank of Rajasthan and MCX-SX. The letter of Dr. K.M.Abraham, to the PMO narrates the instances of Calculated Assault on the regulatory framework. (See: para 7, 11, 14 and 15 of the letter dated June 1, 2011. Ref. No.-  SEBI/KMA/2011/17495) However, we will not discuss this here, as the SEBI Chairman Mr. U.K.Sinha has denied the allegations. But it needs to be investigated. Secondly, the former journalist Anuj Dhar claims that Mr. Mukherjee was behind the ‘cover up’ on Netaji’s air crash and goes to the extent of saying that he is “India’s foremost proponent of the Bose died in Taiwan” theory. Nonetheless, we will wait for his book- “India’s Biggest Cover-Up” to come up.
I have no objection when a tainted Man continues his law practice but certainly I don’t want a Man having colored past to be my President. Therefore we demand an independent investigation into all these allegations against Mr. Mukherjee, before he can claim his Presidential Immunity. Let’s not belittle our Highest Office! Let’s not allow a Man with tainted resume! Let’s ensure our Excellency is not excellent in Corruption!



Saturday, June 16, 2012

Mamata: A case of Marginalization!

0

When I address my Best friend as the President of India, I see for her- a Big black car, the Silver Trumpet and Edwin Lutyens’ architectural adobe, and not certainly the Politics of Convenience or Opportunistic Smartness… Unfortunately, the Race-2012 turned down to be that- a game where what matters, the most, is: whose move is more Measured and more Calculated. If tomorrow, Independent India sits down to check it’s achieve, it will by all odds spend a few hours on the upshots of 2012 Presidential Election. The Rush from Certainty to Incertitude and again Redo of all mess makes it Special, and not just the magical number - 13, I believe.
If not two months old attempt of Sushma Swaraj, it was V S Sampath’s 12th June EC News Conference that blew the whistle and Mamata Di was the first one who heard it. When other regional leaders were occupied with their domestic affairs, Mamata appeared to be a Game-Changer in the Capital. She got media attention more than Sunny Leone and her each move became BREAKING NEWS. A quick meeting with the UPA Chairperson and the Declaration of names revealed all secrets. Congress may slam her for Lack of Decorum and Discourtesy but that’s how Mamata Banerjee is. Thanks Di! She ensured every single TMC leaders get an opportunity, at least once in their political career, to climb up to the studios of leading news channels… Disaster! Cataclysmic English and no sense of what’s going on... Anyway, Strategy was crediting her attendance in Akhilesh’s swear-in. All was Well before getting Ill. The M+M Combo (Mulayam and Mamata) was successful in threatening Congress Men and outstandingly came up with an over-the-top proposal i.e. the sitting Prime Minister was proposed to spend his time in the “Retire Bhawan”. Ooopsss.. Rastrapati Bhawan! Amazing! I call it. Nowhere in the history of the world, perhaps!!
Choice was not- ‘what they want’ but off course ‘what they want not’. Any Bengali but not Pranab Da and any Muslim but not Ansari Sahab- was the litmus test. The permutations yielded three names but 7RCR out rightly rejected all of them and Samajwadi Party, forgetting all ethics, backed it. Mamata got her reality checked. She came, She dictated, She periled but she returned Unconquered. Mulayam ditched her, Congress snubbed her and Delhi rebuffed her. Pranab’s victory became the Foregone Conclusion.




Also Visit:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13742999/Is-President-a-mere-head-in-India


Thursday, May 3, 2012

Decision Premature!

0
The Outlook magazine reads “SC Bar Association Not to Engage Tainted Singhvi”. As I understand Law, there is two terminology:
1) Acquitted,
2) Convicted
Boycotting a Convict is understandable but should an Accused/Tainted Man be boycotted? Let’s give the Man a fair chance to defend himself and let the court decide his guilt. Issue of chamber cancellation, and Resolution on not to engage him is Premature, I believe.



