Final India Legal 15 March 2015 by India Legal

H E : 8 > 6 A 6 C C > K : G H 6 G N E6 8 @ 6 < :

NDIA EGAL I L High-Ă&#x2019;^Zg XV\ZY ?jY\bZcih i]Vi X]Vc\ZY >cY^V

;Vbdjh XdciZbei XVhZh

www.indialegalonline.com

March 15, 2015

`100

STORIES THAT COUNT

Law L aw catches t h up with ith ki kingpin i powerbroker Matang Sinh and threatens to net home ministry bigwigs 24

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

Nailing Nobel laureate Pachauri 34

ALS0

Chilling free speech: 6>7! IZZhiV HZiVakVY VcY Eg^nV E^aaV^ XVhZh 48 Slipping on Evergreen law oil leaks 28 thrillers 64

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

INDERJIT BADHWAR

THE STRANGE CASE OF ARUN KUMAR MISHRA N a housecleaning that has long been overdue, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav has relieved Arun Kumar Mishra— often referred to as the “Teflon-coated bureaucrat” (a term once used for former convicted Chief Secretary Neera Yadav)—from the post of Chief Engineer (Project), Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC). Akhilesh had been facing considerable flak for not moving fast enough against the tainted official who had continued in his position despite the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in August 2014 ordering his immediate removal. As then reported in The Indian Express, the court acted on the grounds that Mishra “neither possessed a valid Class 10 marksheet, purportedly issued by the UP Board, nor a B Tech degree”. The court also quashed the subsequent promotions of Mishra, also the architect-cum-town planner. Mishra was first appointed as an assistant engineer in the UPSIDC in 1986. The court also expressed its displeasure over several attempts made by the counsel, representing Mishra at different stages, for trying to delay the proceedings and even get the case transferred to another bench. Mishra’s name had cropped up in more than a couple of scams and he was investigated by at least three agencies at one point. While some cases are still pending, the charges have not been proved against him. In a judgment

running into 120 pages, a division bench of Justices Arun Kumar Tandon and Arvind Kumar Mishra passed the order on a petition filed by Anil Kumar Verma, senior manager (housing) in the UPSIDC. In his plea, Verma had accused Mishra of not possessing a valid high school certificate, besides his BTech Degree being suspect. Consequently, his appointment at the UPSIDC and subsequent regularization and promotion were also challenged.

he court, while rejecting Mishra’s pleadings that Verma was only interested in damaging his reputation, pointed out that he could not be allowed to go scot-free on the ground that the UPSIDC and the UP government never objected to his bona fides. The court also rejected at least 15 applications filed by Mishra on the ground that they were delaying tactics. The court noted that, as per rules, a class 10 marksheet cannot be issued in contravention of the details mentioned on the tabulation sheets.

The Allahabad High Court had ordered Mishra’s removal from chief engineer’s post at UPSIDC. He did not have a valid class X marksheet, nor a BTech degree. INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

Mishra rode back to his official position due to an interim stay order from Supreme Court against his removal from service by Allahabad High Court. And the name mentioned on the tabulation sheet of class 10 concerned was that of Arugya Kumar Mishra and not Arun Kumar Mishra, the court pointed out. Mishra had attributed this change in name to forgery on the part of Verma. So how did it come to pass that Mishra was suddenly back in the saddleâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;and that, too, in his former positionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;until Chief Minister Yadav used his executive power to move him out? It all has to do with the law and the intricacies of how our honourable judges deal with and interpret the finer points of justice so that the principles of fairness and equity are not sacrificed through haste, prejudice or a lack of adequate

The Vanishing Files

he High Court also recorded that the vice-chancellor of the University indicated that there were no records available with it on the basis of which the academic degree of Arun Kumar Mishra could be verified. The High Court has categorically written that the following original documents pertaining to Mishra are either non-existent or are alleged to have gone missing from the respective institutions and have not been produced before this Court despite specific orders: (a) All documents pertaining to High School Examination, 1976 qua Roll No. 511719 except tabulation register. (b) Original letter no. Patrank-go-3/rkc 932 dated 30th July, 1976. (c) Enquiry report dated 12th August, 1976. (d) Order of the Secretary of the U.P. Board dated 25.08.1976. (e) Letter of the Additional Secretary No. Patrank-G.O-030(3) 1128 dated

March 15, 2015

homework by either plaintiff or defendant. Mishra triumphantly rode back to his official position as chief engineer because of an interim stay order passed by the Supreme Court in September 2014 in the proceedings where Mishra

25.08.1976. (In respect of loss of documents a first information report is stated to have been lodged by the Board). (f) No records pertaining to the submission of the application for admission, deposit of fee for enrollment in respect of B. Tech Course are available with the K.N.I.T. Except for few fee receipts no other documents are available. (g) Awadh University has disclosed that except for tabulation register and the enrollment book, no other records pertaining to Arun Kumar Mishra are available with the University. The University has not disclosed what dates the examinations of the Ist year, 2nd year, 3rd year and 4th year of B. Tech, said to have been undertaken by Arun Kumar Mishra, were held. (h) The degree produced by Arun Kumar Mishra in respect of B.Tech Examination had not been verified by the University for want of relevant records. (In respect of loss of original records,

first information reports have been lodged by the University). (i) UPSIDC, the employers of Arun Kumar Mishra, have stated that Volume-I of his service records, which contained the testimonials submitted at the time of entry into service of UPSIDC, have gone missing. (A first information report has been registered by the UPSIDC in respect of loss of documents). (j) All records pertaining to the selection of Arun Kumar Mishra qua his promotion on the post of Chief Engineer are stated to be missing by the State Government. (A first information report has been lodged by the State Government). The High Court recorded that the loss of the original records in all of the four institutions, which have something or the other to do with the qualification and service career of Arun Kumar Mishra, appear to be too big a co-incident to be accepted by a reasonable person.

Investigative reports say Mishra owned a bungalow in a prime location in Delhi’s Lutyen’s zone, now seized by ED. The property is worth `300 crore. challenged his removal from service by the Allahabad High Court.

ut before we delve into the legal details, a word about Sri Mishra. One senior describes him as an “extraordinary government servant”. An Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) dated 24.02.2011 of the Directorate of Enforcement alleges that 67 bank accounts were opened and operated by Arun Mishra. A large number of his properties have also been attached. (The Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement, in its order dated 21.03.2013 has confirmed the attachment of the properties.) Description has also been given of several shell companies having been floated by Mishra and NGOs formed at his behest. According to sources, his “wealth” runs into hundreds of crores. There are references in investigative reports to a bungalow situated in a prime location in Lutyen’s zone at Delhi, which has been seized by the Directorate of Enforcement on April 18, 2014. The property is estimated at `300 crore. Mishra also had to his credit two charge-sheets filed by the CBI. But, in all fairness, his guilt is yet to be established in pending cases. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ending 31.03.2013 discloses another multicrore scam during his tenure and departmental proceedings are pending against Mishra.

According to references made in the high court judgment, he was arrested and has jailed for about five months. An August 30, 2014, Mail Online described Mishra as “a highly controversial officer, who has been a face of corruption in Uttar Pradesh for the last three decades.” Still, he has been a darling of almost all the senior politicians of the state….Earlier, the CBI had probed his role in the `400-crore Tronica City scam of Ghaziabad and revealed that he was also involved in money laundering cases. Soon after taking over as CM in May 2007, Mayawati had suspended him for his alleged role in the scam between 2005 and 2007. But she had reinstated him silently after a few months. The CBI, in its report, had said that Mishra transferred crores of illegally-earned money to his bank accounts with fake names and addresses. Maximum money was deposited in Punjab National Bank, Vidhan Sabha Road branch of Dehra Dun and Arya Vanprasth Ashram Road branch of Haridwar. The CBI had earlier blocked his accounts and registered an FIR. There was a time when the CBI had decided to declare him an absconder because he was evading any interrogation. However, Mishra had appeared before the agency allegedly after fortifying himself with the help of his political masters. But the public perception that prevails was well articulated by the then president of India, INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

UP CM Akhilesh Yadav had been facing flak for not moving fast against Mishra, who continued in his position despite the Allahabad High Court ruling.

chargesheets are pending against Mishra before different departments and agencies, his reinstatement by the Supreme Court is based on the controversies arising from his educational qualifications. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court which has been stayed by the Supreme Court, declares that the B Tech degree and marksheets of this course produced by Mishra did not inspire confidence. It also held that Mishra had been promoted as executive engineer after superseding about 14 other assistant engineers senior to him. The high court regarded his advancement to chief project engineer as illegal. It directed Mishra’s removal from public office immediately. His appointment and promotion in the public posts in UPSIDC were quashed.

UNI

KR Narayanan, during his speech on the Golden Jubilee celebrations of the Supreme Court of India on January 28, 2000. He had said: “Mysterious are the ways of justice. That is why it has been said that the law court is not a cathedral but a casino where so much depends on the throw of the dice.” He also referred to a statement made by Mahatma Gandhi that the law has become the joy of the gambler.

he clout of Mishra can be gauged by the anguish expressed by the high court which seriously deprecated the manner in which the chief standing counsel of UP had conducted himself in the case. He continually made excuses for the non-production of records. Contrary to the assurance given to the court, he did not file a counter affidavit to Application No. 187061 of 2014. The high court recorded that there had been selective pleadings at the hands of the state authorities for reasons best known to them. While the various criminal investigations and

March 15, 2015

he Supreme Court order held that the particular facts of the case, the allegation, the petition for a writ of quo warranto were filed after a delay of 30 years, and opined that the services of the petitioner may be continued and the operation of the impugned order may be stayed until further orders. “In view of the nature of the allegations made in the case as well as some of the conclusions arrived at in the impugned judgment and order, we are of the view that this is a matter which should be heard expeditiously.” The case continues to be listed but adjournments and postponements have been delaying a resolution. India’s Supreme Court—as one of our leading articles listed on this issue’s cover shows— has been an intrepid trailblazer on every issue that concerns the advancement of India’s social, economic and political story. In fact, the apex court has come out as a leading champion in the fight against corruption and the desecration of India’s institutions, where politicians, bureaucrats, and often, the press have failed. Mishra is entitled, like any other citizen of this land, to approach the Supreme Court is search of justice. The proceedings are still pending and all Indians following this case are confident that the Supreme Court will ensure that the truth—whatever it entails, and wherever it may lie—will prevail, and that, too, expeditiously.

editor@indialegalonline.com

MARCH 15, 2015

VOLUME. VIII

ISSUE. 13

Editor-in-Chief Inderjit Badhwar Managing Editor Ramesh Menon Deputy Managing Editor Shobha John Senior Editor Vishwas Kumar Contributing Editor Girish Nikam Associate Editor Meha Mathur Deputy Editors Prabir Biswas, Niti Singh Assistant Editor Somi Das Art Director Anthony Lawrence Senior Visualizer Amitava Sen Graphic Designer Lalit Khitoliya Photographer Anil Shakya News Coordinator/Photo Researcher Kh Manglembi Devi Production Pawan Kumar Verma

LEAD

Hour of reckoning

He once obliged former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and extracted huge rewards in return. But the CBI has put a brake on former parliamentarian Matang Sinh’s flashy lifestyle. VISHWAS KUMAR probes the kingpin’s rise and fall

CFO Anand Raj Singh VP (HR & General Administration) Lokesh C Sharma For advertising & subscription queries sales@indialegalonline.com

Published by Prof Baldev Raj Gupta on behalf of E N Communications Pvt Ltd and printed at Amar Ujala Publications Ltd., C-21 & 22, Sector-59, Noida, (UP) 201 301 (India). All rights reserved. Reproduction or translation in any language in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. Requests for permission should be directed to E N Communications Pvt Ltd . Opinions of writers in the magazine are not necessarily endorsed by E N Communications Pvt Ltd . The Publisher assumes no responsibility for the return of unsolicited material or for material lost or damaged in transit.

OWNED BY E. N. COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD. NOIDA HEAD OFFICE: A -9, Sector-68, Gautam Buddh Nagar, NOIDA (U.P.) - 201309 Phone: +9 1-0120-2471400-432 ; Fax: + 91- 0120-2471411 e-mail: editor@indialegalonline.com website: www.indialegalonline.com MUMBAI: Arshie Complex, B-3 & B4, Yari Road, Versova, Andheri, Mumbai-400058 RANCHI: House No. 130/C, Vidyalaya Marg, Ashoknagar, Ranchi834002. LUCKNOW: First floor, 21/32, A, West View, Tilak Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001. PATNA: Sukh Vihar Apartment, West Boring Canal Road, New Punaichak, Opposite Lalita Hotel, Patna-800023. ALLAHABAD: Leader Press, 9-A, Edmonston Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad-211 001.

