Long investigation process in India gives accused time to vanish into thin air.

So you become aware that some Indian investigative agencies are acting against you or might act against you. Whether that is because you have been accused and convicted in the court of law or that of a news television studio or because someone in power has told you that you are in a spot of bother, it does not matter.

The fact is that you think you are in trouble and in India, thanks to labyrinthine and flawed judicial process you are not sure that you will get justice in a reasonable amount of time or you are actually guilty, what would you do? You know that the authorities have not issued a lookout circular for you just yet, so you would do what anybody would, that is to catch the first flight to a friend jurisdiction like United Kingdom, or even get a long-term visa in the United States. And if you’re really smart you find a friendly Caribbean haven where you can buy a citizenship and spend the rest of your life may be sipping Pina Colada’s under a straw hat on a beach of white coral sand.

No really? Ask yourself, if you had the money the get out of India, what would you do? This is not to condone the actions of Mehul Choksi, Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi or Vijay Mallya and many others over the years, but the slow-motion proceedings against such alleged scamsters and fraudsters gave all of them ample amount of time to escape. And even in some cases when the noose was tightening, it was all too easy for them to catch a flight and leave, Mallya’s case being too bizarre to even state. The fact is that the Indian state and its incompetent and most certainly corrupt investigative agencies let these people escape.

Again, we come back to a simple point, the most urgently required reforms in India are in the police and judicial system to reduce corruption and lethargy. There will always be some fish who escape through the net but India’s investigative agencies have a net with huge gaping holes, and one has to be a really dumb fish or pursued aggressively to get caught. At the same time, it is imperative that the External Affairs Ministry’s legal cell assist Indian investigative agencies more robustly in order to get extradition treaties moving. We must fix the net, otherwise any criminal will just do the logical thing, and if not London then certainly Nepal beckons.

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The Indian Government is mooting a new law to stop exploitation of NRI marriages.

Finally, the Government is considering not just legal redress of abandoned NRI wives but ensuring that errant suitors-turned-husbands are penalised for exploiting the marriage market at will. Both the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Women and Child Development have acted on years of complaint and data analytics to bring about a law in the Parliament’s next session that will get runaway husbands where it hurts most, their wherewithal to sustain themselves or their families. Summons/warrants will be issued online through a new MEA website as most husbands change their addresses or list fake ones. Anybody not responding to them will be declared a proclaimed offender and his properties, or those of his kin, will be seized. Of course, passports will be cancelled too. Though this government is committed to empowering its women constituency, somehow NRI wives have so far been outside actionable policies. Yet if the MEA data is to be believed, then at least one woman married to an NRI calls home every eight hours seeking help to return after being deserted by her husband or being subjected to ill-treatment and physical torture. Contrary to expectations, the figures have been growing for the last three years — 3,328 complaints were received since 2015 — pointing to a far deeper malaise about women who are being systematically  exploited and abused in foreign shores, cut off from the protection and redressal systems at home and deliberately isolated from those available in host countries and at missions. THE WCD Ministry gets 10-12 complaints daily!

There are shocking tales of incarceration and captivity, especially among unsuspecting young brides of arranged marriages, who are consigned to housekeeping duties, lodged in shabby basements and stripped off vital papers with policed movements. Some of them are trafficked and inducted into the sex trade or made bonded labourers. Imprisoned and isolated, an independent phone line is their only link to the outside world. For the rural hinterland, marrying a daughter off to an NRI is still seen as social ascension and for the groom’s family reason enough to extort dowry as a passport to a privileged life. Educated women are as much victims and now with work visa curbs in countries like the US compromising their skills, they are at best subjected to economic servitude. More than 30,000 cases of abandoned wives are pending in Punjab alone. Our immigrant women need immediate rescue. For this we need a strong deterrent that is reserved for the most offensive fraudsters, one that ensures immediate extradition or deportation of errants and transfers their assets to their immigrant wives.

Writer:  Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The recommendations of Srikrishna Committee on data privacy bill are strong in intent but there are many challenges ahead.