Saturday, March 10, 2012

Criminal Justice and PC Act

0

*The author is encouraged by Ms. Ishani Das to write on this topic.
If Humans were Gods and angels, no law would perhaps be necessary. But as sociologists like Prins and Durkhain put it “Criminality…is not transcendent but immanent”. Therefore to curtail, curb and control this inherent and inevitable criminality and to prevent devolution of society into a State of lawlessness, a system is placed in every States i.e. the Criminal Justice System to address the social evils. In India, the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure being cardinal to the justice administration provides for systematic arrangements and functioning of the police, the prosecution, the courts, the probation and other aspects.
Corruption is a pernicious plague, which undermines the rule of law and leads to human rights violations, distort markets, and erode living standards. Being a profound reason of economic underperformance, it injects inequality and injustice into the system and discourages foreign investments. At the international level, India is signatory to the UN Convention against Corruption. It has also signed the Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties with a number of countries. At the domestic level, the IPC deals with the crime of bribery and corruption under chapter IX i.e. Offences by or relating to public servants.
A special law is enacted when a particular crime cannot be handled by a regular law and obviously, Corruption is crime serious enough to merit a special law. Hence, the Prevention of Corruption Act. The PC Act, 1947 is the first legislation to deal specifically with the problem of corruption in public life. Various amendments were made with the changing times and later on, all these laws were replaced by a more comprehensive legislation i.e. The PC Act, 1988. The Parliament deleted Section 161 to 165A from the IPC and incorporated those provisions under Section 7 to 16 of the PC Act.
In addition, the judiciary, through its judgments has substantiated and contributed to the Administrative Law jurisprudence in general and fortification of Criminal Justice System in particular, thus making Judge made law as one of the existing realities of Indian social life.

THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
The PC Act, 1988 was enacted to consolidate different anti-corruption legislations and to make them more effective. Apart from the offences punishable under the IPC, the PC Act has enumerated a number of offences, which can be broadly categorized as:
·         Bribery of Public Servants
·         Embezzlement and Misappropriation of Property by Public Servants
·         Abuse of Functions by Public Servants
·         Illicit Enrichment of Public Servants etc.
I will only raise some specific features of PC Act, which are pertinent to mention as they have a wide range of ramifications and which showcases the political commitment towards corruption free society.

Special Courts
Section 4(1) of the PC Act makes it mandatory that the offences will be tried by the Special Judges only. This helps in effective and efficient administration of justice. However, the Special Judge being a Court of Session (Section 5(3)), the two layer protection and right to appeal (i.e. in the lower courts) is denied to the accused. Similarly, Section 4(3) confers jurisdiction on the special judge to try offence, other than those specified in section 3 and triable by magistrate under the CrPC*.

Trial on day-to-day basis
Notwithstanding anything contained in the CrPC, as per Section 4(4) a special Judge shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis.

Freezing of Ill-gotten Properties during Trial
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 deals with freezing, seizure and confiscation of properties, which are proceeds of crime. Section 5(6) empowers the Special Judge to exercise all the powers and functions under the said law during the trial.

Power of Pardon
Under Section 5(2), the special Judge may, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person tender a pardon on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances. Such pardon shall be deemed to have been tendered under section 307 of CrPC.

Other important features include the Prohibition of the grant of stay on trial, Denial of appeal in cases tried summarily (Section 6(2)), Enhancement of punishment etc. Despite this strong law, the Indian criminal justice system still faces many challenges. The problem of corruption in the private sector is increasing with the expansion of the private sector but there is no law to tackle those corruptions. Secondly, the condition of Previous Sanction results in delay. Notwithstanding anything provided under Section 197 of the CrPC, Section 19 of the PC Act requires prior permission of the authority before launching prosecution against him. This often delays the launching of prosecution. The sanctioning authority taking 16 months to grant sanction for Mr. A. Raja, is the glaring example of this. However, the extension of the Vineet Narain judgment beyond bureaucracy by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its landmark Order on 31st January 2012, once again endorsed that A Bad case makes a Good law. 
The positive development of the anti-graft laws and the enforcement of PC Act have warned the corrupt that betrayal of the public trust will no longer be tolerated, thus strengthening the Indian Criminal Justice System. Though a richer scholarship than mine is requisite to address the topic intricately, however, in my limited understanding -the trial of 2G, CWG and the recent arrest of Babu Singh Kushwaha is the manifestation of our own efficacious Criminal Justice System. Whilst this positive move is viewed by the critics as not so positive, yet we may try to see things as objectively as we please. At the end, as Benjamin Cardozo put it, we can never see things with any eyes except our own.