March 15, 2015

SUPREME COURT

The change agent SHAILENDRA SINGH and PRABIR BISWAS highlight some landmark judgments that have brought a change to the common man’s life INVESTIGATION

Well-oiled racket The arrests of corporate employees and oil and petroleum ministry’s junior staff in the theft of sensational documents reveal how oil companies planned to monopolize the sector, writes SHANTANU GUHA RAY PROBE

Pachauri’s nemesis

12 28 34

For all the respect he earned for his work on climate change, IPCC chairperson RK Pachauri faces disgrace as his colleagues in TERI accuse him of sexual harassment. A report by RAMESH MENON

Much meat in his recordings

Moin Qureshi’s recorded conversations provide crucial leads into scams. But there is a tussle between various agencies over these records, writes VISHWAS KUMAR

PROFILE

Hall of fame Legal luminaries who have made the legal world richer by their wisdom

60 64

SPECIAL FEATURE STATES

Up against the judge

Lawyers in Madhya Pradesh defy Chief Justice Khanwilkar’s diktat and ask the Supreme Court to intervene. RAKESH DIXIT’S report on the acrimony in the legal fraternity LEGAL EYE

Theatre of the absurd

Reels of justice churn on

SOMI DAS takes readers on a Hollywood journey, and showcases landmark films which tackled judicial issues

The legal action on AIB roast brings to light some strange rules governing our artistes and entertainers, with even the slightest offense liable to land them in trouble. A scathing critique by SOMI DAS

PHOTO FEATURE

Building blocks of justice

CASE RECORD

There’s a history to contempt

Major cases wherein individuals and organizations faced the judiciary for a real or perceived affront to this institution

REGULARS

Architecture of various supreme courts speaks volumes about the ethos of a society, from the traditional Constitutional Court of Italy to the bunker-like Supreme Court of Israel

Ringside .................................................................10 Quote-Unquote ......................................................11 Supreme Court.......................................................20 Courts.....................................................................23 Wordly-wise ............................................................79 International briefs..................................................80 People ....................................................................82

Cover Design: ANTHONY LAWRENCE

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

Aruna

VERDICT “No client ever had money enough to bribe my conscience or to stop its utterance against wrong, and oppression. My conscience is my own—my creators—not man’s. I shall never sink the rights of mankind to the malice, wrong, or avarice of another’s wishes, though those wishes come to me in the relation of client and attorney.” —Abraham Lincoln 10

March 15, 2015

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

QUOTE-UNQUOTE

“Politics & films are alike in more ways than one. Despite years of experience, you never know what your audience is thinking!”

INDIA LEGAL “Are the ‘Acche Din’ only for industrialists, not for common people?” —Activist Anna Hazare, taking a jibe at the Modi government on its promise of better days, on NDTV

—Filmmaker Madhur Bhandarkar, on Twitter

“Governments must understand that winning a Lok Sabha election does not give you permission to undermine the autonomy of academic institutions, or a license to undermine the upper house or courts.” —Amartya Sen, on center’s intention not to give him a second term as Nalanda University Chancellor

“My job satisfaction is maybe 5 percent. Ninety-five percent of what I do doesn’t give me satisfaction.” —Chief Justice of India designate Justice TS Thakur, delivering a lecture in New Delhi

“Mother Teresa’s service would have been good. But it used to have one objective, to convert the person, who was being served, into a Christian.” —RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat, at a function in Bharatpur, Rajasthan

“We believe in working more and talking less.” —Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, on his government’s efforts to fulfil poll promises, in The Economic Times

“With folded hands, I apologize to the people of Bihar. Never again will I take such a step. I am ready to lead from the front.” —JD (U) leader Nitish Kumar, on relinquishing chief ministership nine months ago, on NDTV

“Back to back performances by both the bowling and batting units. South Africa are a very good side, so it was one more complete performance.” —Team India captain MS Dhoni, analyzing India’s victory against South Africa during the Cricket World Cup

“Rahul is on a few days’ leave.... He has already left on leave. Give him a few weeks.” —Sonia Gandhi, on Rahul Gandhi taking a break from politics for some time, on Headlines Today

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

SUPREME COURT/ landmark verdicts

A Gavel for

has the apex court’s judicial activism come as a blessing in disguise for the man The judiciary in India has always endeavored to protect and uphold the rights and privileges of the masses. There have been innumerable instances when the Supreme Court has reached out to people with legal remedies, especially in cases where the rule of law was violated or rights trampled upon. Needless to say, it is the judiciary that remains a bulwark against the excesses committed by corrupt bureaucrats, politicians, criminals and organized crime. Being an independent, impartial, forthright and sensitive arm of democracy, the judiciary is often under tremendous pressure from ordinary citizens to uphold the rights of people. But it has delivered in right earnest and is seen as the messiah of the masses. India Legal scans areas and judgments where judicial activism has benefitted the common man:

BODY SHOW A steamy scene from Bollywood film Jism 2. The Supreme Court has ruled that films could be categorized either as “U” or “A”

March 15, 2015

Freedom of speech Ajay Goswami vs UOI (AIR 2007 SC 493): Date of Judgment (DOJ): 12.12.2006 The court held that any step to ban publication of certain news pieces or pictures would fetter the independence of the free press, which is one of the hallmarks of India’s democratic set up. It examined the test of obscenity very carefully through existing Indian case laws and case laws from other jurisdictions. The apex court held that an imposition of a blanket ban on the publication of certain photographs and news items, etc., would lead to a situation where the newspaper will be publishing material catering only to children and adolescents, thereby depriving adults of their share of entertainment of a kind permissible under accepted norms of decency in any society. KA Abbas vs Union Of India AIR 1971 SC 481; DOJ: 24.09.1970 The significant verdict held that censorship of films, including prior restraint, is justified under the constitution. Considering the effect of films on children and adolescents, it held that classification of films into “U” and “A" categories was reasonable.

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

the Masses

on the street and led to a better life? By Shailendra Singh and Prabir Biswas

Child rights Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in state of Tamil Nadu vs Union Of India & Ors, 2014 (2) SCC 193; DOJ: 16.12.2013 The ruling directed all states and union territories to implement the provisions contained in the Protection of Rights of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; and The Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. It also made it clear that in case of non-compliance, an officer of the rank of principal secretary of the state government should clarify the reason in court. Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India & Ors, 2011 (5) SCC 1; DOJ: 18.04.2011 Under no circumstances should children be employed in circuses. The apex court asked the central government to issue suitable notifications banning children from working here. It also asked the respondents to conduct raids in circuses and liberate children and rehabilitate them in a proper manner.

Telecom

Anil Shakya

Subramanian Swamy vs A Raja; DOJ: 24.8.2012 This order gave a decisive blow to corruption which had undermined India’s reputation as an investment destination for global telecom giants. The court cancelled 122 spectrum licenses issued in 2008 by then telecom minister A Raja. He was found guilty of manipulating rules to show undue favors to some companies. The court termed the allocations as “unconstitutional and arbitrary”. Asso. Of Unified ... vs Union Of India & Ors; DOJ: 17.4.2014 The apex court ruled that the Comptroller and Auditor General could audit the account books of private telecom companies, which share their revenues with the government for using spectrum. The court said such a scrutiny was crucial for ensuring the government got its “legitimate share” for allowing private telecom operators to use this valuable natural resource.

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

SUPREME COURT/ landmark verdicts

Education Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka and others – (1992) 3 SCC 666; DOJ: 30.07.1992 The Supreme Court held that the right to education is a fundamental right and flows directly from the right to life. It mandated that the state government was duty-bound to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens. St. Stephen’s College vs University of Delhi; DOJ: 06.12.1991 Minority institutions receiving aid from state funds were allowed to accord preference to or reserve seats for candidates belonging to their community on the basis of religion or language. However, it said such institutions admit students of their own community to the extent of 50 percent of the annual intake and insisted that such differential treatment must be in conformity with the university’s standards.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES (Above) The St. Stephen’s College verdict was significant for minority institutions; (Below) Allowance for NOTA option in elections was a landmark judgment

Electoral malpractices Lily Thomas vs Union of India and Others, and W.P. (C) 231/2005 Lok Prahari through its General Secretary vs Union of India; DOJ: 10.07.2013 This landmark order was related to criminalization of politics. The court held that a member of parliament or legislature of any state if convicted for offenses earmarked in IPC, 1860, would cease to hold his membership from the date of conviction. The verdict did away with Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, that allowed a convicted legislator to retain his seat for three months subsequent to the conviction. Within these three months, if such individuals filed an appeal before an appellate court, the disqualification was suspended until the appeal was finally determined. This milestone judgment acted as a deterrent for political parties to award tickets to tainted candidates. The fact that this issue—unscrupulous politicians taking advantage of prevailing laws—was dragged to court was significant as it threw up some important constitutional law issues. These included plenary powers of parliament to legislate on its privileges, judicial review of legislative action in general, sources of legislative powers in the constitution and interpretation of Constituent Assembly debates. People’s Union For Civil ... vs Union Of India & Anr; DOJ: 27.09.2013 The Election Commission was directed to make allowances for “None Of The Above” button on electronic voting machines and ballot papers. The NOTA vote armed voters to reject all candidates contesting in a constituency. UNI

March 15, 2015

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

Sexual harassment Vishaka and others vs State of Rajasthan and others (1997) 6 SCC 241; DOJ: 13.08.1997 The verdict brought the harassment of women at the workplace in public glare. Observing that international conventions and norms were significant for interpreting gender equality and womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rights, the Supreme Court for the first time, made it clear that sexual harassment, including sex-laden comments and physical contact, was illegal and a violation of fundamental rights. The court further carved out a set of guidelines and norms to govern the behaviour of the employers and all others at workplaces to curb this social evil. Medha Kotwal Lele and Others vs Union of India and others (2013) 1 SCC 297; DOJ: 19.10.2012 The apex court held that the Vishaka guidelines should not remain just symbolic but rather provide direction until the legislative enactment of the Bill. The court further stated that in the event of non-compliance to the Vishaka guidelines, the courtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s orders and/or directions, the aggrieved persons should approach the high court of the state concerned which would be in a better position to effectively consider the grievances. Anil Shakya

Environment

Samatha vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors; DOJ: 11.7.1997 The court said that government, tribal and forest land in scheduled areas cannot be leased to non-tribals or private companies for mining or industrial operations. It can only be done by tribals or a government undertaking. MC Mehta vs Union Of India And Others; DOJ: 22.9.1998 In order to check air pollution, the apex court mandated that all diesel-powered buses in Delhi be converted to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). MC Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter) vs Union of India and Others Writ Petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984 (Kuldip Singh, Faizanuddin JJ); DOJ: 30.12.1996 The Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgment. The court directed 292 industries to change over to natural gas as an industrial-fuel. The industries which were not in a position to obtain gas connections for any reason would stop functioning with the aid of coke/coal in the Taj Trapezium Zone and may relocate themselves as per the directions given by the highest court of the land.

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

SUPREME COURT/ landmark verdicts

Work and job rules Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. W.P. (C) No. 38 OF 1997; DOJ: 06.05.2014 This was a landmark order to track down corrupt senior bureaucrats. The apex court struck down Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act that barred the CBI from initiating even a preliminary inquiry against senior bureaucrats (joint secretary and above) in corruption cases without prior permission from the center. The court held that the section was against the objectives of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

NAILING THE CORRUPT (Right) Delhi Police was given powers to start probing senior bureaucrats (Below) Transgenders received a place in the sun, courtesy the Supreme Court (Facing page below) Bar dancers in Mumbai were given their professional rights Photos: Anil Shakya

Civil rights National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India W.P. (C) No. 400 OF 2012 With W.P. (C) No. 604 OF 2013; DOJ: 15.04.2014 Granting hitherto denied rights to transgenders (eunuchs) in India, the apex court ruled that they be legally categorized as â&#x20AC;&#x153;third genderâ&#x20AC;?, thus upholding their right to enjoy freedom of expression and live with dignity. It also put them in the socially and economically backward sections so that they could get all their privileges. The court made it mandatory that seats be reserved for them in educational institutions and jobs, on par with OBCs.

March 15, 2015

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

Sports Cricket Association of Bihar â&#x20AC;Ś Appellant vs The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr; DOJ: 22.01.2015 Considering cricket is almost a religion in India and is kept alive by the faith of millions of fans, the verdict was epochal. It cleaned up the murky affairs of the powerful Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and ruled that the board, as the custodian of cricket affairs, could no longer function in isolation and enjoy immunity from scrutiny into its functioning. It made it clear that BCCI performed public functions and its decisions could be challenged in courts. It also ruled that nobody with an eye on commercial interest should be part of the cricket board. UNI

Entertainment State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Indian Hotel & Restaurants Assn. & ...; DOJ: 16.7.2013 The Supreme Court allowed the reopening of dance bars in Mumbai and other parts of Maharashtra after eight years. It put down the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act 2005, which allowed dance performances in elite establishments while forbidding them in others. Charu Khurana vs Union of India 2014 (13) JT 168; DOJ: 10.11.2014 This order ensured gender equality by taking up the appeal of a female make-up artist from Mumbai. It struck down a 59-year-old trade union rule that women could only be classified as hairstylists and not make-up artists in Bollywood. The privilege was earlier enjoyed by men.