The Justice BN Srikrishna Committee’s report on data privacy that was submitted to the Government this week is a landmark for three reasons. First, it upheld the right to consent of the citizens in sharing personal data. Second, it provides legal protection to citizens and calls for the formulation of a law on data privacy to meet this end. Third, it seeks to impose strict punishment and fines for those who intentionally and/or unintentionally leak personal information. While the 200-page report will require a lot of reading and explanation, the essential point it makes is that the views of the ten-member Committee are in consonance with the Supreme Court’s order last year which upheld the contention that there is a fundamental right to privacy of every Indian citizen and that the state or private companies cannot interfere with their lives. In fact, the report is if anything even more robust in calling for legislation on the right to privacy and data protection, which is a must in this age of information-sharing. Data is shared within seconds and at every possible opportunity even as the right to privacy suffers. The Srikrishna panel calls for strict auditing to ensure that any violators of privacy are held accountable and do not shift responsibility. In essence, the report seeks to preserve the right of citizens in the sharing of personal information with other individuals and/or organisations, which the panel makes clear cannot and should not be shared without their approval. The committee has made broad classification of what may be considered ‘personal data’ and what is ‘sensitive personal data.’ While the former pertains to any generic details of a person, the latter is the most crucial as it pertains to areas like health, identification of sex, biometric data among others. But there is a flip side too: It gives the state the leeway to process data that it deems to be necessary for its functioning.

While the ramifications of the commission’s report remain to be seen, the proposed legislation makes citizens the supreme commander of their personal data. How to protect the grabbing of information by foreign technology companies, however, remains an issue to be addressed in greater detail. The most significant of all the recommendations was perhaps on Aadhaar which is now under the scrutiny of the apex court on account of a bunch of petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar itself. The Committee’s recommendations may be crucial in providing inputs to the Court. The views of the panel, perhaps natural given the complexity of the issue itself, are complex. It strives to strike a balance by, on the one hand, calling for ensuring autonomy of the UDAI while on the other the consent-exemption clauses appear to enable the Aadhaar system to function without hitches. The hope is that the Committee’s report will push the legislature and the executive towards guaranteeing data privacy even as technology is used for the benefit of India’s millions. The onus now is on the Government — which must go through the nitty-gritty of the Committee’s report — as also the elected representatives to discuss threadbare the Bill on data privacy and protection before it is passed into law.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Still under discussion in the Parliament, the Anti-trafficking Bill is an amazing and bold step in combating and preventing human trafficking.

As Parliament discusses the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018, threadbare, it must be said that the Bill is a bold move in the sense that it will raise the status of India at the world level in combating  human trafficking and the insidious exploitation of human beings by fellow men. The Bill resolutely affirms that ours is a nation that espouses, in letter and spirit, the motto of “zero tolerance” to any type of human trafficking. It will go on to strengthen, confirm and assert our unflinching commitment to the Constitution of India, which under Article 23, expressly prohibits human trafficking.

While deliberations for and against the Bill are very much in the news, if one were to take a dispassionate and objective look, there will be so much to say on behalf of the law enforcement agencies and the justice delivery systems, who are the statutory bodies to enforce and implement the law, once it is legislated. In this context, having the privilege to enforce the law for 35 years as an IPS officer, let me bring out a few salient features of the Bill that is still under consideration in the House.

Starting from the perspective of the victim of human trafficking, this Bill is a boon for them. It will, perhaps, be for the first time that the spirit of the Constitution will be captured in the Bill as it goes on to make relief and rehabilitation of the rescued person a matter of right. Transformation from the earlier ‘welfare perspective’ to ‘rights-based perspective’ is indeed a blessing in disguise and will provide whole-hearted support to the victims. The unheard voice of the survivors, who usually suffer in silence, is now set to be heard.

The Bill makes it clear that “rehabilitation of the victims will not be contingent upon criminal proceedings being initiated against the accused.” This provision is another feather in the cap as it guarantees the victims their right to dignity.  Further, there will not be any pressure on the victim to speak, state or depose in any manner.

The Bill calls for accountability of the rehabilitation agencies.  So far, under the existing law, it was the duty of the police to rescue the victims and there was no accountability of the agencies concerned in providing rehabilitation. By endorsing the new provision of bringing in accountability of agencies on matters of rehabilitation, it is not only the victim who is going to benefit but the entire justice delivery mechanism.

