Saturday 13 December 2014

PIL Watch Group writes to Justice A.K. Ganguly

Sir,

Please find attached an article written by the undersigned titled “FULL COURT OF SUPREME COURT MUST APOLOGISE TO JUDGE, J-1” for your perusal. The article was published in South Asia Citizens Web (SACW) on 20 August, 2014. The link to the article on SACW website is: 
http://www.sacw.net/article9377.html

It is felt that injustice meted out to you should not be left unaddressed even at this late hour but should be pursued at the highest level – both judicial and non-judicial.

The delay in sending you this is because it was only yesterday your email and postal address got traced.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Paramjit Singh
Secretary, PIL Watch Group

Saturday 8 November 2014

An act of commission by the Law Commission of India

Below is our letter dated 30.10.2014 to the Law Commission of India on Delhi Rent Act, 1995, Law Commission's reply dated 31.10.2014 and our response dated 08.11.2014


To,
Justice Ajit Prakash Shah,
Chairman,
Law Commission of India,
Government of India,
Hindustan Times House,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi -110001                                          

30.10.2014
Subject: Himalayan blunder in the list of archaic laws in your Interim Report No. 248 “Obsolete Laws: Warranting Immediate Repeal”

Sir,

The aforementioned report refers to the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 as an archaic law. Actually Sir, it is the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 which is an archaic law. It is commonsensical that Delhi Rent Act, 1995 – which awaits notification – is a reformed rental law for Delhi passed by both houses of Parliament and assented to by the President of India.

As we are campaigning on the issue for over ten years we would like to meet you in person to put all the facts before you so that the anomaly is corrected.
Kindly grant us an appointment.

Thanks.
Yours sincerely,
(Dr. Paramjit Singh)
Secretary, PIL Watch Group





To,
Justice Ajit Prakash Shah,
Chairman,
Law Commission of India,
Government of India,
Hindustan Times House,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi -110001                                          

08 November, 2014


Ref: Your letter No. 6(3)211/2011-LC(LS) dated 31 October, 2014 on  Report No. 248 “Obsolete Laws: Warranting Immediate Repeal”

Sir,

Your aforementioned reply to our letter dated 30.10.2014 which pointed out that the Commission has made a Himalayan blunder by including Delhi Rent Act, 1995 in the list of archaic laws was pathetic to say the least.

You may like to read your own report again very carefully in which Delhi Rent Act, 1995 appears both in Appendix I and Appendix V (at item 250). Appendix V of your report – in case you do not know – contains LIST OF STATUTES FOR FURTHER STUDY WITH A VIEW TO ASSESS SUITABILITY FOR REPEAL.  Apparently you do not read your own reports “carefully”.

Still as you failed to understand the import of our earlier short letter we are compelled to explain the point in detail and hope that you will not try to hide behind technicalities and this time around understand the true nature of the blunder made by you. The question that arises is that when the mandate of the Commission is “Identification of Obsolete Laws” why should Delhi Rent Act, 1995 figure in any list prepared by the Commission and not the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) which is a regressive law. The Commission by including Delhi Rent Act, 1995


in Appendix V is setting back the whole process of reform in rent control laws by decades. More than 32 years ago the Economic Administration Reforms Commission set up under the chairmanship of Shri L.K. Jha in its Report No. 11 presented to the Government in September 1982 pointed out the shortcomings of rent control laws. Jain Commission on Administrative Reforms in its “Report of the Commission on Review of Administrative Laws’ (September 1998) observed that Rent Control Act negatively impacts on housing supply, investment flow in the housing and increases the housing price. The Commission recommended revised legal framework for Rent Control in Delhi should be finalised and implemented early and suggested starting with action to pass the amending Act for Delhi.

Further, we would like to quote Para 1.6 of your Report No. 248:
“In the course of the Commission’s research, unpublished work by the 100 Laws Repeal Project, a citizens’ coalition initiative comprising Centre for Civil Society, Macro finance Group of NIPFP, amongst others was brought to our notice, together with several scholarly pieces and newspaper articles on this issue. The Commission would like to acknowledge these contributions which benefited its Report.”

May we with all due respect point out that one of the laws recommended for repeal by the Centre for Civil Society in its 100 Laws Repeal Project is Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and not Delhi Rent Act, 1995!

It may be pointed out that the very fact that Parliament thought it fit to repeal the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and replace it by Delhi Rent Act, 1995 shows that the 1958 Act has fulfilled its purpose and has become archaic and redundant. In the debate held in Lok Sabha on 01.06.1995 during the passage and adoption of Delhi Rent Bill, 1994, an Hon’ble member of Lok Sabha Shri Sriballav Panigrahi had referred to the DRC Act as an ‘outdated’ Act. Both the print and electronic media have been referring to the DRC Act as archaic Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran (HUF) vs. Union of India [95 (2002) DLT 508],  had quashed Sections 4,6 and 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 as being offensive to Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench held that the provisions were archaic. They contain no mechanism to compensate the landlords to offset inflation. Thus the term archaic in relation to Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been used by the national press, parliament and the judiciary.