Thank you!


* For better understanding see: Essar Teleholdings Ltd. and Loop Telecom Ltd. v. The Registrar General, Delhi High Court & Ors. (Against the Administrative Order issued by the Delhi High Court on 15.03.2011 and the Notification dated 28.03.2011 issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court)

Thursday, September 29, 2011

No Law* to Regulatory Regime: The Press in Transition

0
*Extracted from: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”



Freedom of expression, whether on the traditional press and broadcasting media, or through the new electronic media, remains of fundamental importance to the workings of the liberal democracies; indeed, it is impossible to see how a democracy could exist without a free, pluralist media for the dissemination of information and the discussion of political and social affairs.[1] But the free press does not entail the complete absence of law and regulations. Laws are needed to balance the competing interests of the media and the public.
To a large extent, the media exercises self-restraint as there exists questions of legitimate public concern. The silence of US media about John F. Kennedy’s sexual affairs, both while he was a candidate for the Presidency and later while he occupied that office, and of the English newspaper’s silence about Churchill’s health during the Second World War is often quoted when we debate about the maturity of media. But today, the situation is very different. Revelations about the private life of celebrities and public figure, and the increasing misuse of freedom has raised question as to how much free is, free media? The citizens in many advanced liberal democracies guaranteeing Free Press has started questioning: Are the newspapers and the channels immune? Can media activism endanger reputation, privacy, or even safety of individuals? To what extent is this freedom unfettered as to endanger the dignity of those individual, whom they inform and entertain? Or putting it straight- Do freedom of press necessarily implies freedom of newspapers and electronic channels?

Freedom of Press: US experiences

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” These sparse words of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution have created a huge literature, a complicated jurisprudence, and a plethora of case laws which marked its get-go in Schenck v. United States[2], where the U.S. Supreme Court went on to decide the constitutional validity of legislation on the basis of the Amendment. To gather the legislative intention behind the amendment, reference is seldom made to the pages of history as there is a paucity of proof but it is undisputed that the Founders affirmed to the Blackstonian position i.e. against the prior censorship of the press.[3] In Konigsberg v. State Bar of California[4], Justice Hugo Black saw the Founder’s intention embedded in the clause and goes on to declared that these words are “the First Amendment’s unequivocal command”, which “shows…all the balancing that was to be done in this field”, insisting “No law” means no law.
In the context of non-constitutional social interest viz. privacy, reputation, repose or public morality, often the debate of ‘Balancing’ vis-à-vis ‘Absolutism’ is marked. The absolutists’ claim being ‘No law’ signifies ‘impermissibility’, never allowed general theorizing. However, the judicial responses in its ad-hoc balancing often given these social interests prevailing effect over the countervailing claims to freedom of speech. The non-acceptability of Black’s view is the evidence of it and the reason being it invalidates many widely accepted restrictions on speech and restrictions that reflect the complexity of the relationship between individual liberty and the interests of the community.
The reason of overweighing a principle while interpreting is never unguided. Similarly, the Supreme Court, while interpreting the First Amendment, had looked forward to the broad purposes of its language in the light of various theories, arguments advanced in justification of the speech and press clause, and the political history and intellectual tradition. These justifications include self-government, individual self-fulfillment, and the attainment of truth. In Times Inc., v. Hill[5], discussing self-government argument observes that a representative democracy is impossible without the active participation of citizenry. Scholars like Blasi[6] believe that the function of free speech and press is to arrest the inherent tendency of government officials to abuse the power while others like Bollinger[7] take it as a safety valve for the release of energy that might be directed towards subversion or violence. The argument from self-realization regards speech as cardinal to human development in Whitney v. California[8]. Lastly as observed by the Court in Red Lion case[9], truth is most likely to emerge only when confronted by its refutation in an arena of free and open debate.
Unlike many of the Constitutions of other democracies, the U.S. Constitution fails to specify what the limits of the freedom, hence leaving the Supreme Court to its own devices when confronted with constitutional challenges to rules or regulations that infringe upon the freedom of speech or press.[10]