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

SUPREME COURT/ landmark verdicts

Natural resources WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 120 OF 2012 Manohar Lal Sharma vs The Principal Secretary & Ors; DOJ: 17.12.2013 The apex court came down hard on another major scam in the infrastructure sector: allocation of coal blocks by the center. After holding that allocations made from 1993 to 2011 by various central governments were illegal and arbitrary in its earlier judgment, the court cancelled all of them (218) but spared four on the center’s request. It also made it clear that the order would not affect the CBI’s pending criminal investigation of 12 functional coal blocks.

Religion and faith Vishwa Lochan Madan vs Union Of India & Ors; DOJ: 7.7.2014 This judgment was important for more than 160 million Muslims in India. The apex court held that Sharia courts run by clerics have no legal status and fatwas issued by them can’t be enforced. Even the person who has asked for it can’t be forced to follow it. The court made it clear that fatwa is an opinion, not a decree, and has no constitutional sanction. M/S Shabnam Hashmi vs Union Of India & Ors; DOJ: 19.2.2014 The apex court ruled that Muslims could adopt children under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, despite their personal law debarring them from doing so. But they are also free to follow their personal law. Manohar Joshi vs Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr; DOJ: 11.12.1995 The apex court held that Hindutva or Hinduism is different from Hindu religion, and seeking votes through Hindutva was not an offense as per electoral laws. However, the landmark judgment is under review by a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court. Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors, 1987 AIR 748, 1986 SCR (3) 518; DOJ:11.08.1986 The Supreme Court ruled that there is no law where it is mandatory for a person to join the singing of the national anthem. Standing up when the national anthem is being sung is enough to show respect. Taking legal action for not singing the national anthem was an infringement of fundamental rights enshrined in Article 19 (a) and 25 (1) of the constitution. Rev. Stainislaus vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors; DOJ: 17.1.1977 While upholding Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, and Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, the apex court gave the ruling that prohibition of forcible religious conversion is legally justified if it comes in the way of maintaining public order. Anil Shakya

March 15, 2015

ONLY THE STORIES THAT COUNT EVERY FORTNIGHT INDIA LEGAL WILL BRING YOU NEWS, ANALYSES AND OPINION FROM THE SHARPEST INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS AND MOST INCISIVE LEGAL MINDS IN THE NATION ON MATTERS THAT MATTER TO YOU INVESTIGATION How CBI under former boss Ranjit Sinha became a new employment exchange 24

INDIA L EGAL

www.indialegalonline.com

February 28, 2015

NJACon a Still py ride bum

TS T EVEN PORTAN ill 60nndialegalonli00nee.c.cocoom FIVE IM14 that wes www.i `1 of 20 ge our liv chan

NDIA L

66A other ION to sm SECTns Lice speeech? free

EGAL

, 2015 ary 31 Janu

`100

STORIES THAT COUNT

Who scripted Modi’s Delhi Disaster ? PUS T

OUN AT C S TH

RIE STO

UM R S U P CAM

ITY ERS UNIV LIM MUS ARH ALIG

INDIAL EG BC SC CI him juendgoument on N gh room Srinivas to wrig an provid gle out es

D UAR ST Geer, denied COA r offfic c s at ice A seniootion, kknnock 28 prom iaryy’’ss doors judic

ENC

MAKE IN INDIA Hurdles in the civil aviation sector 36

egalo

nline

`100

STO RIE

FINALLY THE , FUSION

BUDGET 2015 Will Modi address the impatient electorate and bring his growth agenda on the right track? 26

AL ndial

S TH

AT C INDO OUN T -US NUC LEAR DEA L

ALS

ALS0

HL CJI’sDATTU’S LE frivolouconcern ovTTerER s compl aints 10 www ww w.i

Febru ary 15 , 2015

ant 18 en w wom t a wh rt on epo ial r c e sp

S ATOR 0 RED ati and ALS NT P n PATE rmeric, basmes khadi. Ca After tu, the West eye threat? 34 neem ward off th India

The ard has s uous work result eemingly y on liability ielded . But is a p laws it for thethe end of tr ositive o N-dea l? 16 ubles

EUR O Faacce Fa ce PE U itt buryd with radicalNDER SIE its o Islam’s G IsIslslalam re threat, E MAK r ally puen door polic will Le E IN nforgiv IN ing? 56y? And, is ss rules ons on mes DIA India’sfrom Nokia sy hasty ex it 20

.com

SUPREME COURT

Bail for Masood ormer Rajya Sabha member Rashid Masood was allowed to go on bail by the Supreme Court on health grounds recently. He had already spent around one-and-a-half years in jail (out of four years’ sentence) after being convicted in September 2013 for deviously allowing unworthy candidates to get admission to medical colleges under the central quota for Tripura during the tenure of the VP Singh government. The Delhi High Court had refused to offer him bail. The Congress leader was the first parliamentarian to forego his seat as a result of the 2013 apex court judgment that held that once convicted the accused will automatically cease to be a legislator.

Illustrations: UdayShankar

Parliament’s call t’s beyond judiciary’s reach to restrict people from contesting elections just because charges have been framed against them by courts, the apex court observed, adding that the onus lay on the parliament to frame laws in this regard. It also referred to its earlier observation that the matter of appointing tainted MPs and MLAs as ministers is an issue best left to the conscience of prime ministers and chief ministers and courts can’t do anything about it. An NGO had approached the court for directions debarring such candidates from contesting polls. Taking the argument forward, the court observed that anyways a person can’t not be held guilty unless proven by law following a proper trial, and it would be a travesty of justice in restraining him or her from fighting polls without a trial.

Miffed over Srinivasan

A valid appointment uling out any conflict of interest in the appointment of Shashi Kant Sharma as Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), the apex court said that there were no reasons for believing so. It was reacting to a PIL filed by few former bureaucrats and defense chiefs, who pointed out that since as defense secretary he had cleared “controversial” defense

March 15, 2015

procurements, he could not, as CAG, be expected to be fair while preparing audit reports on them. While going with the verdict of the Delhi High Court, which had struck down the PIL, the court held that it had no business to interfere with the appointment of a constitutional post. It stated that in case a situation arose regarding conflict of interest, Sharma could always keep himself away from the probe.

he apex court did not take kindly to exiled BCCI president N Srinivasan chairing its meeting on February 8. While responding to a petition from Cricket Association of Bihar, which wanted legal action against Srinivasan for contempt of court, the court pointed out his position was “vulnerable”. It had in January ruled that Srinivasan could not contest BCCI polls till the “conflict of interest” issue was resolved. Taking a dim view of the situation, the court wanted to issue contempt notice to Srinivasan, but later relented to assurance that Srinivasan would fall in line.

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

Need for a CBI probe he CBI was asked by the Supreme Court recently to investigate a case wherein a father along with his aides allegedly raped and assaulted his 22-year-old daughter in Meerut just because she refused to be dragged into prostitution. Looking at the details of the case and allegations leveled against UP Police, the court felt that it was deliberately delaying the investigation in collusion with the accused. The complaint regarding the crime was made four years back. The court also asked CBI to find out why UP Police failed to solve the case for so long. Aggrieved at not getting justice, the girl had directly knocked the doors of the apex court through some advocates concerned with public issues.

Can’t cheat investors eeding the plea of two investors for refunding the money they had invested in realtor Supertech’s residential twin towers Apex and Ceyane in Noida, the apex court asked the builder to return the principal amount within 30 days. The court took a dim view of the fact that Supertech was skirting away from paying back those investors who refused to be relocated in other projects of the realtor. It also asked Supertech to pay back the interest amount within 60 days of the return of principal amount to the investors. The apex court had earlier asked Supertech to return the money to investors going for refund, after the Allahabad High Court gave orders for the demolition of the towers.

Suspension can’t be indefinite

Skewed priority

overnment employees must be charge-sheeted within 90 days of suspension and the practice of delaying it for an indefinite period is not acceptable and needs to be checked, the Supreme Court ruled. Delivering this ruling, the apex court observed that the delay in framing charges affects the concerned employee mentally, as he faces disgrace, goes through intense mental agony, is condemned by society and looked down upon by his department—when he is yet to be charged for his misdemeanor. It was responding to a petition filed by a government officer against indefinite suspension.

he Supreme Court admonished the center for spending crores on Republic Day but refusing to pay compensation to insolvent farmers against their land, or depriving post-retirement benefits to armed forces personnel. It also took the center to task for flooding the judiciary with cases yet failing to provide infrastructural facilities in courts. It pointed out that government was the largest litigator and came to courts on the slightest pretext, leading to increasing backlog of cases. The apex court’s stinging criticism came while dealing with center’s objection to the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s verdict in favor of farmers in cases of land acquisition. The court reserved its judgment on center’s appeal.

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

SUPREME COURT

Polygamy can’t be a right uslims can’t claim polygamy as a fundamental right, the apex court ruled and said that rights accorded to the community under Article 25 (right to practice and propagate any religion) of the constitution does not extend to polygamy. It stated that polygamy was not intrinsic to religion and the state had every right to bring back monogamy as a reform measure to restore public

Disability pension a must n a significant order impacting people working in the armed forces, the apex court ruled that if a soldier quits service due to some disease it should be automatically presumed that the illness was a result of or related to his service, and disability pension granted to him. The court also made it clear that under no circumstances should an armed forces personnel be asked to prove the same. Striking down a clutch of appeals filed by the center against the ruling of the Armed Forces Tribunal which had granted disability benefits to 27 army personnel, the court clarified that a person was inducted into the armed forces only after rigorous physical and mental tests and thus there was no element of doubt that the disease did not result from his service.

order, health and morality. The court was hearing a case wherein the UP government had fired an irrigation supervisor who married again despite having a first wife, and didn’t take permission for doing so under the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules. The Allahabad High Court had rejected his plea against the dismissal. The apex court upheld the decision of the state government.

Tribunals can’t stay vacant he center is unnecessarily causing hardship to litigants and allowing cases to pile up by not okaying for months names advocated by the chief Justice of India for appointments at various tribunals. The apex court blamed the center while taking up a PIL that questioned the constitutional status of some tribunals. It also questioned center’s laggardly attitude in extending the tenure of retired judges on ad hoc basis till new appointments are made. It asked attorney general of India to find out the reasons and decide fast.

Nothing to do with personal laws efusing to interfere in the personal law of Christians in civil and family matters, the apex court referred the matter of recognition to Christian courts to the center and asked it to respond in four weeks. Responding to a PIL which wanted the judiciary to recognize annulment of marriage under Canon Law (a personal law for Indian Catholics) just as it did so for the personal laws

of Muslims, the apex court ruled that courts can’t be forced to legally consider, and should not venture into, such laws related to divorce, marriage and adoption. The PIL brought to the notice of the apex court that Catholic Christians who were granted divorce by Christians courts and later remarried were open to charges of bigamy as such annulment of marriages were not accepted by law of the land. Compiled by Prabir Biswas

March 15, 2015

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

COURTS

INDIA LEGAL

Extended term for Yadav brothers he chances of the jail term of Vikas Yadav (son of politician DP Yadav) and his cousin Vishal Yadav coming to an end soon ended as the Delhi High Court extended their prison term to 30 years each, from the 14-year life imprisonment period earlier. Incidentally, both the brothers had already spent 13 years in prison and could have been up for remission and release. Both Vishal and Vikas had killed business executive Nitish Katara in 2002 as they did not approve of his friendship with Vikas’s sister Bharti. Although the court did not feel the need for a death sentence, the exceptional

nature of the crime goaded it to prolong the prison term as it felt the current punishment was not enough. The court also took into account the arrogant attitude of prisoners. It pointed out that their total period of unlawful visits to hospitals (over 340 days) will not be counted in the sentence term. The court also asked them to cough up `54 lakh each, as a fine. Nitish’s mother was to get `40 lakh for what she had to go through to bring the perpetrators to book. A major share was also fixed for Delhi government for the expenses it bore in protecting witnesses, on hospital visits and litigation. Illustrations: UdayShankar

Salute to freedom he assets of freedom fighters and defense personnel are sacrosanct and the government can’t acquire them under any scheme whatsoever, the Madras High Court ruled. It asked the Tamil Nadu government to return 7.83 acres of land at Maraimalai Nagar, a Chennai suburb, to a freedom fighter’s family. Striking down a 2007 order of the Housing and Urban Development Department that refused to return the land, the court said that the housing scheme, for which the land had been acquired, was not above the concern for freedom fighters. It expressed its anger that the land was actually being used for industrial and commercial purposes.

Abu Salem gets life special TADA court in Mumbai sentenced gangster Abu Salem to life imprisonment, after holding him guilty earlier for murdering a builder in 1995. The court also fined him `8 lakh in various cases. Extradited from Portugal in 2005 for the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, it was the first time that Salem was convicted in a case in India. The prosecution had sought death sentence for Salem for the crime but the extradition agreement with Portugal didn’t allow such a punishment.