With the proposed changes, the victim, who will be counselled and rehabilitated, will be in a better position to argue his/her case. Further, a strident step by the victim in ensuring the prosecution of offenders will naturally expedite the judicial process. Effective and timely prosecution of offenders will be a great boon in prevention of crimes. Therefore, the provision of victim and witness care will go a long way in ensuring an established rule of law.

The Bill has given specific charter, shape and method to the entire rehabilitation process. Functions and roles of agencies have been delineated. The provision for the establishment of a national, State-level and district level committee  to monitor the rehabilitation process is a strident step in providing a single-window approach to the entire process. So far, it was a tedious task for civil society activists, who had to knock several doors to get across relief for the victim. This piece of legislation will make the entire investigative process easy.

From the perspective of investigation, a major challenge today is the issuance of trans-border jurisdiction and related investigation. Human trafficking is a borderless crime but jurisdictional issues come in the way of investigation, fanning out from the place of rescue ie, the destination, through transit to the source area. To tackle this problem, the Bill calls for the establishment of a National Bureau to effectively address this aspect.

We have seen the Narcotics Bureau working along with the State police and both have contiguous jurisdiction. Similarly, the National Bureau of Investigation  must be welcomed by law enforcement agencies.

The Anti Human Trafficking Units (AHTU) across the country, starting with the first nine districts being set up in 2007 under a joint project of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the United Nation and which was replicated to more than 300 districts, is all set to be legitimised and institutionalised. Special crimes need special attention. Hence, the setting up of these special units mandated in the Bill  is indeed an important step.

The method of trans-border cooperation, beyond the States and even beyond the international border, have been identified and addressed for the first time. A vast arena of confusion and conjectures has been made clear and lucid.

The system of nodal officers and nodal police officers in States, which was started in 2005 under the aegis of the National Human Rights Commission of India, has seen several ups and downs with ‘zero level’ functioning. This nodal system is very important to ensure the convergence of all concerned in preventing and combating human trafficking.  This Bill gives legal status to the nodal system, thereby providing a single window approach to the response system.

Against the existing provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, (ITPA), this Bill allows any police officer to undertake rescue as and when they receive information.  There is no need for any notified police officer or the need to rush to the magistrate for prior approval. This provision will empower the police station and the AHTU to undertake swift action for conducting rescue operations, which will prevent further exploitation.

Prosecution of offenders, starting from recruiters, harbourers, transporters, financiers, abusers, exploiters, conspirators, abettors, among others has been a daunting task. Though there are several reasons and all of them cannot be addressed by way of a legislation, the new Bill makes positive and prospective effort in facilitating prosecution of offenders of what has assumed the dimensions of an  organised crime.

The presumption in respect of offences against children, women and the physically or mentally challenged people gives the prosecution adequate scope to ensure easy, fast and efficient disposal of complaints.  This will certainly bring certainty and speed in the delivery of justice. The Bill provides for freezing and confiscating of illicit assets, born out of trafficking crimes. This is indeed a landmark addition to the trafficking law.  Neither section 370 of the IPC or ITPA has any such provision.

The Bill is certainly an improvement over existing laws, including Section 370 of the IPC, which came in to effect only in 2013.  This section of the IPC defines trafficking and its derivatives but is silent on forced and bonded labour. The present Bill incorporates forced and bonded labour, surrogacy, false marriage and begging as aggravated forms of trafficking, and calls for enhanced punishment for offenders.

Linking research into action has never been a mandate in the legislative process for our country. However, this methodology has been adopted in several countries.  The fact is that objective research is paramount in understanding the gaps and identifying the solutions. We have a case in point where the NHRC undertook a national research in 2002-2004 on trafficking in India. The report, which came up in 2005, was adopted by the Government and many suggestions were implemented.

A joint project by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime on capacity-building of fake holders in five States in India, during 2006-2008, was one among the important outcomes of the research.  The project made commendable achievements in the five States. After independent evaluation, the activities in the project were upscaled and replicated across the country, making positive changes in response systems. This experiment has established the value of research and the need for marriage of research with action.  It is heartening to note that the Bill has appreciated this point and has made express provision for survey and research contributing to action.

The Bill is, therefore, a magnificent and bold step in preventing, combating human trafficking in India, making the Constitutional mandate a reality.  The fine print of the Bill requires tweaking at certain places, which can be accomplished even during the process of passage.