Sir, we can give the Commission a reasoning but not an understanding. We do hope that beyond getting media coverage the Commission would also try to rectify its mistakes. If the Commission is not hand in gloves with the powers that be and the rich tenant-trader lobby of Delhi you would – without any delay – publicly acknowledge the blunder and remove the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 from Appendix V and recommend immediate repeal of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

We again request for an appointment to clear any further misunderstanding that you may have.

Thanks.
Yours sincerely,
(Dr. Paramjit Singh)

Secretary, PIL Watch Group

Sunday 28 September 2014

Modi and Manmohan are clones!

Prime Minster Modi has asserted ad-infinitum that he would weed out archaic laws. But his own Govt. wishes to retain the archaic Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and throw the modern Delhi Rent Act, 1995 into the dustbin. Thus Modi’s assertions are nothing but Orwellian double speak. It is clear that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is desperately trying to ape the erstwhile P.M. Dr. Manmohan Singh, who too had been reluctant to notify the Delhi Rent Act, 1995. Here Modi turns out to be a clone of Manmohan Singh albeit a poor one. The present Central Government is as weak as the Govt. of Dr. Manmohan Singh. Both these governments have been catapulted by the vested interest of trader-tenants who wish to retain status quo as well as archaic laws.

Monday 22 September 2014

Email to Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer on Prof. Saibaba's Bail

Prof. Saibaba's bail

PIL Watch Group pilwatchgroup@gmail.com

Attachments22/09/2014
to vaidyanathapur.
Honorable Justice Shri V.R. Krishna Iyer ji,
We are once again taking the liberty of writing to you and hoping to get a word of counsel. Professor G.N. Saibaba teaching at Ram Lal Anand College, Delhi University was arrested on 9 May, 2014 and is lodged in a jail in Nagpur under several provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [UAPA]. The police suspect him to be a Maoist. Professor Saibaba, suffers from 90% disability due to polio contracted in early childhood. He is wheelchair bound and also suffers from cardiac ailment, high blood pressure and low backache. He is lodged in a solitary cell and has been denied bail both by the lower court as well as the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court. The details of his ailments and suffering in jail are enumerated in the two articles attached herewith. These articles were published in the Countercurrents.org a web based journal.

While the Code of Criminal Procedure permits bail in case of a person under the age of sixteen years; a woman; a sick or infirm person, special laws like UAPA expressly forbid bail. It is inconceivable that the bail conditions outlined above under the Code of Criminal Procedure would not hold ground under special laws like UAPA. How can a person with 90% disability who needs an attendant for activities of daily living e.g. using a toilet seat be kept in jail and denied bail? Isn’t it illegal and unconstitutional to keep such a person in jail when he is still an under trial?

Sir, with your sagacious views on the issue of bail of Tejpal, former editor, Tehelka magazine the latter has since been enlarged on bail.

Thanks.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Paramjit Singh
Secretary, Public Interest Litigation Watch Group

Monday 8 September 2014

Central Information Commission indicts Delhi Fire Service in the strongest possible terms

Professor M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner (IC) at the Central Information Commission (CIC) made stringent remarks against the Delhi Fire Service in his 27 page order on a bunch of appeals filed by Ms. Suman Jain, a RTI activist last year. The order on the appeals delivered on 04 September, 2014 states inter-alia:

“Information regarding fire safety norms is life related information. The public authority in this case has committed a grave breach of RTI by exhibiting an adamant attitude and denial of the information about inspection records of fire safety norms in Delhi. It seems that the Fire Department has not learnt anything from the worst Upahar tragedy incident which led to imposition of civil and criminal liabilities on public servants including some of the employees of fire department. Their attitude fortifies apprehensions of corruption in selectively applying the fire norms and issuance of no objection certificate and using or not using the powers of disconnecting water and power to the buildings who did not comply with the fire safety norms. It is the duty of respondent authority to clear the apprehensions that appellant is being victimized because she filed RTI or questioning inaction of respondents. It is a deserving case to issue show cause notice for penalty.” (Emphasis supplied)

Ms. Suman Jain in her first RTI application dated 05.03.2013 asked for copy of the inspection report conducted by DFS at her premises no. 4/14 A, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. In another RTI application dated 15.03.2013, she enquired about the addresses of the buildings located at


Asaf Ali Road which are required to install fire safety measures and details of those which have been issued NOC/ Fire Safety Certificate, having water tanks of 50 thousand litres capacity. In her last RTI application dated 22.03.2013, she sought information about the number of buildings in Delhi constructed prior to 1983 required to get fire safety certificate and details of buildings given such certificates. As the replies provided by the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority at the DFS were not satisfactory the applicant filed three separate appeals at the CIC.