New dimensions to Article 377 rying to prove that Section 377 is absurd, a Supreme Court advocate brought to the notice of a Delhi court that some e-commerce websites are blatantly promoting and selling sex toys and other products that encourage sexual acts, considered unlawful by the section. The court asked for a police inquiry to ascertain whether such sex toys and other objects do violate Section 377 and file an action taken report on the complaint and provide status of the probe by March 21. It also asked the police to clarify whether an FIR could be filed against such websites once the allegations are established. In December 2013, the apex court had upheld Section 377 that rules homosexuality as an offense, striking down a Delhi High Court ruling that had de-criminalized gay sex.

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

LEAD/ crime/matang sinh

Congress’s latestbête noire FALL FROM GRACE Former Union minister, Matang Sinh, with his assistant Khyati Saddana at the time of his arrest

when the cbi arrested matang sinh last month in the saradha scam, it showed the unholy nexus between politicos and bureaucrats and how each used the other to further their personal interests By Vishwas Kumar 24

March 15, 2015

HE Saradha scam has implicated many people in high places. But when the CBI arrested former Union minister Matang Sinh on charges of criminal conspiracy, cheating and misappropriation of funds, it shook quite a few people. For, he was an influential man, with his tentacles spread far and wide in the national capital’s corridors of power. And that included former prime minister Manmohan Singh, whom Sinh had “helped” in May 2007. That’s when Singh was trying to enter the Rajya Sabha (RS) as an MP from Assam. He was the sitting PM and any reversal of his election could have created a political turmoil.

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL It was natural for the PM’s political managers to be a little nervous, especially as Matang Sinh, a former Congressman, had filed his nomination for the same seat as an “independent” candidate. SMOOTH OPERATOR In Assam politics, Sinh could not be taken lightly. He had the reputation of being a maverick, a money-bag and a power-broker with enough ability to block the smooth passage of the PM’s nomination. A backroom negotiation ensued between him and Singh’s managers and Sinh quietly withdrew his nomination. This was a “master-stroke” by him to get a toe-hold in the corridors of power. After all, an “obliged” PM could bring him many benefits. Both were no strangers to each other. Both had the same political godfather—the late Congress veteran and former prime minister Narasimha Rao—and had served in his cabinet in 1993. Though their relationship had soured during Rao’s days, it saw an upturn when Sinh opted out of the RS election. The first concrete evidence of their closeness emerged in 2012, when the home ministry tried to scale down

Sinh’s “Z” category security cover, which he had surprisingly continued to enjoy since his days as a cabinet minister in 1993. However, the ministry had to backtrack after Singh intervened, along with then Bihar governor Devanand Konwar and Digvijaya Singh, both of whom said his security should be continued. With Singh’s backing, Sinh continued to expand his network in the capital. So, when the home secretary’s post was to fall vacant in June 2013 due to the retirement of incumbent RK Singh, he pulled a coup. In a rare development, two months before the scheduled vacancy, the name of a new home secretary, Anil Goswami, a 1978-batch IAS officer of the J&K cadre, was cleared by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, headed by Singh. It is believed that the announcement was made in advance to pre-empt any “last-minute” challenges from other “lobbyists” within the government and the Congress party. The announcement took everyone by surprise and political-bureaucratic circles were abuzz with the news that Sinh had “swung” the posting in Goswami’s favor through his “personal contact” with Singh. This was the second time Sinh had helped Goswami get a posting in the home ministry. His first tenure there lasted from

THE KINGPIN? (Below left) Former home secretary, Anil Goswami, owed his appointment to Matang Sinh

ROT RUNS DEEP (Below) Saradha Group chairman, Sudipto Sen, being produced in Alipore Court in Kolkata

UNI

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

LEAD/ crime/matang sinh

Both Matang Sinh and Manmohan Singh were ministers in the Narasimha Rao government. Later, in 2007, Sinh withdrew his Rajya Sabha candidature from Assam, to oblige Singh.

2010-2012, when, as additional secretary or special secretary, he was instrumental in putting in place an ambitious scheme called Immigration, Visa, Foreigners Registration and Tracking. He also procured the latest weapons, equipment and vehicles for paramilitary and state police forces. It is likely that both got acquainted when Goswami was a junior IAS officer when Sinh was minister. INFLUENTIAL LOBBYISTS This was also the time, when, in the aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai attack, a conscious decision was taken by home ministry mandarins to scale up “internal” security and modernize the forces. This required greater purchase of arms and ammunitions and technologies. The annual budget of the ministry for “internal security” was `39,000 crore for 2013-14. A major portion of it went into purchases. And as in the defense sector, there is intense lobbying to get

March 15, 2015

lucrative contracts. These lobbyists, in turn, “influence” transfers and postings of key officials there. But the moot question is: Why did Sinh help Goswami? There are many reasons— to get help for his own criminal cases; to lobby for defense contracts in the home ministry and to run a lucrative transfer and posting racket. According to home ministry sources, the CBI, after Sinh’s arrest, is looking into all purchases made during Goswami’s two tenures in the ministry. It is alleged that one company got several lucrative contracts allegedly under Sinh’s influence. His personal secretary, Khyati Saddana, who had no previous business background but is now a director in some of his companies, has also been questioned by the CBI for her alleged role in various deals. The CBI is also trying to unravel all the key postings in the home ministry which were “managed” by the Sinh-Goswami duo. There are many paramilitary forces directly under the ministry, including the BSF, CRPF, CISF and NIA. Also, all police forces of Union Territories, such as the Delhi Police, come under its jurisdiction. INTERFERING BUREAUCRATS It’s no wonder, then, that it wasn’t Goswami alone who called CBI director Anil Sinha to stop “Sinh’s” arrest; the head of a paramilitary force did too. The third person who tried to scuttle his arrest was a joint director in the CBI. While Goswami lost his job after the prime minister got wind of his “interference”, the other two are still continuing in their job. Even though the home ministry doesn’t directly control the CBI, it has considerable influence over it, as all IPS officers posted there on deputation have to be cleared by it. Sinh desperately needed key men in this ministry and the CBI, not only for “influence peddling” but also to “protect” him from mounting criminal cases registered against him for his alleged role in the Saradha scam. It was Sinh’s marriage to Delhi-based journalist, Manoranjana, in the 90s that proved to be the turning point of his life. Both met when Sinh was in Rao’s cabinet in charge of parliamentary affairs and she was a journalist cover-

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL ing the beat. Both husband and wife obtained television licenses in 2003 and founded the NETV (North East Television), the first news channel to be launched to cover the region. The channel went on air on March 16, 2004, and became a successful venture, expanding to two more channels—NE Hi Fi, an entertainment channel, and NE Bangla. While Manoranjana contributed editorially, Sinh used his extensive connections in the North-East, especially Assam, where he had business and political connections, to finance the channel. MARITAL DISPUTE However, when the couple’s marriage started collapsing in 2007, the channel too started floundering. Their dispute spilled out into the open and reached courtrooms, as they filed criminal and civil cases against each other. Worse, both spilled the beans on each other, leading to further trouble. What was common to both were their “financial” and “personal” dealings with Saradha Group chairman Suditpo Sen. This was revealed in April 2013, when Sen wrote a letter

to the CBI saying that he had given `28 crore to Sinh to acquire a Bengali television channel— NE Bangla. The deal didn’t conclude and Sinh didn’t return the money, Sen alleged. Further, he said that he had given money to Manoranjana for acquiring rights of her TV channel. The agency quizzed her. Sinh lived life king-size and cultivated the image of a power-broker, complete with fiercelooking commandoes and a pilot car with a red beacon. He would hold cocktail parties in his bungalow in Doctor’s Lane near Lutyens Delhi and at his farmhouse in Chhattarpur, which were well-attended by friends, businessmen, politicians and bureaucrats. Despite being out of power for two decades, his power among the bureaucracy and politicians was not dented. What’s more, the Saradha scam isn’t the first controversy Sinh finds himself in. In 1998, he was expelled from the Congress for allegedly using “unparliamentary” language against Congress president Sonia Gandhi on a TV channel because he was not being re-elected to the RS a second time. ABORTED BID In 2011, he attempted to return to the Congress fold, but his entry was nixed at the last moment when the Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax and CBI registered a case against him and raided his offices and homes. Though party general secretary Digvijaya Singh had supported Sinh’s entry, he was forced to drop him after the raids. In July 2013, Sinh was chargesheeted by the CBI for not returning a `67-crore loan to a public sector bank. Little is known of his early life, except what his website claims: He was born on August 22, 1962, to SP Sinh and Rani Rukmani Sinh in Hijoguri, Tinsukia, Assam. However, even this has been disputed by media reports, which claim he was born in Bihar and later came to Assam to do business. He started dabbling in politics from his student days, joined the Congress and in 1990, became chairman of the labor cell of the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee. During the Assam assembly elections in 1991, he claims to have become “personally acquainted with Rajiv Gandhi. In 1992, he was elected to the RS from Assam. And from there started his spiral to power and then, his downfall. IL

LOVE GONE WRONG (Left) Journalist Manoranjana, Sinh’s estranged wife, was in cahoots in many wrong deals

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

CORPORATE/ espionage scam

India’s Spy Masters the nefarious actions of clerks and middlemen have shown the deep tentacles of powerful corporate entities within the government. can the rot ever be cleaned up? By Shantanu Guha Ray

N old practice of various ministries in Delhi—doing business from hand-held files and binders tied with strings—has been used by corporate giants to garner high profits. This was evident from the recent corporate espionage case, where old methods of conducting business instead of using computers, led to important documents being stolen and then, sold. That lowly clerks could easily steal documents from India’s teeming ministries was first known during the Jain Hawala diaries.

March 15, 2015

A little over two decades after these diaries came out, a similar nightmare enveloped the Indian capital—aptly described by a television anchor as “Siege City”. This time, errand men were caught copying documents from the ministries of petroleum and natural gas, coal, power and defense and trading them for cash. Further, senior officials of corporate giants, former journalists and lobbyists were masquerading as market analysts. Who wanted the papers, many asked? “Everyone,” claimed insiders in the government. Essar wanted to know what was happening in mines because of its interests, the Ambani brothers wanted to know

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

Anthony Lawrence

about each other’s business to see if anyone was getting any extra benefit from the government, Cairn and Jubilant wanted to seek information on policy issues in the energy sector, while Vedanta wanted to know almost anything and everything to do with mining in India. There were others in the fray but not named by cops because investigations are going on. LUCRATIVE BUSINESS Such was the demand that collecting the documents was nearly a `100-crore business itself. “The government aimed to catch a big fish, loads came into the net,” said a top offi-

cial in the home ministry. And after the first arrests in this case, India’s most politically powerful city has gone into a virtual rigor mortis mode. In the office of one corporate giant close to Connaught Place, staffers handed over their Blackberrys to be crushed, packed and dumped into the Yamuna, a few miles away. In another office, the top brass did not take any chance and did the “handset breaking” act themselves. Once it was done, the broken pieces of handsets—memory cards duly removed—were consigned to the waste bin. For a change, Delhi did not want to do anything remotely connected with its generation-old, use-and-discard practice of collecting official documents and throwing them—like meal napkins—once the contents were analyzed and meanings understood. Till the arrests happened, the business was working fine, almost for two decades. Lowly clerks were offered cash beyond their salaries by consultants seeking information from various ministries about projects that were of interest to their clients. No documents existed between these clerks and middlemen, who often worked for top Indian and multinational corporations. Salaries were always paid in cash, and gifts offered during Holi, Diwali and on the first day of every year, the last one tagged: Happy New Year. The operation worked with call center precision, with tainted clerks showing tremendous alacrity in providing documents that helped middlemen, and in turn, their clients (companies) understand the mindset of the ministry, and of course, the minister. In India, corporate lobbying is illegal, so companies gather information on government policy themselves. Worse, lack of clarity on parameters for major decisions, along with long and opaque processes, exacerbated the problem.

The scam came to light when joint secretary (exploration) in the petroleum ministry Giridhar Armane tried to photocopy a document and got four copies of it. One was his, while the others were documents stolen from another department of the same ministry.