Transition: Protectionist Approach to Free Speech

In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio[11], Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader was convicted under the Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute for remarks that he had been taped making at a Klan rally where he had used racially derogatory terms. Ohio’s intermediate court of appeals and the state supreme court dismissed Brandenburg’s appeal. Justice Black and Justice Douglas claiming that the court should abandon the “clear and present danger test” decided that Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law violates freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
However the broad protection accorded to the political speech in Brandenburg case was foreshadowed by the historic decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan[12]. Prior to Sullivan, public officials could sue newspapers and other critics under state libel laws for defamatory utterances and false statements of fact directed towards their official conduct. In overturning such protection, the Court announced that in the future the public officials could recover damages for a falsehood relating to their official conduct only if they could show that the utterances were made “with reckless disregard of the truth”. Thus J. Brennan gave priority to free speech with a very restrictive exception ranking speech superior to the social values of personal honour and reputation. The court pointed out that “erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate” and freedom of expression needs “breathing space” to survive and any other rule would lead to “self-censorship of the press”, deter would-be critics of official conduct, and dampen the vigor of public debate. The court while delivering this judgment cited J.S.Mill approving that even false statements contribute to public debate because then truth emerges vigorously and clearly “by its collision with truth”.[13] Sullivan case invited criticism for its elevation of speech over the countervailing values. However the criticism intensified when the court in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts and Associated Press v. Walker[14], Time, Inc. v. Hill[15], and Time, Inc. v. Firestone[16] extended the Sullivan privilege to cover public figures such as football coaches, celebrities and others. J. Brennan was not unmindful of the important social values[17] still in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia[18], he argued that free speech “must embrace all issues about which information is needed… to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period”.   

Reversal to Dignitarian Argument

In Gertz v. Robert Wetch, Inc.[19], the court limited a newspaper’s constitutional privilege against liability for a false statement of fact. The court shifted its emphasis to J. Stewart approach i.e. the dignitarian argument where the injury is inflicted on a private person caught up in a matter of public interest. J. Powell went on to say “there is no constitutional value in false statement or fact” as “neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society’s interest in ‘uninhibited, robust and wide-open’ debate on public issues”[20], though J. Brennan dissented.



[1] Barendt, Eric., et al(editors), Series Preface, Freedom of the Press, Library of Essays in Media Law, Ashgate Publishing Limited, England, 2009.
[2] 249 U.S. 47; 39 S. Ct. 247; 63 L. Ed. 470 (1919).
[3] Levy, Leonard W., Legacy of Suppression: Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History, Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1960, p. 13-15 and 214-48.
[4] 366 U.S. 36, 61 (1961)
[5] 385 U.S. 374 (1967).
[6] Blasi, Vincent, The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1977, p. 538.
[7] Bollinger, L.C., The Tolerant Society, Oxford University Press, New York, 1986
[8] 274 U.S. 357 (1927).
[9] Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
[10] Kommers, Donald P., American Constitutional Law, 3rd edn., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., USA, 2010, p. 739
[11] 395 U.S. 444; 89 S. Ct. 1827; 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 (1969)
[12] 376 U.S. 254; 84 S. Ct. 710; 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964)
[13] Mill, J.S., “On Liberty” in John Garvey, The First Amendment: A Reader, St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1992, p. 59.
[14] 388 U.S. 130 (1967)
[15] 385 U.S. 374 (1967)
[16] 424 U.S. 448 (1976)
[17] Rosenblatt v Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 86 (1965)
[18] 403 U.S. 29, 41 (1971)
[19] 418 U.S. 323 (1974)
[20] Id. 340