The hearing at CIC was conducted on 25 July, 2014 and decision delivered on 04 September, 2014.

In its decision the IC referred to various judgements of the High Courts and the Supreme Court including the Uphaar fire tragedy case. The Commission directed the DFS to provide all inspection reports of 4/14 A, Asaf Ali Road; to show-cause why penalty cannot be imposed for suppressing the information. The Commission allowed all the three appeals and ordered accordingly in all three appeals viz details of buildings along Asaf Ali Road and their fire safety status norms etc and details of buildings in Delhi constructed prior to 1983 and their fire safety status norms etc.

The RTI activist had acted in public spiritedness so that citizens visiting each and every high rise building in Delhi (i.e. 15 mtrs in height – particularly those constructed prior to 1983) would know whether the building is fire safe or not. So far the DFS has utterly failed in making public this information. It is hoped that the strong indictment of the DFS would gear it into action so that lives, limbs and properties in Delhi are not in danger. Once the DFS puts all this information of all the high rise buildings in Delhi on its website, corruption would come to an end.

The combined order of the Commission in the three appeals titled Suman Jain vs. Delhi Fire Service, GNCTD is available on the CIC website at:



Times of India 08/09/2014:

Wednesday 20 August 2014

SOLIDARITY RALLY FOR NORTH EAST STUDENTS by PRIYA MITTAL

About 700 students arrived in school buses along with their teaching staff at the National protest site Jantar Mantar, New Delhi on 20 August, 2014. These students appeared in school uniforms and both boys and girls were present in equal numbers. It was one of the most peaceful rally – no slogans; no speeches; and announcement on mike.

The rallyists – majority of them Sikhs – were carrying placards with the following messages in Hindi, English and Punjabi:

-         Let’s expand our mentality to stop racism
-         Is it a crime to look different
-         North Easterns Dear Brethern
-         Live and Let Live

The rally was led by the teachers; students carried a banner with a message “Solidarity Peace March, Guru Nanak Public School, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi”.

The rallyists marched along the length of Jantar Mantar in a disciplined manner. The Vice-Principal of the school, Ms. Anvinder Arora explained that the rally was organized in the wake of increasing acts of assaults on boys and girls from North-East studying in universities in Delhi. Prior to today’s rally the school had organized a poster competition in the school.

This was first such rally organized by Delhites in support of students from North East.



Saturday 16 August 2014

FULL COURT OF SUPREME COURT MUST APOLOGISE TO JUDGE, J-1


On 6th of November, 2013 a law student, I-1 interning under a retired judge, J-1 of the Supreme Court of India (working in a statutory body) posted on a blog allegations that J-1 had sexually harassed her on 24th of December, 2012. She had not named the judge. The issue was reported in a section of the print media on 12th of November, 2013. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) had two options before him. Firstly to refer the case to the Complaints Committee to deal with the complaints related to sexual harassment in the Supreme Court in existence as per the guidelines and norms prescribed in Vishaka & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & others.  The second option was to refer the matter to an internal panel of judges on the assumption that a retired judge is still a judge of the Supreme Court and that only an internal panel of judges could enquire into the issue. The CJI chose the second option and set up a three judge fact finding committee to ascertain the truth of the allegations. The panel submitted its report to the CJI on 29 November, 2013. The full report has not been made public so far. However the operative portion of the report states inter alia “Further the Committee is of the considered view that the statement of the intern, both written and oral, prima facie discloses an act of unwelcome behavior.” The purpose of this enquiry appears to be political. Even as the three judge panel was conducting the enquiry, aggressive articulations were made baying for the accused judge’s blood. A State Chief Minister wrote to the President of India seeking appropriate action against the judge who was Chairman of a State Human Rights Commission. An Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG) asked the Prime Minister of India to remove the judge. Even as this ASG was instrumental in getting I-1’s affidavit published in a section of the print media. Legal academicians of a National Law University (NLU) wanted the judge to be disassociated from the institute. Meanwhile the Union Cabinet gave a nod for the Presidential reference against the judge; consequently the judge resigned both from NLU as well as the State Human Rights Commission. There is a lesson to be learnt from the recent instance of a Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC) getting an enquiry conducted against two university students accused of sexual harassment. It has specifically stated that the two male students are not being asked to resign from students’ body where they hold posts! Perhaps such words of wisdom should have emanated from the Judges’ panel which inquired into the case of J-1; and this should have been done right at the start of the inquiry.