SMOOTH OPERATORS Consider Subhas Chandra, one of the five corporate executives arrested with seven others by Delhi Police. Till 2011, he was a typist with the personal assistant of one of the under secretaries in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. His salary INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

CORPORATE/ espionage scam

PERFECT OPERATION (Above left) The entire espionage scam worked with call center precision

(Above right) Ishwar Singh, one of the accused (Right) Another accused being produced at the Patiala House Courts Complex

March 15, 2015

was `8,000. But when he left his job in 2011 and fraudulently acquired a business management degree before joining Jubilant Energy, the greenbacks were a little over `1,50,000 per month. Similar is the case of brothers Rakesh Kumar and Lalta Prasad, who worked temporarily for the same ministry and along with their father, Asharam, leaked documents— for `15,000 each—to these middlemen. The father-sons troika routinely met middlemen and executives of top companies for such work. On paper, the list looked impressive: Shailesh Saxena, manager, corporate affairs, RIL; Subhash Chandra, senior executive, Jubilant Energy; Rishi Anand, deputy GM, Reliance ADAG; Vinay Kumar, deputy GM, Essar and KK Naik, GM, Cairn India. It was almost like insider trading, with companies knowing—in most cases—what would happen in the ministries and when. There were times when these middlemen would visit the residences of top bureaucrats and even, the minister to lobby their case. Sometimes, it worked and sometimes, it didn’t when alert ministers, suspecting such leaks, changed policies at the last moment. “I routinely told Reliance Industries officials that I would meet them in my office, and

that too, in the presence of senior bureaucrats,” former petroleum and natural gas minister Jaipal Reddy, told this correspondent weeks before he was sacked by the then prime minister Manmohan Singh reportedly under pressure from Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). Reddy can now have the last laugh as investigators from the crime branch of Delhi Police said they would be questioning those

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL arrested and also those with whom they were in regular touch. “In short, the superiors of those arrested will be called and questioned soon,” said Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) Ravindra Yadav. It was like setting more than a single cat among the pigeons. BRAZEN STEALING But how did the current scam come to light? It was triggered by a panic reaction of Giridhar Armane, joint secretary (Exploration), who, when his errand boy was missing, rushed to make a photocopy of a document which he wanted to mark to multiple superiors. But when he pressed the button, he got four copies. One was his, while the other three made his head reel. They were documents stolen from another department of the same ministry, but kept in the storage section of the copier. When he pressed the storage button (probably by mistake), he got print-

outs of the other papers. Worse, the door of Prashant S Lokhande, a director in the ministry, was found compromised about two months back, following which the ministry ordered a thorough investigation and CCTV cameras were installed. Despite this, documents were stolen from the rooms of Special Secretary Rajive Kumar, Joint Secretary (Refineries) Sandeep Poundrik, Joint Secretary (Exploration) UP Singh and Director (Exploration-1) Nalin Kumar Srivastava, among others. Who was copying, why and how? The minister was alerted and the rest was pure and simple: bait, catch and kill. But did it stop the nexus in a city where people often talk of cash and connections as easily as coffee and conversations? No. After all, those in the game, not just those interested in oil and gas, coal or highways, would not have wrapped up their high-value stores just because some were arrested. Consider this. Highly placed sources in the Intelligence Bureau (IB) said they had information last year about how a top, soft drinks multinational had admonished its top boss in India, and those handling “government relations” for not being able to gauge well in advance that the finance minister would, in the annual budget, increase taxes on sugar used by soft drinks companies. “The middlemen working for the company also

IN THE POLICE DRAGNET (From left) Former journalist Santanu Saikia is not new to scandals; Prayas Jain is known as an energy consultant; others arrested in the scandal

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

CORPORATE/ espionage scam

drew flak,” said one source. IB officials in Delhi had earlier alerted the government how these middlemen, lobbyists, fixers and touts had emerged from the woodwork to contact various companies and offer all kinds of help, including court judgments.

“I routinely told Reliance Industries officials that I would meet them in my office, and that too, in the presence of senior bureaucrats.” —Jaipal Reddy, former petroleum and natural gas minister, on the issue of corporates trying to influence government decisions

March 15, 2015

NEW BREED Officials of the IB and Home Ministry, which monitored these fixers and their nocturnal activities, said they had learnt quite a bit about the modus operandi of a specialized group of niche players who only focus on the courts. “It seemed we had hit upon a new breed of fixers—the latest in the business— who specialized in courts,” said one official. Among them was a controversial Gujarati businessman, who had a number of cases against him. He was openly contacting corporates and showing them a list of the judges he controlled over the last three years and how he could easily fix a judgment. Over a year ago, the IB sent a secret report to the chief justice of India (CJI), saying one of his cooks was in touch with this fixer. What was fixer’s modus operandi? Through the cook, he would meticulously find out what the outcome of a particular judgment could be. It helped that the cook was educated and kept a tab on the printouts of judgments lying at home. And fixer would then contact the parties involved and tell them he could make them win, provided they paid him handsomely. The cook was subsequently discharged from the CJI’s house, but continued to live in the servants’ quarters. Eventually, he found a job with another judge in the apex court. With high stakes involved, the pressure to know the mind of various ministers is always paramount. Middlemen have been known to draw salaries, ranging from `5 lakh to

`8 lakh monthly, and don’t mind operating even without an office, often meeting people in coffee shops or at India Gate lawns. SHADY CONTACTS In the February bust-up, as many as 12 people, including Santanu Saikia, a former journalist, and Prayas Jain, who described himself as an energy consultant but rarely spoke about issues bothering the sector on any public discourse, were arrested and kept in custody of Delhi Police. Except for Saikia, for the other 11, it was a facepalm moment as they claimed they were innocent. Saikia, on the other hand, was not new to such scandals. He had been questioned on similar charges a little over a decade ago by the CBI and once, then Congress president Kalpanath Rai wrote a note to Saikia’s editor about how he was trying to extort cash from some members of the Congress party. This time, he shouted to reporters that he was collecting the documents to unearth a whopping ` 10,000 crore scam and that he was being made to sign blank papers by the cops. He even raised his thumb in an apparent sign of arrogance, even as news channels—some believing him at face value— played breaking news. What made the present scam so alarming were dual factors: the brazenness with which documents were photocopied from the ministry and their timing (the scandal was unearthed a week before the annual budget was to be presented). There were even rumors that some budget documents too were copied. While Nalin Kohli, BJP spokesman, said: “The government will do everything to get to the bottom of the case, the documents are being analyzed”, he was quick to apportion blame to the earlier UPA government for “shielding such middlemen and powerbrokers for decades”. But Mohan Guruswamy, a senior political analyst and columnist who once worked closely with the PMO in the 90s, said it would be better if reactions came once the papers were “analyzed and their importance estimated”. “Till that happens, one needs to exert caution. But the way such documents

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL were copied was totally disgusting. It seemed another office was in operation,” he said. LEAKY RELIANCE In the center of the present scam are two companies—RIL, India’s largest private sector company, and Reliance ADAG, which is into telecom, energy, entertainment, finance and now, defense production. This was not the first time Reliance officials have faced allegations of leaking confidential government information. RIL has in the past too drawn flak for being favored by governments to earn whopping profits, either through high gas price or partial sale of gas assets. Way back in October 1998, an inquiry into the theft of a chopper by Romesh Sharma, an alleged aide of Dawood Ibrahim, had led the police to the office and New Friend’s Colony residence of V Balasubramaniam, group president of Reliance. Highly sensitive documents were recovered from his residence, including one from a cabinet meeting, another on the minutes of a meeting on disinvestment and papers on customs and excise duties for the oil and oil products sector. The documents were faxed from Balasubramaniam’s office to a Mumbai number, investigators claimed. Eventually, a criminal case was filed against Balasubramaniam and two senior RIL executives under the Official Secrets Act, which carries a minimum prison sentence of three years. The slugfest continued for years in the court, and eventually, the Supreme Court rejected Reliance’s appeal in May 2011. A sessions court framed charges in April 2012, nearly 14 years after the FIR was filed but the trail is still hanging loose. This time, the cops claimed it had evidence of telephonic conversations between the arrested RIL official and top company honchos in Makers Chambers IV in Nariman Point office complex. IMAGE MAKEOVER What was also intriguing was that the arrest of the RIL official happened on a day when the Mumbai-based conglomerate announced it had appointed Maheshwar Sahu, a former IAS officer from Gujarat, as an independent director. Sahu, a Modi loyalist, had handled

Photos: UNI

the PM’s pet projects like “Vibrant Gujarat” and other NRI summits. Obviously, an image makeover process was on within RIL—its shares tanked in NSE Bluechip Index by 3.2 percent when the arrests were made. RIL is in international arbitration with the petroleum ministry over issues including implementation of higher gas prices and cost recoveries. RIL has an image to maintain and an issue to handle: It lobbied hard to double the domestic price of gas from $4.2 a unit to $8.4. The price, post elections, was increased to only $5.6, a blow to RIL. Now, that the dust seems to have settled on the arrests and those in police custody have to do the rounds of courts, the central government—if it still maintains that there was a deep-rooted espionage attempt— should doubly clarify its stand on the documents heist. Taking the most of it home is none other than Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose image had taken a dip with BJP insiders and the Sangh Parivar, both of whom claimed the PM lacked action. But for now, the prime minister has been able to convince critics that his government is working better than the previous ones. In one stroke, Modi has sent a message to both corporate giants and the media: Back off from the corridors of ministries. IL

IN A BIND? In the center of the scam are Reliance Industries Limited owned by Mukesh Ambani (right) and Reliance ADAG, spearheaded by Anil Ambani

Whither Probe? India Legal sources said the Modi government had sent feelers asking powers to go slow on the investigation as top industrialists, politicians and MPs also figure among the names that have surfaced in the oil espionage scandal.

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

PROBE/ sexual harassment/rk pachauri

CLIMATE

CHANGES Illustration: Anthony Lawrence

T might have hardly come as a surprise to many present and past employees of The Energy and Research Institute (TERI) when its director-general, Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, 75, was named in an FIR. Lodged in New Delhi by a 29-year-old woman colleague of his, it alleged that he had stalked and sexually harassed her. Former employees who quit as they were sick of his stalking and harassment say that new revelations about him may just help many who are still working there breathe easy. Talking to India Legal, a former female employee of TERI alleged: â&#x20AC;&#x153;It has been ages since he started harassing women employees. Pachauri shamelessly chased young girls in the office. He even jeopardized the careers of those

March 15, 2015

who would not respond. Many had no option but to tearfully quit. It was high time someone found the courage to complain to the police and let the law take its course. I know his style. What the girl said in her complaint rings absolutely true.â&#x20AC;? As the case hit the headlines, he was reportedly told by the governing council of TERI, which includes many illustrious personalities to step down, at least temporarily, till the case was over. In a statement, TERI said that Pachauri had gone on leave but did not specify for how long. A bigger blow for him was resigning from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), where he was chairman since 2002, and which had got the Nobel Peace Prize during his tenure. (The Indian media

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

the police complaint filed against teri d-g is just the tip of the iceberg, say former female employees of the organization. they say he shamelessly chased and victimized girls for many years, even jeopardizing their careers. is this the end of his illustrious career? By Ramesh Menon keeps mentioning that he is a Nobel laureate which is wrong, as it is the IPCC which got it. He just received it on its behalf.) WATERTIGHT CASE? In her 33-page complaint to the police, the research analyst attached 31 printouts of the messages she received from him, along with a handwritten note he had sent her. She said that despite repeated requests asking him to put a halt to sexually laden SMS messages as she was not interested in a relationship with him, the harassment continued. She specifically mentioned that Pachauri on many occasions and against her wishes, forcibly grabbed her, hugged, kissed and inappropriately touched her. She had been sexually harassed ever since she joined the organization in

September 2013, she said. This, even after she reportedly told him that she found his advances and messages vulgar and repulsive. On October 1, 2013, the complainant messaged him saying that she felt violated and he should not grab and kiss her. She was replying to his message: “Just to prove to you how much I love you, I shall go on a fast… I will break the fast only when you tell me that you believe I love you with sincerity and unfathomable depth.” Ten days later, he said in another message: “Yes, I would love you physically, only because I love you in all the other aspects. I, therefore, would find it difficult to touch you except to kiss your hand.” In a handwritten note to her on June 12, 2014, Pachauri wrote: “I dreamt last night that I did the preliminaries of making love to you, but woke up at the critical moment.” On June 19, 2014, she sent him a Whatsapp message: “Do you ever actually understand what someone feels when someone resists something and you continue to do it?” But that did little to stop Pachauri. He even tried to emotionally blackmail the traumatized girl. In one of his messages, he reminded her about how she had first come to him in search of a job as she was recovering from a bad experience in her previous one and suggested that she wasn’t grateful.

“Though he knew we detested it, he would continue doing it and so we would try and avoid his gaze as much as possible.” —a former TERI employee on Pachauri physically lifting female staffers and swinging them around

DELAYED REACTION The research analyst’s complaint lay in the Lodhi Colony police station for five days before an FIR was lodged when it became a headline on the front page of The Economic Times. This is another example of how the police has not yet started taking sexual harassment cases seriously, though it claims to give it top priority. This, despite there being a public debate about the need to ensure gender sensitization in the male-dominated police force. Soon after The Economic Times ran the charges against Pachauri, he approached the court asking for an order against further publication of the story. The story was removed from the website of the paper after the Delhi High Court issued an injunction asking it to do so. But a bench of Justice Jayant Nath vacated a stay on the publication saying that the “liberty of the press under Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution could not be violated”, INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

PROBE/ sexual harassment/rk pachauri

allowing the media to report on the case. The next morning the news spread like wildfire. Cyber law expert Pawan Duggal, who was initially Pachauri’s lawyer in this case, decided not to represent him. He said he had taken a professional decision and would not like to comment on it.