(The writer, an international expert in the field of human trafficking, is now with the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai as Chair Professor)

Writer: PM Nair

Courtesy: The Pioneer

A bill aimed at checking the menace of human trafficking and three others were introduced by the government in the Lok Sabha.

Amid the din of the no-confidence motion, the vituperative barbs and the trivialising wink, Parliament did manage to transact some positive worth for itself as the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill  was tabled. If passed, it will be one of the most comprehensive anti-trafficking laws in the world and will have the distinction of being democratically drafted by every stakeholder, expert, activist and affected quarter. Human trafficking is the third biggest nightmare after drugs and arms and when it comes to India, the largest sufferers have been sadly children, who have been used as cheap fodder for the sex trade and couriers for terror networks. Nobel laureate Kailash Satyarthi, who has been crusading for child rights, has been advocating a strong law against human trafficking for years now. According to estimates, every eight minutes a child goes missing in our country and in majority of the cases, he/she is trafficked for sexual abuse, prostitution, forced labour, slavery, child marriage, organ trade and other purposes. Such is the extent of the rights violations that the Supreme Court defined trafficking as an organised crime for the first time in 2011. So this legislation, when it comes through, would be a legal shield for the most vulnerable human resource of our country.

The Bill targets all aspects of human trafficking, including economic, organised and sexual crimes, and while demanding stringent punishment for the accused also provides for special fast track courts, time-bound action and separate inquiry offices for the purpose of ensuring privacy and fairness of investigations. It further includes an investigation framework for victims from national to district level. Many may argue that existing laws have teeth and provision enough for swift inquiry and disposal but are not enforced in spirit. However, this is the first Bill that includes a provision for a rehabilitation fund for the victims and suggests a mechanism by which they can be mainstreamed in society. Of course, there have been protests from sex works who have objected to the criminalisation clause and their voluntary right to work in the sex trade. The strident raid and rescue model, they feel, will affect the lives of sex workers, who already bear the brunt of police brutality. However, the Bill is a consultative process and will almost try to factor in everybody’s rights. But it needs to be passed in a time-bound manner nevertheless as currently we use different laws to deal with human trafficking cases depending on the facts of each. A unified, cogent law will take care of a vacuum that cannot be allowed to exist in society and, therefore, should not be politicised.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

India bequeathed an archaic law on same-sex relationship from the British.

A Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice, Dipak Misra should finally rid India of that anachronistic law that criminalised all sex against the course of nature. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was one of the parts of the penal code that originated from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London when India was still subjugated by the British. Entire tomes of laws for various dependencies were written on King Charles Street in London and the joke goes that as the laws were distributed by ship, Africa got them first, followed by India and then Australia. And here is the funny thing, Section 377 exists in the penal code of 42 nations across the world in one form or another but the section number remains the same. Not just in the nations that once consisted of British India but also vast swathes of British Africa and South-East Asia. This section which criminalised sodomy has led to the persecution of many people across the world for decades, primarily because they were men loving other men.

And even though the United Kingdom itself has removed the shackles of its own Victorian morality to become one of the most sexually and gender progressive nations in the world — though not without the persecution of many over the years including World War II cryptographer Alan Turing — some other westernised former colonies got rid of the provision as well — Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Hong Kong. It is time that India now takes the lead in individual rights/privacy jurisprudence and rids herself of this provision. There is however going to be a problem in changing minds among a large proportion of the public whose world-views are still shaped by Victorian morals. Queen Victoria might have taken a lot of precious stones from India and she certainly bequeathed to us a bunch of stone-age views on so-called morality in return. Views that have not become so entrenched in nations like India that there are people who with a straight face can argue that homosexuality is not just a sin, but against ‘our cultural norms’.

While this columnist will be the first to admit that he is confused by the expanding number of sexualities and gender-identities today, on a very simple basis, same-sex love is not an aberration or a disease like some claim it to be. It has been around in human history for a really long time, the ancient Greeks of course famously celebrated it, but even in some of Hinduism’s older texts India has had a long established tradition of a third gender. Interpretations are still being made on the role of this third gender as an object of sexual desire; however homosexuality, or love between men, has been a reality in India from the ancient Hindu kingdoms through the Mughal court.