In a classic flip-flop the Supreme Court on 5 December, 2013 decided by a full court that the representations made against the former judges of this court are not entertainable by the administration of the Supreme Court! This decision came in the backdrop of another complaint by an intern, I-2 alleging sexual harassment against another retired judge, J-2; this complaint dated 30 November, 2013 was addressed to the CJI.

In Vishaka & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & others decided on 13/08/1997 by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of the then CJI J.S. Verma, Sujata V. Manohar, B. N. Kirpal prescribed guidelines and norms for protection of women from sexual harassment at workplace. The judgement laid down that “these directions would be binding and enforceable in law until suitable legislation is enacted to occupy the field.”[i]
Both the judiciary and parliament failed to do the needful in the next sixteen years. It is evident that post 1997 and up to 2013 successive Chief Justices of India during these sixteen years are in contempt for not implementing the Vishakha guidelines which could have paved the way for sexual harassment cases within the precinct of the Supreme Court. Obviously all cases of sexual harassment within this period went unaddressed as Vishakha guidelines were not enforced. Even then, the Supreme Court on its own motion did not proceed to do the needful. The Court was geared into action after two public spirited women lawyers moved a writ petition and pursuant to the Supreme Court order dated 21.3.2013 in this petition the Complaints Committee to deal with the complaints related to sexual harassment was reconstituted at the Supreme Court to have eight members. True, a Complaints Committee already existed prior to this order but the Regulations pertaining to The Gender Sensitisation & Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013 [Supreme Court Regulations, 2013 for short] were only notified in the Official Gazette of India dated September 21 to September 27, 2013. With this mechanism finally in place the first option was open to the CJI to get the enquiry conducted against J-1 on allegation of I-1. But this option was not chosen. The CJI followed the second option by ordering an internal enquiry. But by 5th of December, 2013 the full court decided not to entertain representations made against former judges. It also opined that as the concerned judge had already demitted office on the date of the incident, no further follow up action is required by the Supreme Court. Ostensibly the complaint of I-2 dated November 30, 2013 had been received in the Supreme Court by then. Several questions need to be addressed.
1.                           With in a span of less than four weeks two retired judges of the Supreme Court facing sexual harassment charges are being treated differently. What about the equality before the law clause as enshrined in the Indian Constitution?
2.                           If the 5th December, 2013 decision of the full court is to be the order of the day then shouldn’t the full court in the same breath have declared the enquiry against J-1 to be null and void so that the two retired judges got equal treatment before law?
                              J-1 was forced to resign from his job of State Human Rights Commission; while J-2 continues to function in a statutory body.
3.                           Recently a girl student had brought accusations of sexual harassment against two colleagues in a reputed university. There is no reason to assume that a similar situation cannot happen in the courts. Consider a Tribunal constituted by two members one of whom is a retired judge of the Supreme Court and the other an executive member (non-judicial). Charges of sexual harassment against the two members get addressed differently – an internal enquiry by the Supreme Court judges against the retired Supreme Court judge in the Tribunal (as happened to J-1); and the executive member would be ostensibly covered under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 for short] which came into force on 9.12.2013. To avoid incongruity would it not be fair that both judges are enquired into under GSICC?
4.                           How would the charges of sexual harassment on CJI be tackled? Who would constitute the internal panel of judges in such a situation? Or is it being assumed that CJI is not prone to such indiscretions. (Accusations of sexual harassment have recently been leveled against a sitting judge of a High Court. Sitting judges of the Supreme Court including the CJI could be facing such accusations.) Should not the CJI and all sitting judges also be covered under GSICC?
5.                           Presently the Supreme Court selects judges through the collegium method – that is judges appoint judges. The same Court – in case of sexual harassment against a judge constitutes an internal panel (a sort of mini-collegium). Would this repose any faith in the minds of people that justice would be done to the victim?
6.                           Presently I-2 filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking inter alia, the setting up of a permanent mechanism in the Supreme Court to redress sexual harassment at the work place for women by all judges, retired or occupying office. On 15 January, 2014 a notice was issued to concerned parties. Till the case is decided how are retired and sitting judges of the Supreme Court to be dealt with in cases of sexual harassment? What if the case of I-2 takes years to decide?
7.                           J-2 continues to retain his job even as accusations were made against him because the High Court of Delhi granted injunction against the media from publishing defamatory allegations against him without stating that they were mere allegations. Ironically both the Supreme Court Regulations, 2013 and the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 have an inbuilt injunction against the name of the complainant, respondent and witnesses being made public; the only exception is if the complainant writes to the complaints committee under the aforementioned regulations/law that the name of the respondent can be made public. And even then it can be made public only if the complaints committee agrees to it. Besides it is true, of course, that once the complaints committee finalizes its report the name of the respondent – if found guilty – can then be made public. Is it fair that a witch hunt was allowed to be launched against J-1 in the media by politicians, academicians of a National Law University and by an Additional Solicitor General of India? And he was damned even before the Internal Enquiry panel submitted its report and was blackmailed into resigning from his post at the State Human Rights Commission. Is this ethical? It is all too well for the ASG to use a fig leaf of an excuse that the I-1 gave her permission to make the affidavit – which detailed the alleged incident of sexual harassment – public. But is this what a Government law officer expected to be doing? Shouldn’t she have resigned first before making the affidavit public? Had the J-1 enquiry been pursued under the Supreme Court Regulations, 2013 she would never have been able to do that. The ASG was aware of this as she chose to go public with the affidavit. It is a pathetic spectacle of a senior law officer of the Government throwing all caution to the wind and making a mockery of the rule of law. This law officer’s stance was political and in violation of all the laws in India.
8.                           Meanwhile media reports indicate that complainant Intern I-1 is not pursuing the FIR route. It is entirely her right to choose the FIR route or opt for another mechanism. The fact is that no FIR has been filed against J-1; no charge sheet framed and no court trial is on way. Is it not legally perfectly in order for J-1 to be immediately reinstated as the State Human Rights Commission and to be provided ample compensation for the extreme mental, social and psychological trauma caused to him?