“I dreamt last night that I did the preliminaries of making love to you, but woke up at the critical moment.” —RK Pachauri’s hand-written note to the complainant

March 15, 2015

MURKY ENVIRONMENT Ranjana Saikia, the presiding officer of the Internal Complaints Committee of TERI, confirmed that she had received the complaint from a female colleague on February 9 and had worked on it “as per guidelines.” A serious complaint such as this should have been acted on immediately, but it took the committee eight days to give a copy of the complaint to Pachauri. The complainant has not been asked to quit, she said, and added that the employee had, in fact, got an extension in November 2014. If that was the case, how is it that Pachauri, in his application to the court, had cited that she was a poor performer? There was a move to transfer her out of the D-G’s office. Usually, poor performers in TERI are asked to quit and are not transferred to another department.

The complainant recorded her statement in camera before a magistrate in his chambers. It took nearly five hours. The recording will be used as evidence in court proceedings. Her FIR included charges under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The police are scanning Whatsapp messages, emails and text messages submitted by the complainant. Pachauri’s mobile phone and computer will be sent for forensic analysis as his defense has been that it has been hacked. After the FIR was lodged, Pachauri received interim relief from being arrested from the Delhi High Court, enabling him to approach a lower court for anticipatory bail as he was summoned by the police for questioning. He secured bail on medical grounds saying that he had cardiac issues and urinary tract infection. He got himself admitted to a hospital. Prashant Mendiratta, the victim’s lawyer, had argued that Pachauri not be granted bail, as he would use his power to intimidate his client. Pachauri’s lawyer, in turn, said his client was a man of international repute and no purpose would be served by sending him to police custody. In his application, Pachauri said that the complainant had engaged in conversations with him for 15 months and had raised objections when she was given the choice of shifting from the D-G’s office to another division in the same organization. Earlier, his defense was that he had been framed as his computer and mobile phone were hacked and messages sent from them. For former TERI employees, this case gave them a sense of déjà vu. One of them remembers how he would physically lift female staffers at office parties and swing them around, much to their embarrassment. “Though he knew we detested it, he would continue doing it and so we would try and avoid his gaze as much as possible,” she said. Meanwhile, the courts have neither asked him to deposit his passport with the police nor told him not to leave the country. But after one more former TERI employee alleged that she also was harassed by him as were many other girls, he chose not to go to Nairobi where he

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL was to chair a meeting of the IPCC. He informed IPCC about his inability to chair its plenary session because of issues demanding his attention in India. But later on, he resigned from the UN body. RELIEF FOR IPCC? In his resignation letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in New York, Pachauri said: “The IPCC needs strong leadership and dedication of time and full attention by the chair in the immediate future, which under the current circumstances, I may be unable to Photo Division, GOI provide, as shown by my inability to travel to Nairobi to chair the plenary session of the Panel this week. I have therefore taken the decision to step down from my position as Chair of the IPCC.” When asked if he was forced to quit, Jonathan Lynn, head, communications and media relations, IPCC, told India Legal that he had done it of his own accord. Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Program which facilitated the meeting to discuss the Pachauri fracas, said that the action taken would ensure that IPCC’s mission to assess climate change continued without interruption. This resignation came after well-known lawyer and activist Vrinda Grover announced that another woman had chosen to reveal the trauma she went through at TERI when she worked there in 2005. Preferring to remain anonymous, she alleged that many others had suffered in a similar fashion. In her statement, she said: “I and many other female colleagues and friends who have worked at the same organization as the complainant at/in different points of time and capacities during the last 10 years have been through similar harassment at his hands.” The second complainant said that she had brought it to the notice of the second-in-command at TERI, only to be sternly told that she had misread his warmth. She added: “Of the

most common and public sight of such behavior by him that many of us vividly recall was performed on the floor where his office is located and is home to a manicured roof-top garden and badminton court. These evening sessions would often draw to a close with hightea, and many a time with him lifting a female employee as if they were little girls…. Once, he called me to his room to discuss some work but picked up a coffee-table book. He thumbed the pages of what was an architectural design catalogue with designs of swimming pools and gardens. I was still waiting for where he was going with it. What followed was startling: he promised to get me a certain foundation’s pool membership if I would care to join him for swims on the weekends.” After securing admission to a university abroad, she quit and thought that was the end of her trauma. She alleges that when Pachauri saw the resignation letter, he threatened: “From the airport to the university you are headed to, I have friends at every step. Let’s see if you manage to leave the country.” She added that though all this happened a decade back, she had now found the courage to speak up after the earlier complaint was registered. Another female employee of TERI told India Legal that she lauded the courage of these two women who spoke up against Pachauri. Yet another former employee said

IN AUGUST COMPANY Surrounded by who’s who of the world, Pachauri allegedly craved for complainant’s affection

GLIB TALK (Facing page) Pachauri’s two-page resignation letter to IPCC has no mention of the turn of events in TERI

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

PROBE/ sexual harassment/rk pachauri 1,000 regular employees of TERI, 33 percent are women and they are working with adequate comfort.” Annapurna Vancheshwaran, director, Sustainable Outreach Division at TERI, told India Legal that she would not comment on the episode as it was sub-judice.

Anil Shakya

WELL-GUARDED TERI-TORY The five-floor TERI office at India Habitat Center in the heart of Delhi

March 15, 2015

she was shocked that the women in the top management of TERI had not raised a voice against him all these years though they knew what was happening. “Even now, they are not standing up to say the truth,” she lamented. CALLS TO STEP DOWN Former additional solicitor general Indira Jaisingh asked: “Why is Pachauri trying to use his considerable influence to overwhelm the entire legal process. He has even tried to put a gag order on the media, which was later modified after some organizations approached the high court. He should step down as TERI chief,” she said. Activists like Grover too have called for his resignation, saying that only then will there be a fair trial. They are now demanding that he quit all the numerous government panels he is a part of. TERI employees that India Legal spoke to remained tight-lipped about the incident, saying that they did not know about it and had read it only in the papers and seen it on television. PK Aggarwal, TERI’s HR head, said: “The complainant had approached an internal committee that had clear guidelines to look into such complaints, but she later decided to go to the police. So, the other party had to take legal recourse. Had she not gone to the police, we would have enquired about it. Out of some

REPUTED CAREER India had lobbied hard to ensure that Pachauri headed the IPCC, a global body of climate scientists who come out with an assessment report every few years after studying thousands of reports on climate change and behavior. On October 15, 2013, in an email to the TERI complainant, Pachauri said: “Here I am sitting and chairing an IPCC meeting and surreptitiously sending you messages. I hope that tells you of my feelings for you.” It was quite clear that Pachauri would not give up on wooing her. He is also the chancellor of TERI University and has written numerous books. In 2001, he was awarded the Padma Vibhushan. After the scandal hit the roof, The India Conference at Harvard withdrew its invitation to Pachauri; he was to speak there on India’s path to global leadership in early March. Clearly, they figured out that he should not be one talking about it. The conference is one of the largest India-centric meets in the US and attracts numerous international dignitaries. Meanwhile, the present complainant, in an application to the Delhi police, expressed the fear that the evidence, which includes mobile phones and computers, would be removed by Pachauri before the police seized them for investigation. She also feared that he would use his powerful connections to bail himself out. She wanted the police to permit her to let journalists video graph her mobile phones in which she had received the text messages. She wanted the phones and computers to be sent to an independent laboratory for forensic tests so that it would not be tampered with. In an email to TERI staff, Pachauri said: “There is a cloud which is causing problems for me personally, but I will like to assure colleagues that I am working on fighting this problem effectively.” Considering the evidence against him, this is not going to be easy. Hopefully, the truth will be out soon. IL

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

POLITICS/ land acquisition bill

INDIA LEGAL

Another game-changer? amendment to the bill will be easier said than done. is this the moment of truth for the bjp and the congress? By Meha Mathur

LASHBACK to 2008, when the BJP, led by stalwart LK Advani, had put a spanner in India’s nuclear deal with the US. This, despite pleas by then ruling combine, the UPA, asking the BJP to support it. How the tables have turned in 2015. Now, the BJP, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sent Urban Development Minister Venkaiah Naidu to UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi to seek her support for the controversial land acquisition bill. Why should the Congress now oblige the BJP, Team Modi should ask itself. It’s not just the Congress that the BJP has to face; it is bracing itself for more opposition on the amendment to Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The bill, which follows a land ordinance pushed by the BJP in December, would mark a major departure from the 2013 Act which was passed under the UPA. Land is an emotive issue in India, and after protests by farmers in several parts of India and the support of Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi, the 2013 Act came into being, providing safeguards to landowners. The most important provision in it was that when a given area of land has to be acquired by the government, the approval of 70 percent of farmers in that area has to be taken. The Modi government has introduced the following clauses to the 2013 Act, among others: Industrial corridors, public-private partnership projects, rural infrastructure, affordable

housing and defense will be exempt from seeking consent of 70 percent members. This, in effect, covers most development projects, ruling out any scope for nay-sayers. No need for these five categories to have a social impact assessment done, whereas under the 2013 Act it was mandatory. The clause of returning the land to the original owner if the project doesn’t come up within five years would be scrapped. The BJP has sought to counter fears regarding the bill through its “Separating Facts from Fiction” media blitzkrieg. It claims that under the new bill, farmers will be adequately compensated (four times the market price, plus the option to buying back 20 percent of their land upon paying development and acquisition cost once the project is complete). It states that this had been denied to farmers for the last 100 years. It also states that the bill will, in fact, benefit farmers, as facilities like schools, hospitals and railways will be within proximity. But with opposition to the bill within and outside parliament mounting, Team Modi will have a tough time getting it past the Rajya Sabha at least. Modi might want to circumvent the Upper House by calling for a joint sitting of parliament under Article 108. Meanwhile, the Gandhi scion, to whom the land issue is close to the heart, has proceeded on leave, seeking time to think, just when heat on the issue is building up. Is this the “gamechanging” moment for him and India? IL

UNI

MILES TO GO... Anna Hazare galvanizes farmers against the land bill of the NDA

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

PROBE/ moin qureshi

TUG-OF-WAR

OVER TAPES

the recorded conversations of hawala dealer moin qureshi are most sought after for their sensational impact on various scams. but the income tax department refuses to hand them over to the enforcement directorate unless ordered by the court By Vishwas Kumar

NCE bitten, twice shy. The Income Tax (IT) department is being extra vigilant in handling “politically explosive” tapes of conversations hawala dealer Moin Qureshi had with businessmen, politicians, bureaucrats and then CBI chief, Amar Pratap Singh. Three years back, the department was caught in a major controversy after conversations of corporate lobbyist Niira

March 15, 2015

Illustration: Anthony Lawrence

Radia with influential people were leaked to the media much before criminal prosecution could be initiated. The IT department has the power to tap the telephones of those suspected of indulging in money laundering or tax evasion. That is how the mobile conversations of Radia and Qureshi were recorded. But this time, say sources, the IT department will hand over only “transcripts” of the

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

taped conversation to investigating agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) instead of copies of the “original tapes”. It has assured the ED that in case the court demands a “copy of the tapes” for evidence, it would be deposited. This way, it can keep track of all “transcripts”, whom they were given to and when. Any unauthorized leakage, therefore, would be easy to pinpoint, it felt. From this January, the ED, which has the power to launch a criminal probe under the antimoney laundering act, has started looking into Qureshi’s affair. It has, till now, obtained several transcripts pertaining to him from the IT department. However, the ED is not happy with “selective” access to the Qureshi’s tapes and wants them in their entirety in order to unravel the racket, spread over Dubai and London. Qureshi, a Doon School and St Stephen’s College alumnus, is in the business of meat export but allegedly ran a huge money-laundering racket involving politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen. He would do this through his businesscum-hawala channel. WIDE NETWORK The IT department is especially reluctant to hand over conversations between Qureshi and Singh recorded on the “BBM” (BlackBerry Messenger). These are reported to be “super sensitive”, as they reveal that Qureshi had “influenced” some anti-corruption probes being handled by the CBI during Singh’s tenure. The IT department feels that any leakage of these exchanges could open a Pandora’s Box, as several accused now facing criminal prosecution in different scams could

Photo Division, GOI

use it to their advantage to cast “aspersions” on the conduct of CBI officials. Incidentally, Singh had handled most of the politically sensitive corruption probes; this includes the 2G scam and Coalgate, beside the disproportionate assets case of former UP chief ministers Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav. Moreover, while the IT department feels that the Qureshi-Singh conversation points to their nexus in carrying out “illegal activities”, it doesn’t have any “prosecutable evidence”. As most of the conversations used “coded” language, the department feels it would be very difficult to cull out any “prosecutable evidence” solely on the basis of these “exchanges”. But the ED has argued that the BBM details could help them strengthen their money laundering cases against Qureshi because it is a “credible evidence” of money earned through “dubious” methods. The IT department had first disclosed the Qureshi-Singh nexus last year before the Supreme Court special bench of Justices Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and

DUBIOUS DEALS Meat exporter Moin Qureshi (facing page) exercised great influence over former CBI chief Amar Pratap Singh (above left), as has emerged from the recordings

TINDERBOX The recordings of conversations of corporate lobbyist Niira Radia (above right) with politicians and businessmen were also politically explosive