However, one has to disagree with those who believe that social stigma towards Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community will disappear overnight thanks to the stroke of a judge’s pen, they have an inflated opinion of the power of the judiciary. Nothing will change overnight among people who grew up pre-1991; and 1991 is the watershed because it was not just economic reforms that came to India but it was also when India’s lowered her cultural barriers and satellite television began broadcasting Western soft-culture. There is today a large acceptance of homosexuality among the erudite, educated English-speaking population of India. But that does not mean that others do not continue to see homosexuality as a threat to their religious values and also propagate crazy and discredited theories about homosexuality being a disease that can be cured. Sadly, there will continue to be hate and violence directed towards the LGBTQ communities, even if Section 377 is struck off or read down and this must be addressed through legal means every single time.

Hate should not be allowed and the most important thing is education. That too will not happen overnight. We will need to build that acceptance of homosexuality in India. Possibly when a famous personality in sports, Bollywood or politics comes out openly will things be seen to be changing. And even though a couple of Bollywood personalities have all but admitted their sexual orientation, the fear of Section 377 and its potential for misuse, especially in a country where busybodies love filing irrelevant cases for media attention and a police force willing to go along, does call for being careful.

The Supreme Court is not looking at the issues of relationships and inheritance. This will need to be legislated, and even social progressives in India should realise that legalising gay marriage may be a step too far in today’s environment. Social changes are occurring in India and the gradual acceptance of homosexuality as a fact of life by the public at large is taking place. This will need to continue for a while. Gay marriage has been a hot-button topic in many western societies as well; in Australia it became a major electoral issue and many countries have resolved this using a referendum. In India, however, there will need to be legislation. But if we are to move towards an Uniform Civil Code, any new marriage act, which should use the Special Marriage Act as its basis, should not differentiate between genders as well.

Writer: Kushan Mitra

Courtesy: The Pioneer

India bequeathed an archaic law on same-sex relationship from the British.

A Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice, Dipak Misra should finally rid India of that anachronistic law that criminalised all sex against the course of nature. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was one of the parts of the penal code that originated from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London when India was still subjugated by the British. Entire tomes of laws for various dependencies were written on King Charles Street in London and the joke goes that as the laws were distributed by ship, Africa got them first, followed by India and then Australia. And here is the funny thing, Section 377 exists in the penal code of 42 nations across the world in one form or another but the section number remains the same. Not just in the nations that once consisted of British India but also vast swathes of British Africa and South-East Asia. This section which criminalised sodomy has led to the persecution of many people across the world for decades, primarily because they were men loving other men.

And even though the United Kingdom itself has removed the shackles of its own Victorian morality to become one of the most sexually and gender progressive nations in the world — though not without the persecution of many over the years including World War II cryptographer Alan Turing — some other westernised former colonies got rid of the provision as well — Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Hong Kong. It is time that India now takes the lead in individual rights/privacy jurisprudence and rids herself of this provision. There is however going to be a problem in changing minds among a large proportion of the public whose world-views are still shaped by Victorian morals. Queen Victoria might have taken a lot of precious stones from India and she certainly bequeathed to us a bunch of stone-age views on so-called morality in return. Views that have not become so entrenched in nations like India that there are people who with a straight face can argue that homosexuality is not just a sin, but against ‘our cultural norms’.

While this columnist will be the first to admit that he is confused by the expanding number of sexualities and gender-identities today, on a very simple basis, same-sex love is not an aberration or a disease like some claim it to be. It has been around in human history for a really long time, the ancient Greeks of course famously celebrated it, but even in some of Hinduism’s older texts India has had a long established tradition of a third gender. Interpretations are still being made on the role of this third gender as an object of sexual desire; however homosexuality, or love between men, has been a reality in India from the ancient Hindu kingdoms through the Mughal court.

However, one has to disagree with those who believe that social stigma towards Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community will disappear overnight thanks to the stroke of a judge’s pen, they have an inflated opinion of the power of the judiciary. Nothing will change overnight among people who grew up pre-1991; and 1991 is the watershed because it was not just economic reforms that came to India but it was also when India’s lowered her cultural barriers and satellite television began broadcasting Western soft-culture. There is today a large acceptance of homosexuality among the erudite, educated English-speaking population of India. But that does not mean that others do not continue to see homosexuality as a threat to their religious values and also propagate crazy and discredited theories about homosexuality being a disease that can be cured. Sadly, there will continue to be hate and violence directed towards the LGBTQ communities, even if Section 377 is struck off or read down and this must be addressed through legal means every single time.