The Supreme Court should convene a meeting of the full court and pass a resolution formally apologising to J-1. The Court should get the 5 December, 2013 notice removed from the web-site as it names J-1. There is a strong case for judges in all courts in India to face inquiry as per the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013  and if they are sitting Supreme Court judges then under the Supreme Court Regulations, 2013 whenever a charge of sexual harassment is brought against them at their work-place. The same should apply to Attorney-Generals of India, Solicitor Generals, Advocates and Court appointed Commissioners/ Amicus Curiae and Special Investigation Teams. There can be no constitutional immunity for the afore-mentioned in cases of sexual harassment. The victim can also opt to file an FIR under the Indian Penal Code which after the amendments in February, 2013 now makes sexual harassment a crime punishable by imprisonment of one to three years and/or with fine or both.[ii]
[By Dr. Paramjit Singh Sahni. He is the Secretary of Public Interest Litigation Watch Group. Email: pilwatchgroup@gmail.com]




[i] Vishakha has ceased to be the law of the land after The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and also the amendments to Indian Penal Code have come into force.
[ii] The identity of judges J-1 and J-2 and interns I-1 and I-2 are withheld as required under the law.

Friday 8 August 2014

THE NATIONAL LAWYERS’ CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS (Press Conference at Press Club, New Delhi on 8 August, 2014)

THE NATIONAL LAWYERS’ CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS
304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor, 54/68 SBS Marg, Near Lion Gate, Fort Mumbai- 400 023
E-Mail: aminrohini@gmail.com,  mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
Cell # +91 98205 35428
Mathews J. Nedumpara
President
Mrs. Rohini M. Amin
Vice President     
 Mumbai
Ms. Sophia Pinto          Vice President
Bangalore
K. Lingaraja
Vice President Delhi
A. C. Philip
Vice president, Cochin
 Navaneetha Krishnan T
General Secretary



PRESS RELEASE


            The National Peoples Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms and the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, first ever in the history of independent India, conducted a three-day campaign in New Delhi seeking –

a)                  video-recording and simultaneous telecast of proceedings of all Courts and Tribunals in the country and in particular of the Supreme Court and High Courts, which could be done with least effort and expenditure and in no time, which could readily obtain an end to the misbehaviour from the Bench, its excessive interruption, threatening lawyers and litigants and all sorts of abuse, not merely by the Judges, but by lawyers and litigants too who do not behave well.  If video-recording and its simultaneous telecast is introduced, the stampede for the lawyer who wears silk, for the litigant public believe that a lawyer designated as a Senior Advocate alone has some chance of being heard and others are treated as underdogs, except for a couple of noble Judges, will come to an end.  There will thereafter be no lobbying by lawyers with 20/25 years of standing at the bar for designation as a Senior Advocate, which requires majority of votes of the Judges of the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be;

b)                  Open selection of Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts by advertisement of the vacancies, receipt of applications, scrutiny thereof and selection in a most open and transparent manner, so that the vast majority of eligible lawyers will have a fair opportunity to be considered, except of the current cabal system where kith and kin of Judges and senior lawyers alone are considered;

c)                  Restoration of freedom of speech by scrapping the most abused offence called scandalizing the Court;

d)                  Introduction of an effective mechanism for dealing with complaints of corruption, misbehaviour, incompetence etc., against Judges of the higher judiciary in which lay people have a participation, instead of whatever is the mechanism being reduced to a body of Judges and lawyers;