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

PROBE/ moin qureshi

“The conduct of the former director (AP Singh) is wholly unbecoming of his position…. The contact between this man and the former director was on a daily basis.” —Mukul Rohatgi, attorney-general AK Sikri, which was hearing the Coalgate case. The court had sought a report from the IT department in connection with an application moved by Prashant Bhushan, who alleged that Qureshi, who frequently met then CBI director Ranjit Sinha, acted as a conduit of the accused in the 2G and Coalgate cases. SHAMEFUL RESIGNATION Presenting a copy of the IT appraisal report against Qureshi in a sealed cover to the court, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi said: “It discloses an astonishing state of affairs between Qureshi and the former CBI director, who is currently a member of the UPSC.” Following the accusation, Singh resigned from the UPSC. While giving a clean chit to Sinha over Qureshi’s links, Rohatgi told the court: “I am pained to say that the conduct of the former director (AP Singh) is wholly unbecoming of his position.” He cited instances where Qureshi influenced Singh to file prosecutions against ministers and other dignitaries. “The contact between this man and the former director was on a daily basis and in the nature of help-

March 15, 2015

ing accused in many matters probed by CBI.” The IT authorities started listening to Qureshi’s mobile phone conversations in November-December 2013. By February, they had amassed over 500 hours of recordings, which reportedly featured at least four ministers in UPA II, top CBI officials and several corporate honchos who had cases pending with the CBI. Subsequently, IT authorities raided Qureshi and launched a probe into his undisclosed incomes. AP Singh, however, stoutly denied allegation of wrongdoing but accepted that Qureshi was a long-time acquaintance and friend. When asked to comment on media reports which quoted Qureshi asking him: “Sir, 500word essay is good or 1000-word essay and size of jacket. Fast pls”, Singh was quoted as telling Press Trust of India: “I find this ironical that they are trying to create a controversy where there is none.” He further said: “I have made it clear that he was asking me about (my) shirt size and suggesting the wordage of the essay I had written on terrorism.” Ingenious. Only a probe will clear this code language. IL

EVERY FORTNIGHT VIEWS ON NEWS WILL BRING YOU TELL-ALL NEWS, ANALYSES AND OPINION FROM THE SHARPEST INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS AND MOST INCISIVE MINDS IN THE NATION Views On News (VON) is India’s premier fortnightly magazine that covers the wide spectrum of modern communication loosely known as “the media”. Its racy, news and analysis oriented story-telling encompasses current global and Indian developments, trends, future projections encompassing policy and business drifts, the latest from inside the print and electronic newsrooms, the exciting developments in ever-expanding digital space, trending matters in the social media, advertising, entertainment and books. on

ti e Sec

S W E N N O VIEWS rnanc

Gove

IUMPH: KEJRI TR A DID OBAM SWING IT? 47

MODI FLES RESHUF S 44 OFFICER

RADIO’SMIN NEW AD S 40 PROWES

com

newsonline.

son www.view

AL EYE

ITIC THE CR

An ENC Publication If the media is leaving you behind, stay ahead of it by picking up yesterday’s Views On News!

SCOOEPR POW

7, 2015 MARCH

`100

i, The ShazGiaupIlmta Shekhar es the spat prov ic speed supersonmedia 12 of social

VIEWS ON NEWS Don’t miss a single issue of this stimulating, unbiased, entertaining new fortnightly magazine and get special discounts for yourself and your friends

E. N. COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. A -9, Sector-68, Gautam Buddh Nagar, NOIDA (U.P.) Pin : 201309. Phone: + 91–0120–2471400–432 / Fax: + 91–0120–2471411 editor@viewsonnewsonline.com / sales@viewsonnewsonline.com www.viewsonnewsonline.com / www.encnetwork.in

N TV ND UP SH S AKEout, Barkha B bb in 7 Bo lip D Di

T AIB ROAS He who ay m laughs 25 not last

IA NEW MED Zap your ith w ld wor wer 18 app po

STATES/ mp / judicial row

Courting trouble in an unprecedented move, more than one lakh madhya pradesh lawyers are up in arms against their chief justice over certain decisions taken by him. who will blink first? By Rakesh Dixit

HERE is trouble brewing in the Madhya Pradesh judiciary and it is threatening to become an allout fight. Trust deficit between the lawyer fraternity and the MP chief justice, Justice Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar, following a series of decisions taken by him, has reached unprecedented levels. For the first time, lawyer associations have urged Chief Justice of India HL Dattu to transfer Justice Khanwilkar out of the state. The trouble started on November 5 last year when the chief justice, in a memorandum, asked his subordinate judges in 51 districts to ensure disposal of cases pending for five years or more by March 31, 2015. This brought him face-to-face with state bar associations representing over one lakh lawyers. So intense did it become that lawyers across the state abstained from courts on February 10 to press for Justice Khanwilkar’s transfer. The call for strike was given by State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh (SBCMP), MP Senior Advocates Bar, MP High Court

March 15, 2015

Advocates Bar Association, MP High Court Bar Association (MPHCBA) and district bar associations. However, the Bar Council of India snubbed its state unit and asked it to withdraw the agitation. Its secretary, JR Sharma, said in a letter to the MP Bar Council: “The movement involves a few members trying to lay undue pressure on the high court” and advised the state unit to recall the boycott. But the boycott continued. TOUGH STAND The chief justice too is in no mood to relent. He says that the memorandum is in keeping with the national litigation policy, which was announced in June 2011 by then law minister Veerappa Moily. It was meant to reduce pendency of cases and government litigation which forms the bulk of pending cases. Describing the lawyers’ boycott as unfortunate, MP High Court Registrar-General Ved Prakash Sharma said that the chief justice’s memorandum was a progressive step towards speedier justice for people.

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

However, MPHCBA president, Adarsh Muni Trivedi, argues that the memorandum is illegal as it seeks to set a deadline for disposal of cases, which violates Supreme Court guidelines. He cites the P Ramchandra Rao versus State of Karnataka (2002) and AR Antule versus RS Nayak (1992) cases, where the Supreme Court had ruled that setting a deadline for disposal of cases is beyond the jurisdiction of a chief justice. “Fixing such a deadline is possible only through legislative means and this would require amendment in the criminal procedure code,” Trivedi claimed. What has especially irked lawyers is the warning to judges that “if they fail to do so (meeting the deadline for disposal of cases), they must assign good reasons for it, otherwise adverse entry be entered in their confidential report by the district and sessions judge”. IMPEDING JUSTICE There is also specific instruction to the district and sessions judges that “the concerned judicial officer be directed to dispose of the case

within the time-frame and on priority basis by curtailing unnecessary adjournment”. Lawyers fear that this could make courts scuttle a trial without adjudication to comply with the memorandum. Trivedi says this is the latest among a series of administrative orders issued by the chief justice that have inconvenienced lawyers and high court judges alike and impeded the justice delivery system in the state. But there are other issues too. Indore-based high court advocate Amit Upadhyay says that the lawyers had been in conflict with the chief justice ever since he introduced a new roster system for listing of cases. Since then, he has been issuing a new order every few days. Justice Khanwilkar was sworn in as the 22nd chief justice of Madhya Pradesh on November 24, 2013. He was earlier chief justice of Himachal Pradesh. When he took over, a confrontation between the Bar and the Bench had already been brewing over implementation of the Law Commission report on the appointment and transfer of judges. It

IN THE EYE OF A STORM (Facing page) Justice AM Khanwilkar, chief justice of MP

(Above) Lawyers protest against the arbitrary decision of the CJ

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

STATES/ mp / judicial row

had said judges should not be appointed in the same high court in which their kith and kin are practicing. MOTIVATED MOVE? What made it worse for Justice Khanwilkar was that soon after being sworn-in, he invited chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan for dinner at his residence after he spectacularly won the state assembly elections in November 2013. A few months later, the chief justice called a bunch of petitions related to the state’s biggest admission and recruitment scam aka professional examination board scam from the three benches for hearing in his own court. This caused the perception that the chief justice was being soft on the ruling party, particularly the CM. His move further widened the trust deficit between him and lawyers. “Not only did the chief justice centralize all cases related to the scam in his hands, he also decided to conduct in-camera hearings so that the media did not get to report the proceedings. His action was bound to raise eyebrows because a host of BJP leaders were involved in the scam,” explains a senior lawyer on condition of anonymity. AICC General Secretary Digvijaya Singh, whose petition in the high court for a CBI probe into the scam was rejected, says he feels deeply disappointed by the verdict. The chief justice, instead,

ordered setting up of a special investigation team to monitor progress of the cases being handled by a special task force of the state police. The investigation is progressing at a snail’s pace since. WHY THE PENDENCY? Lawyers across three benches of the high court in Jabalpur, Gwalior and Indore struck work against the chief justice for the first time in December 2013 when he introduced a roster system for judges to hear all kinds of cases. In the old roster system, high court judges would be assigned specific tasks such as dealing with PILs, criminal cases, civic issues, etc. But under the new system, judges had to take up any case that came up for hearing before their bench. This made it difficult for lawyers, who are specialists in a particular legal field, to appear in various benches at the same time. Advocate Anil Ojha, secretary of HC Bar Association, Indore, says: “After introduction of the system, pendency in the courts has increased by three times in the past one year. It has also increased the cost of litigation.” However, legal experts say the introduction of a roster system is the right move towards breaking the nexus between advocates and judges. It also aims at bringing transparency in judicial procedures, they contend. Another move of the chief justice which evoked mixed reactions was implementation of an auto-generated software program for rationalization of assignment of cases. While one section of lawyers hailed it as a muchneeded reform to expedite justice and a check on bench-hunting, a majority were unhappy with the arrangement. Bench-hunting refers to petitioners managing to get cases heard by

On the face of it, the directive to clear cases in a time-bound manner makes sense, given the backlog of cases, but it goes against the guidelines of the Supreme Court. Agitating lawyers have now urged Chief Justice of India HL Dattu (left) to transfer Justice Khanwilkar out of the state. 46

March 15, 2015

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL a particular judge and ensuring a favorable order. However, a study by IIM-Indore had analyzed administrative functioning of high courts on filing, listing and disposal of cases. “Administrative rationalization is likely to expedite disposal of cases, balance workflow and increase satisfaction among stakeholders,” the study said. Registrar-General Ved Prakash Sharma said a comparison of cases before and after disposal of cases in 2013 and 2014, respectively, proves the success of the scheme. “In the first quarter of 2013, 27,002 cases were disposed of. In 2014, this went up to 35,880, an increase of 25 percent,” he says. CENTRALIZING POWERS Justice Khanwilkar also centralized all the powers in case of urgent matters. Earlier, any high court judge in the three benches could hear petitions on urgent matters brought before him. But the chief justice, through an administrative order last year, deprived them of this power. Now, lawyers from all three benches are forced to queue up in the chief justice’s court for appearing in urgent matters.

A high court judge said the chief justice’s penchant for centralizing powers earned him the wrath of the Supreme Court in the sexual harassment case involving a lady additional session judge who had complained against a high court judge in the Gwalior bench. In December last year, the Supreme Court quashed an in-house panel formed by the MP chief justice to probe these charges. The Supreme Court two-member bench, in its order on December 18 last year, requested Dattu to constitute a fresh in-house committee of two high court chief justices and a high court judge—all from outside the state—so that both the complainant and the accused were assured of a fair investigation. The SC Bench frowned on Justice Khanwilkar for ignoring a 1999 apex court order mandating the formula of a three-member committee of outside judges to probe allegations against sitting high court judges. Justice Khanwilkar had formed a two-judge probe panel that included a woman high court judge. It waits to been how this fracas will now be resolved. IL

When Justice Khanwilkar took over petitions in the recruitment scam involving CM Shivraj Singh Chouhan (below left) in his own court, detractors thought he was going soft on the CM. AICC General Secretary Digvijaya Singh’s petition for a CBI probe was rejected.

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

LEGAL EYE/ aib roast

despite freedom of speech being guaranteed under the constitution, vested interests have, time and again, used the IPC to curb it for artistes by slapping frivolous charges against them By Somi Das

March 15, 2015

WHATâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S

SMUTTY, WHATâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S NUTTY?