Hate should not be allowed and the most important thing is education. That too will not happen overnight. We will need to build that acceptance of homosexuality in India. Possibly when a famous personality in sports, Bollywood or politics comes out openly will things be seen to be changing. And even though a couple of Bollywood personalities have all but admitted their sexual orientation, the fear of Section 377 and its potential for misuse, especially in a country where busybodies love filing irrelevant cases for media attention and a police force willing to go along, does call for being careful.

The Supreme Court is not looking at the issues of relationships and inheritance. This will need to be legislated, and even social progressives in India should realise that legalising gay marriage may be a step too far in today’s environment. Social changes are occurring in India and the gradual acceptance of homosexuality as a fact of life by the public at large is taking place. This will need to continue for a while. Gay marriage has been a hot-button topic in many western societies as well; in Australia it became a major electoral issue and many countries have resolved this using a referendum. In India, however, there will need to be legislation. But if we are to move towards an Uniform Civil Code, any new marriage act, which should use the Special Marriage Act as its basis, should not differentiate between genders as well.

Writer: Kushan Mitra

Courtesy: The Pioneer

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered its judgment in NCT of Delhi vs Union of India. Delhi is to be ruled and governed by its elected legislatures. But has the Court announcement really made the things less complex?

What next for Delhi? After several years of jostling between the AAP Government which has an overwhelming majority in the city and the Lieutenant Governor (LG) appointed by the Central Government, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the elected government of the city has primacy on most matters leaving aside land, police/law and order out of the ambit. At the same time the, SC reaffirmed the fact that the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi remains an Union Territory and does not enjoy the same powers as a State. It held that the LG and the AAP Government, or any future Government, should work together for the benefit of the city and that, in the case of a disagreement, the LG should not refer every single matter to the President of India, that is the Centre.

Will this substantially change matters in Delhi? The AAP certainly hopes so and moved quickly to declare ‘victory’ even though a core contention, that they have the same powers as any other State Government, was not upheld. Contentious issues, such as the establishment of an Anti-Corruption Bureau to investigate past instances of corruption remain. Is this a ‘policing’ matter? The same is the case with the implementation of a scheme to install Closed-Circuit Television Cameras; would this impinge on the authority of the Central Government which controls the Delhi Police? Does the Delhi Government have the authority to transfer DANICS cadre officials or does that right remain with the Centre? Many of these issues will be further addressed in a subsequent sitting of another Bench of the Supreme Court. Other decisions of the AAP Government such as widening the ambit of their health and education schemes which have been held up, however, might be easier for the Arvind Kejriwal Government to implement.

The fact, though, is that governance issues in Delhi — complicated to begin with — have become even more complicated given BJP-AAP hostility. The Centre, the State of Delhi and five different municipal corporations of this City-State which is also the National Capital of India if working at cross-purposes will result in delayed, confused decision-making. And this allows politicians of all hues to play their favourite game of passing the buck. This was highlighted by Delhi’s previous Chief Minister, Sheila Dixit, who pointedly said that the Supreme Court decision changes nothing substantially. Dixit ran a Congress Government in the city for three terms with a Central Governments controlled by the BJP in her first term and the Opposition in control of the municipalities. Her non-confrontationist attitude and ability to make compromises allowed the city and its associated infrastructure to grow exponentially under her stewardship. A similar spirit is required from both the AAP Government and the BJP. Delhi’s population has been growing at a rapid pace and there are huge issues of infrastructure, healthcare, education, electricity and water supply facing the city. These need all sober minds and leaders with the welfare of the governed at heart to come together. A long shot? Sure. But anything else will only spell doom for Delhi.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Finally putting an end to the long pending dispute, Supreme Court bench ruled that The Chief Justice is the “master of the roster” and has the power to assign cases.

Earlier Shanti Bhushan’s petition had called for a panel of senior judges to decide on the rostering of judges and assigning of cases.

The government’s top lawyer had opposed it, saying it will result in chaos.

In April, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra held that the Chief Justice was “master of the roster” who alone has the power to decide on the allocation of cases, virtually setting at rest the controversy raised by four of its next senior-most judges.