e)                  Transfer of Judges of the High Courts, re-introduction of the system where 1/3rd of the Judges of a High Court are from outside the State; even 1/3rd is not enough, it ought to be at least ½;

f)                   Bringing an end to the uncle Judges syndrome; make it mandatory that a Judge, who has his son or daughter or immediate relative practising in the High Court where he functions, is liable to be transferred to another High Court;

g)                  Repeal the concept of absolute impunity to Judges, and even for lawyers, and the impunity be confined to where they act bona fide;

h)                  Enact a law to make it expressly clear that Judges like other citizens are liable for prosecution and that a First Information Report is liable to be registered when Judges commit a cognizable offence which has nothing to do with discharge of their judicial function, like where they commit an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act or outraging the modesty of a woman or indulging in rave party, without least intending to suggest that Judges indulge in such offences.

i)                    Abolition of Tribunals and revitalizing and strengthening the institution of Civil Courts;

j)                    A common dress code for all lawyers and abolition of the concept of designation of lawyers as Senior Advocates;

k)                  Declaration of assets by Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts; etc.,

to bring an end to a ridicule of the law that no FIR can be lodged against Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, creating a special class of privileged citizens to whom criminal law is not applicable. President of the National Peoples Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara, President of the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, and ordinary lay people coming from different parts of the country, such as, Kerala, Tamilnadu, Pune, Mumbai, Gujarat, Assam etc., met the Hon'ble Law Minister who was kind enough to agree with the campaigners almost on all issues.  The Law Minister made it clear that the demands of the campaigners are acceptable in principle and that all that he requires is some time to make the said demands to be implemented, some which may require a legislation.  Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara and Mrs. Rohini Amin, President and Vice-President of the President of the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms were given audience by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, who too was very receptive to the campaigners and their ideas and said that video-recording cannot be put to practice immediately, but sound-recording could be thought of for which he needs to consult other Judges, the Bar etc.  The Hon'ble Chief Justice also agreed that there is a need for greater diversity in the appointment of Judges.


*******

Tuesday 24 June 2014

SOS FOR PROFESSOR SAIBABA

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UNION MINISTER OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE REGARDING MEDICAL TREATMENT OF A DETAINEE, PROFESSOR G.N. SAIBABA LODGED IN NAGPUR JAIL

Dated: 24 June, 2014

Dear Dr. Harsh Vardhan,

On the eve of anniversary of the imposition of Internal Emergency (1975-1977), one writes this letter to bring to your knowledge the plight of Prof. Saibaba, lecturer, Ram Lal Anand College, Delhi University and who is presently lodged at Nagpur Jail since 9 May, 2014. Media reports indicate that he is not getting the medical attention and service due to him. For ready reference I may inform you that Prof. Saibaba suffers from Post Polio Residual Paralysis of both lower limbs since age 5 years. He also has weakness of upper limbs. He suffers from acute low back pain due to the disturbed anatomical configuration of his bones and spine. He also suffers from cardiac problem and has high blood pressure. Prof. Saibaba is wheel chair bound and needs the services of an attendant for activities of daily living. Both his lower limbs are shrivelled up and he is unable to use Indian style toilet provided to him in jail.

Reports indicate that for over a month he has not been provided medication for his high blood pressure which puts him at risk of getting a brain hemorrhage, a heart attack and in the longer term, kidney failure. In the absence of an attendant he has to crawl like an animal to use the toilet seat. In view of the crumpled up posture that he has to adopt he gets excruciating pain in the back.

Being a qualified orthopedic surgeon opinion has been sought from the undersigned on Saibaba’s maze of ailments. The undersigned happens to have submitted his thesis on Post Polio Residual Paralysis of the lower limbs while pursuing post-graduation at Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi. Subsequently, the undersigned has worked at Safdarjung hospital and All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi as Research Fellow and Research Associate in the Rehabilitation Department researching on disability evaluation and disability due to Post Polio Residual Paralysis. Though one has no official status to talk of – one is involved in people’s health movement/campaign – but after working with leprosy patients for seven years on voluntary basis one has a very good idea of what disability does to a fellow human being. Incidentally Prof. Saibaba suffers from 90% permanent disability. One writes this letter to you as one is aware of your track record and the keen interest you have shown in preventing and eliminating polio in India through Pulse Polio Immunization Programme. Unfortunately the jail authorities in Nagpur are trying to eliminate Prof. Saibaba himself through their acts of omission and commission. As many of your party men (belonging to the then Jan Sangh) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) workers were jailed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi during the infamous Emergency era along with people owing allegiance to different political ideologies and even common men and women both young and old, you would appreciate that specialist medical services are non-existent in Indian Jails particularly for those who are 90% physically disabled.

Prof. Saibaba needs a wheel chair and an attendant round the clock; western style toilet-seat; medication for his high blood pressure; basic investigations like ECG and Echo; daily physiotherapy and occupational therapy; heat therapy for his low back; a special brace for the low back pain; a hard bed with mattress to name just a few. One would know this as one is aware of his medical and orthopedic ailments.

Sir, reports also indicate that he has been lodged in a dark, solitary cell. You would appreciate that the bones of his lower extremities in particular are thin and osteoporotic already. If he is not allowed to have sunlight in his ‘anda’ cell, his bones would become further weak and osteoporotic leading to pain and even pathological fracture of the concerned bone. You could take it on authority that these pathological fractures are extremely difficult to manage surgically or otherwise. Since I do not have access to his latest reports of calcium, serum phosphate and alkaline phosphatase; as also the bone densitometry report and the vitamin D3 levels, it will be unethical for me to opine on whether he needs Vitamin D administration or not.

Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks was forced to take refuge in the Ecuador embassy in London and to prevent his bones from becoming osteoporotic due to absence of sunlight in his room he had to take recourse to a gadget called sunlamp. He is able to get artificial sunlight which enables the production of Vitamin D in his bones. Prof. Saibaba could at least be provided a sun-lamp!

Ideally he needs to be admitted in a hospital for a short while to get his baseline investigations undertaken. Alternatively, the jail doctors could be apprised of the urgent medical needs of Prof. Saibaba. As doctors under Hippocratic Oath it is our duty to ensure that the detainee is provided best of medical care due to him. If any payments are to be made Prof. Saibaba’s well-wishers would readily reimburse the same to the jail authorities.

No doubt Prof. Saibaba has been charged under various sections of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Sir, you would recall that Mr. George Fernandes – who in later years was installed as Union Defence Minister in the BJP led NDA Government – had been jailed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi during the Internal Emergency era in the Baroda Dynamite Case. The CBI charged Mr. Fernandes and others on false and made-up charges of smuggling dynamite to blow up government establishments and railway tracks in protest against the state of Emergency. They were also charged with waging war against the State to overawe and overthrow the government. They were arrested in June 1976 and imprisoned in Tihar Jail, Delhi. This case was politically motivated and Mr. Fernandes emerged unscathed. Prof. Saibaba’s case, too, needs to be withdrawn.

Sir, you would also recall that Shri S. Jaipal Reddy, too, was in jail for 17 months during the Internal Emergency years. He, too, suffers from Post Polio Residual Paralysis of both lower limbs since age 2 years. He, too, is wheel chair bound but is able to walk a few steps with elbow-crutches. Shri Reddy, again with 90 % disability, was imprisoned at a time when fundamental rights were suspended during the Emergency period. Presently at least no such Emergency has been declared and even then people with ‘infirmity’, like Prof. Saibaba are being interned. This apart, Prof. Saibaba should at least be granted the same facilities in jail which were extended to Shri S. Jaipal Reddy during 1975-77! Article 14 at least permits this minimal demand to be made of the present dispensation at the Centre.

Sir, Prof. Saibaba comes from an oppressed caste and a humble economic background. Through sheer grit and hard work he struggled to become a lecturer at Ram Lal Anand College, Delhi University. His torture and incarceration in jail is evidence enough that the political establishment is doing an ‘Eklavya’ on him.

Thanks.
Yours truly,
Dr. Paramjit Singh Sahni,
M.B.B.S., M.S. (Ortho)
& Secretary, Public Interest Litigation Watch Group
Email: pilwatchgroup@gmail.com



Monday 16 June 2014

Prof. Baxi admits "unpardonable error"

Letter sent to Prof. Baxi through email on 13 June, 2014 and his reply.

Sir,

Find below text of an unpublished letter sent to the Indian Express. Given your stature I.E. is unlikely to publish a letter pointing out gross error of fact in your article. So I am sending it to you in the hope that you will self-correct your mistake. This letter and my earlier report on PILs is available on our blog pilwatchgroup.blogspot.in.

Yours sincerely,
Shobha Aggarwal


To,
The Editor,
The Indian Express.

Sir,
Apropos Upendra Baxi’s ‘Just Governance’ (I.E., June 10). While arguing for reversal of Supreme Court judgement on Section 377 of IPC the author states “Apart from strong independent arguments supporting this change, a reversal is now further mandated by three judge bench decision recognizing the constitutional rights of the third sex.” The SC judgement dated 15.04.2014 in transgender case was pronounced by two judges namely Js. K.S. Radhakrishnan and A.K. Sikri and not three judges as stated by the author. Therefore it stands on the same footing as the 377 judgement which was also pronounced by two judges. The transgender judgement does not mandate any reversal in 377 judgement except on the merits of the curative petition itself. Most curative petitions get dismissed in the chambers. But in the 377 case the media and public pressure has at least ensured an open court hearing.