“There is no dispute that the Chief Justice is the master of roster and allocates cases to Judges. The constitution is silent on the Chief Justice. Conventions and judgements over the time and accepted by all stake holders that the Chief Justice is first among judges and senior most,” said the Supreme Court.

In January, four top ranking judges called an unprecedented press conference in which they took on the Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

Shanti Bhushan had said in his petition that “master of the roster” cannot be an “unguided and unbridled” discretionary power, exercised arbitrarily by the Chief Justice by hand-picking the benches of select judges or by assigning cases to particular judges.

In an unprecedented event on January 12, the four top ranking judges after the Chief Justice – Justices J Chelameswar (now retired), Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph – called an unprecedented press conference in which they took on the Chief Justice and said the situation in the top court was “not in order” and many “less than desirable” things had taken place. The judges had also criticised the way sensitive cases were being assigned by Justice Misra to junior judges.

During the arguments, Attorney General KK Venugopal stressed on the need for “unity” among the judges of the top court and said that Mr Bhushan’s petition could lead to “conflict” among judges on who would hear a case, besides creating a multiplicity of authorities.
“It is essential that there should be one person doing this and if it has to be one person, then it has to be the CJI,” the Attorney General had said.

Senior counsel Dushyant Dave and advocate Prashant Bhushan, who had appeared for Shanti Bhushan, had questioned the manner in which some “sensitive cases” were allocated to specific judges in violation of rules. They said there was “ambiguity” in the rules as to whether the Chief Justice did have the power to frame the roster.

By Vishnu Sharma AOR Supreme Court of India & Legal Adviser with Opinion Express Group

The Supreme Court on Friday engaged the Centre to set up a committee to study how temples of architectural and cultural importance across the nation are being managed, particularly in the interest of devotees and utilisation of offerings/donations.

Finally, it took the Supreme Court to restore the sanctity of the Puri Jagannath temple as a receptacle of people’s faith, make it accessible to devotees and free them from the oppressive hold of servitors, who thought it their divine right to intervene in rituals, offerings, prasad and even day-to-day running of affairs. The apex court has also ordered a committee to study the manner in which other shrine boards at peeths were run and coopt their best practices as a manual for running the centuries-old temple. What though is pitiable is that the court had to intervene despite the temple administration being a largely secular affair with representatives of the state government on the board and the Puri gajapati being a nominal head. But over the years, the BJD has hardly applied its mind on rescuing the crowning glory of Odisha, letting it slide into the hands of exploitative servitors, who it nursed as a constituency. They may be the descendants of the original keepers but have been waylaid by political imperatives and patronage and taken to autocratic and self-serving means of running operations. Considering that it is one of the richest shrines and has a hold of the cultural consciousness, the Puri temple has over the years emerged as a power centre, inspiring awe and fear among common devotees rather than respect. But the State Government allowed this mindset to fester. Neither did it invite neutral culture icons on the board.

A run-through of the last few headlines has only been about controversies, the latest being about an ASI team visiting the sanctum sanctorum for repairs and finding that the keys to the temple treasure trove have been missing for years. The Puri king and servitors have denied knowledge of the key or its possession though the chief priest has maintained that it automatically does not imply loot as the seal on the lock remains unbroken. But it definitely raised questions and doubts about the safekeeping of something that was bestowed on the temple for benefitting devotees rather than being used as collateral for running a temple economy. There have been further episodes of reversing rituals at whim, denying prasad, arbitrary usage of offerings and arrogance and misbehaviour by servitors. The incident where a young girl was viciously manhandled for holding on to the rope of the chariot of Lord Jagannath during rath yatra even drew censure from the Puri Shankaracharya himself. Besides, the upkeep of the temple itself left much to be desired, with devotees complaining of slippery grime and extortion for availing prasad or darshan. In all this, the beautiful essence of the Puri temple as a concept, as a beacon of Jagannath culture, and its civilisational context as a gana dharma (mass religion) have been lost. Lord Jagannath was never about royal patronage though the royals adopted the folk nirguna form of the tribals. He emerged out of common men and as a lord of the universe embraced all tenets of Hinduism, Jainism Buddhism, Vaishnavism to embody a mass living philosophy. That is why all temple rituals are in the form of processions and spectacles to enable the participation of the devout; they have been historically inclusive rather than exclusive, plebeian rather than elitist. The apex court reminded us of this ethos.