Prof. Baxi also needs to honestly examine if any “public interest litigation” which he insists on calling “social action litigation” has ever benefited any poor person in India. The judgements in PILs only propound lofty ideals. The ground reality is that justice is never served to the poor through the aegis of PILs and most judgements benefiting the poor stay unimplemented. In fact most PILs that are filed have nothing to do with the poor and many even adversely affect the poor.

Shobha Aggarwal
Advocate and author of a Citizen’s Report titled “The Public Interest Litigation Hoax – Truth Before the Nation”

Prof. Baxi’s reply

Dear Ms, Shobha Agrgarwal,

Thank you for your letter.

Thank you for pointing out the unpardonable error; and I hope  the IE publishes your letter,

Rest assured that I will do my best to correct the error. 

Regarding the last para of your letter, while I agree that SAL has done not much for the impoverished,  and the jurisdiction of hope and prayer inaugurated by Justice  Bhagwati has not gone far, I do not agree with the view that in no case it has done so.  Perhaps, your view is that it has not preeminently helped the impoverished.

I have not read your article about the'hoax'  that SAL has been but I have read some empirical analyses  that point to your way of thinking. 

With best wishes,

Upen 

Wednesday 11 June 2014

A Judge, one too many

To,
The Editor,
The Indian Express.

Sir,
Apropos Upendra Baxi’s ‘Just Governance’ (I.E., June 10, 2014). While arguing for reversal of Supreme Court judgement on Section 377 of IPC the author states “Apart from strong independent arguments supporting this change, a reversal is now further mandated by three judge bench decision recognizing the constitutional rights of the third sex.” The SC judgement dated 15.04.2014 in transgender case was pronounced by two judges namely Js. K.S. Radhakrishnan and A.K. Sikri and not three judges as stated by the author. Therefore it stands on the same footing as the 377 judgement which was also pronounced by two judges. The transgender judgement does not mandate any reversal in 377 judgement except on the merits of the curative petition itself. Most curative petitions get dismissed in the chambers. But in the 377 case the media and public pressure has at least ensured an open court hearing.

Prof. Baxi also needs to honestly examine if any “public interest litigation” which he insists on calling “social action litigation” has ever benefitted any poor person in India. The judgements in PILs only propound lofty ideals. The ground reality is that justice is never served to the poor through the aegis of PILs and most judgements benefitting the poor stay unimplemented. In fact most PILs that are filed have nothing to do with the poor and many even adversely affect the poor.

Shobha Aggarwal

Advocate and author of a Citizen’s Report titled “The Public Interest Litigation Hoax – Truth Before the Nation”

Sunday 18 May 2014

Tuesday 6 May 2014

Js. Krishna Iyer Writes on Tejpal's Bail

Following is the text of the letter PIL Watch Group sent to Justice Krishna Iyer by speed-post and his response received by email.


PIL Watch Group letter

29 April, 2014
To
Honorable Justice Shri. V.R. Krishna Iyer,
[Former Judge, Supreme Court],
"Satgamaya",
Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Ernakulam, Cochin - 682001.
Kerala, India.

Respected Sir,

Sorry to disturb you.

We, at Public Interest Litigation Watch Group, revisited your treatise on bail viz. Babu Singh and Others V. The State of U.P [1978 AIR 527], in the context of the case of Tarun Tejpal, former editor Tehelka magazine. He was arrested on 30 November, 2013 in Goa on charges of alleged rape. A charge sheet, running into approximately 2846 pages was filed on 17 February, 2014 and there are about 159 witnesses. His bail plea was rejected by the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court on 14 March, 2014 on the ground that in view of the recent amendments to the criminal laws the applicant cannot claim to be released on bail on the ground that the trial will take a long time, since as per the new law the trial has to be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet. This period of two months elapsed on 17 April, 2014. He is still in jail and the charges are yet to be framed. His bail petition is now pending in the Supreme Court.

Sir, the guiding principles laid down in Babu Singh are routinely flouted by all courts. In the light of the principles enunciated by you should it be expected that bail would be granted to Tejpal during the pendency of trial?

Thanks.
Yours sincerely,



(Dr. Paramjit Singh)
Secretary, Public Interest Litigation Watch Group


Js. Krishna Iyer's Response


   On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:16 PM, vaidyanathapuram Rama Iyer Krishna       Iyer<vrkrishnaiyer@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr. Paramjit Singh,

I am sad to read what you have written.  The matter is pending in the Supreme Court.  I cannot make any observations on a pending matter and that may be contempt.  Engage a lawyer who will appear for you to expedite the petition.  At my advanced age and invalid health I am always in bed.  I can do no more now in my present state of misfortune.

With regards

Yours sincerely


V.R. KRISHNA IYER