However, the ruling, though specific to the Hindu shrine, should be understood in its wider implications. Rigidity of clergy and intermediaries, mandated by heredity and tradition, is costing the devout in other faith shrines across the country and consigning them to the status of subjects rather than stakeholders. And the gatekeepers of faith, by virtue of their psychological clout ordained by the office they hold, have become heavily politicised too. It’s time for ritual cleansing and some real community service.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Demanding for fast tracking in 2G cases appeal, on the very first day of hearing of CBI and ED’s appeal on May 25 in Delhi High Court, the Special Public Prosecutor Tushar Mehta said the 2G Scam is a monumental scam and shame on the Nation. He was objecting to the usual delaying tactics played by some accused claiming that they have not yet received notice and some demanding for more time to reply for the notice issued on March. Now the case is heard by Justice SP Garg and he is going to retire in June and a new Judge has to hear the appeal arguments from August first week.

As rightly demanded by Tushar Mehta, the appeal of CBI and ED against the very bad judgment of trial court Judge OP Saini must be heard on daily basis. The Judiciary must take call to the undo the bad trail court judgment, which is totally against the findings of Supreme Court and Delhi High Court. It is another question, how trial Judge OP Saini arrived in such a bizarre conclusions and totally ignored the concrete proofs of money transfers between former Telecom Minister Raja’s firm and his party controlled TV channel from co-accused telecom operators.

The very idea of the accused persons now acquitted is to drag the appeal process to four – five years. Such is the level of money spin in this case which I can vouch as a reporter who started tracking this humongous scam from late 2008. The more than 1500-page judgment of the trail court is totally bad in law with many errors and full of false narrative. I have read this bad Judgment of Judge OP Saini many times and it is totally against the Supreme Court Judgment cancelling all the 122 licences. It is also against the Delhi High Court’s Judgment which was ratified by Division Bench and Supreme Court on the allotment of licences on dubious First-Come-First-Serve basis by Minister A.Raja.

CBI and ED in its appeal petition described Judge OP Saini’s judgment as totally erroneous. The Judge has ignored the spirit of Prevention of Corruption Act and even went up to give clean chit to Minister A.Raja by putting blame of officers. The trail Judge has even blamed officers whom he has not yet examined. Without examining a person, how Judge blamed then PMO’s top officers TKA Nair and Pulok Chatterjee. Don’t know why these two officers keeping criminal silence when they were blamed by trial judge without examining them. They should have approached Delhi High Court at least to rectify this. Are they shouldering the sin committed by their boss and real boss?

Above all, the trial court Judgment is totally against the landmark judgments Shamsher Singh Judgment and Bhajan Lal Judgments on corruption cases. The Shamesher Singh Judgment clearly says Minister is the final responsible person and not the officers. Here Judge Saini erratically put blame on officers and doubtfully gives clean chit to Raja, who is indicted by Supreme Court on many words while cancelling the 122 licences in February 2012.

Judge OP Saini has totally ignored the crucial witnesses and terms them as they have political differences with Raja. This is totally against the spirit of the Bhajan Lal judgment which says the political differences is not at all the matter and only fact of the statements only to be considered. If a person is a friend will he depose against? The cases crop up due to difference of opinion and this is a basic fact. Judiciary has only to look into the facts raised by the witness and not the other matters. I have submitted a detailed note on the errors and faults in the trial court Judgment to CBI, ED and Special Public Prosecutor as dutiful citizen of this country.

Now Enforcement Directorate (ED) is seeking data from Stock Exchange Board of India (SEBI) doubting on the prior knowledge of some accused about the controversial Judgment of Judge OP Saini. According to ED, few weeks before the Judgment, there was a huge volume of buying in the almost dead shares of certain companies owned by accused persons. It is high time to finish the probe on this regard and the agencies as well as Judiciary must fast track this probe on the fixing of cases.

The Government, CBI, ED and Special Public Prosecutor must reiterate their demands for the fast track hearing on the appeal against controversial 2G Judgment in Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court must allot specific time for daily hearing in 2G cases and Chief Justice must take a call to bring justice in the trial court’s judgment which itself looks like erroneous.

[J Gopikrishnan is Special Correspondent with ‘The Pioneer’ daily]