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

merican sex symbol and one of the highest paid actresses of all time, Mae West, once famously said: “I enjoyed the courtroom as just another stage, but not so amusing as Broadway.” West’s love for the stage was so solid that she didn’t mind being dragged to court to defend her right to free speech. In 1927, she was charged under obscenity law in the US, sentenced to 10 days in prison and made to cough up a fine of $500 for writing, directing and performing in SEX, a play dealing with homosexuality. Over time, the US has broadened its definition of freedom of speech and expression and today, even pornography (except for child and animal porn) is protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees the rights of free expression and action. However, in India, the scene is altogether different. A bunch of stand-up comics and some prominent Bollywood celebrities found themselves in a legal soup recently for performing and attending a form of insult comedy called a “roast”. This comedy is usually laden with expletives and sexual references. Members of the comedy collective, All India Bak**d (AIB), which conceptualized and organized the show, have a number of FIRs filed against them and religious groups have hounded them for hurting their sentiments. Under pressure, they had to pull back the video in question and apologize to them. A show by Aditi Mittal, one of the comics, in Mumbai had to be cancelled after threats from a political party. EMPTY CLAUSE Though the Indian constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it comes with many riders and can be nullified by many other clauses and sections in the IPC and other acts of parliament. A look at some of the frivolous charges against AIB would make one realize why freedom of speech is just an empty clause in the constitution. The common charge in all three FIRs filed against AIB in Maharashtra is obscenity. A

person can be charged under Section 294 in the IPC if he, “to the annoyance of others”, (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place”. But the section doesn’t specify what exactly is obscene. This is precisely why a couple can land in jail for doing something as innocuous as kissing in public if it annoys the sensibilities of another person. However, the Supreme Court has from time to time tried to define obscenity. The case of Shri Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar vs The State of Maharashtra and Others, (1962 (2) SCC 687), says: “The concept of obscenity would differ from country to country depending on the standards of morals of contemporary society. What is considered as a piece of literature in France may be obscene in England and what is considered in both countries as not harmful to public order and morals may be obscene in our country. But to insist that the standard should always be for the writer to see that the adolescent ought not to be brought into contact with sex or that if they read any references to sex in what is written whether that is the dominant theme or not they would be affected, would be to require authors to write books only for the adolescent and not for the adults.” Clearly, as per the apex court, the onus is not always on a performer or a writer to judge the degree of obscenity in a material he or

OFFENSE MEANT... (Above) Arjun Kapoor and Ranveer Singh at the AIB Roast

...BUT WHAT’S YOUR PROBLEM? (Facing page) Actress Alia Bhatt with her mother Soni Razdan (extreme left) enjoying the roast

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

LEGAL EYE/ aib roast

“Offense-taking is an industry today. It requires no investment, it doesn’t even require brains. But it’s giving you tremendous pay-off.”

she is putting out for public consumption. Despite the court’s rational interpretation of the obscenity law, it is regularly used against artistes, going against the spirit of freedom of speech. Just before the AIB fiasco, a case was filed against the producer of —G Sampath, author of How to PK, Vidhu Vinod Chopra because the posters showed an almost nude Make Enemies and film’s Aamir Khan covering himself only Offend People with a transistor. Advocate Abha Singh, while demanding that a case be filed against the Roast participants, did acknowledge that there was a dichotomy between the obscenity law and freedom of speech. She said: “If they think that ALL FOR FREE the law on obscenity is improper and conSPEECH strains freedom of speech and expression, (Right) Actress Mae then the right course for them is to approach West was arrested in the government for changing it.” 1927 for acting in SEX

BEING BIZARRE The second charge against AIB is that it didn’t have a censor certificate to perform at the National Sports Club of India (NSCI). What’s

more, Jayantilal Shah and Ravinder Aggarwal, the president and secretary-general of NSCI respectively, have also been named in the FIRs. But do live shows come under the Censor Board? Strangely, in Maharashtra, censor clearance is required for plays, poetry events, comedy shows and any other performing art. It is

CRACKING THE WHIP Activists too have been hounded over free speech. These include: TEESTA SETALVAD In January 2014, the Ahmedabad Police registered an FIR against Setalvad and her husband, Javed Anand, for allegedly cheating residents of Gulbarg Society of money collected by Sabrang Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace in 2008. The money was meant for a “Museum of Resistance” dedicated to the riot victims of 2002, which did not materialize. This FIR was registered in response to a ninemonth-old complaint by some former residents of Gulbarg, who alleged that they were not being given the money collected in their name. Ahmedabad Police’s Crime Branch took no action against Setalvad for nine months. The Gujarat Police reportedly

March 15, 2015

Anil Shakya

sprang into action after Setalvad and Zakia Jafri, widow of Congress leader Ehsan Jafri who was killed by a mob in 2002, went to Gujarat High Court demanding framing of charges against Narendra Modi, who was the then chief minister of Gujarat. On February 10, 2015, Gujarat Police personnel landed at Setalvad’s residence to arrest the couple after the high court refused to grant them anticipatory bail in the case of alleged embezzlement of over `1.5 crore. The Supreme Court stayed her arrest and, subsequently, extended the relief. In the apex court, solicitor-general Tushar Mehta representing the Gujarat Police went to the extent of revealing the items that Setalvad had allegedly bought with the trust money: “From the scrutiny of credit card payments, the most shocking revelation came from the payments made

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL script is bizarre. This law clearly violates the right to freedom of speech and expression of an artiste.

the only state where a Stage Performance Affairs Board has been created under the Police Act and is administered by the State Cultural Affairs Department. If AIB’s organizers had done the show in, say, Bangalore or Delhi, they would have had one charge less against them. Expecting a stand-up comedy show to follow a pre-screened or pre-approved

towards wine and liquor purchases from Chincholi Wines, Mumbai, and duty free shops of Mumbai airport, movie tickets, regular hair salon and grocery expenditure.” Kapil Sibal, representing Setalvad and Anand, said that no more than `5 lakh had been collected for the museum. He claimed that the Gujarat Police had filed an FIR complaint written on a forged letterhead of Gulbarg Society to hound Setalvad for the work she had done to get justice for the victims of the massacre in the society. PRIYA PILLAI On January 11, this Greenpeace activist was offloaded from a London-bound plane at Indira Gandhi International airport as she figured in the no-fly list of the Intelligence Bureau (IB). According to The

TWO SETS OF RULES Strangely, another count on which AIB and the event organizers have been held accountable is violation of the Environment Act. What did AIB do to degrade the environment and why has no industrialist being charged for the same? Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act states that there can be no change in land use. Abha Singh said that NSCI, the venue of the roast, is only meant for sports events and the organizers could get five years in prison for changing the land use. Even Mumbai’s BJP secretary, Vivekanand Gupta, had complained to the municipal commissioner, saying: “From the recitals of the lease deeds as mentioned herein, it is clear that no activities other then sports should be allowed by NSCI.” Then, how is it that when NSCI is used regularly for other events, no action is taken? Just a few days back, Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended a lawyers’ event at the same

Indian Express, while issuing the lookout circular, the IB used the word “etc” to classify her in an internal order of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). This category was used as there were no criminal cases against her. Pillai was on her way to the UK to address British parliamentarians on human rights and forest rights violations by a subsidiary of a British registered company—Essar Energy—in the forests of Mahan in Madhya Pradesh. Greenpeace in a press release said: “Pillai’s offloading is a not an isolated case.... several Greenpeace employees have been harassed.... While there have

THE PRICE OF FREEDOM (Left) Aditi Mittal, a comic who featured in the roast, found a show of her cancelled under political pressure

been midnight arrests of peaceful forest rights activists in Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh, many Greenpeace UK employees have been questioned at Indian airports. One such employee, Ben Hargreaves, was deported back to the UK without being given any reason, even though he had a valid visa.” On January 27, Pillai filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging her arbitrary offloading. The Union government, on its part, told the court that they would withdraw the lookout circular against Pillai only if she gave an undertaking that she wouldn’t depose before the UK parliamentary committee on violations in the country. Pillai refused.

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

LEGAL EYE/ aib roast

Even ordinary people jumped on the roast bandwagon. RTI Activist Santosh Daundkar went to the court, arguing that the show was “vulgar, obscene and pornographic” and appealed to the court to ask the Police to book AIB and other people related to the show. Eventually he won and FIR was filed against 14 people, including Alia Bhatt and Deepika Padukone, who were just sitting in the audience. Sharmila Ghuge, professor at Jitendra Chauhan Law College, filed a PIL in the Bombay High Court seeking action against AIB. She also wants the government to put in place a system to monitor videos uploaded on platforms like YouTube. place. This is another classic instance of laws being misused just to harass people.

THE OUTCASTS Salman Rushdie had to withdraw from the Jaipur LitFest in 2013, while Taslima Nasreen was boycotted in West Bengal

INDIVIDUAL ANGST It is also important to look at the different individuals and groups which have been offended by the roast. Religious groups top the list, including Brahman Ekta Seva Sansthan, Maharashtra Christian Youth Forum, Christian Reform United People Association and United Christians Forum. In a recently released documentary called I am offended, G Sampath, author of How to Make Enemies and Offend People, says: “Offense-taking is an industry today. It requires no investment, it doesn’t even require brains. But it’s giving you tremendous pay-off.” Political parties are also quick to take offense. Predictably, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena politicized this issue and threatened that the films of those actors present at the AIB show would not be allowed to release in Mumbai until they apologized.

Though the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it comes with many riders and can be nullified by many clauses and sections of the IPC and other acts of parliament, making it is just an empty clause. 52

March 15, 2015

LIMP STATE Finally, comes the state. More often than not, the state is not an active participant in attacking artistes. But in AIB’s case, after initial reluctance to get directly involved, the Maharashtra government did launch a probe. The state also denies artistes protection against the loony fringe, thus resulting in cancellation of shows or boycotting of their work as happened in the case of Tasleema Nasreen in West Bengal and Salman Rushdie at the Jaipur Lit Fest. Stand-up comic and AIB founder Gursimran Khamba says in the documentary, I am offended: “The state never directly assaults you. The state will find people through which it will assault you.” So each time a filmmaker, an author, a lyricist, a painter or a comedian exercises his right of free speech and expression, he is up against so many elements—religious groups, political parties, individuals and the state. However, in the absence of clearly crafted laws, an artiste can only depend on courts for their interpretation of artistic freedom. In AIB’s case, the Bombay High Court has restrained the Mumbai and Pune Police from arresting any of the 14 named in the FIR till March 14. Hopefully this won’t be a temporary relief and freedom of speech will be upheld. IL

— With inputs from Shailendra Singh

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

CASE RECORD/ contempt of court

INDIA LEGAL

DISCERNING

VERDICTS

India Legal summarizes some of the well-known contempt cases in Indian judiciary ARUNDHATI ROY VS UNKNOWN ON 6 MARCH, 2002, IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA The Supreme Court took objections to an article written by writer-activist Arundhati Roy in Outlook and felt that the comments made by her were, prima facie, a misrepresentation of the proceedings of the court, which had passed various orders to address the concerns raised by Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA). The court observed that the judicial process and the institution itself cannot be permitted to be scandalized or subjected to contumacious violation in such a blatant manner. The action of Roy had anguished the court and it expressed displeasure on her distorted writing, or over the manner in which leaders of the petitioner Medha Patkar and one Dharmadikhari acted in breach of the injunction, despite giving assurance to the court. But it did not issue any contempt proceedings against the petitioner, its leaders or Roy. However, the scenario changed after a contempt proceeding was filed by JR Parashar, advocate, in 2001. According to the allegations made by him, the respondents named in the petition, led a huge crowd on 30-12-2000 and held a dharna in front of Supreme Court and shouted abusive slogans against it, including those ascribing lack of integri-

ty and dishonesty to judiciary. Contempt proceeding notices were issued to the respondents and they admitted there was a dharna outside the gates of the apex court on 30-12-2000 and it was organised by NBA and those who lived in the Narmada Valley. They had vented their anguish over the majority judgment of the apex court relating to the building of the dam on the Narmada river. The court took objections to some portions of the response filed by one of the respondents, Arundhati Roy. The response, according to court, imputed motives to specific courts for entertaining litigations and passing orders against her. The court felt that Roy had accused it of harassing her to cite that it was carrying out a personal vendetta against her. It observed that she brought in matters which had no links with this case. Roy stood by her comments in court, even if they were contumacious. A notice was issued against her as to why she should not be proceeded against for contempt of court. Roy reiterated her position in her response. She stated that the people of the Narmada Valley have the constitutional right to protest peacefully against what they consider an unjust and unfair judgment. She also claimed her right for a peaceful protest, even if it was outside the Supreme INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

CASE RECORD/ contempt of court

NOT ABOVE LAW (Right) Arundhati Roy earned the wrath of the Supreme Court in 2002. She was sentenced to jail for one day with a fine of `2,000 for contempt of court (Extreme right) The Supreme Court absolved P Shiv Shankar, the then minister of law, justice and company affairs, from contempt of court allegations in 1988

Court and said that as a writer she had the right to state her opinions and beliefs. â&#x20AC;&#x153;As a free citizen of India, I have the right to be part of any peaceful dharna, demonstration or protest march. I have the right to criticize any judgment of any court that I believe to be unjust. I have the right to make common cause with those I agree with. I hope that each time I exercise these rights I will not dragged to court on false charges and forced to explain my actions.â&#x20AC;? she responded. As the respondent did not show any repentance or regret or remorse, the court felt that no lenient view should be taken in the matter. However, showing the magnanimity of law by keeping in mind that the respondent is a woman, and hoping that better sense and wisdom shall dawn upon her in future, Roy was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one day with a fine of `2,000. In case, Roy defaulted in the payment of fine, the court ruled that she be sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. PN DUDA VS VP SHIV SHANKAR & OTHERS ON 15 APRIL, 1988 IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA The respondent No. 1, P Shiv Shankar, the minister of law, justice and company affairs at that time, delivered a speech at a meeting of the Bar Council of Hyderabad. The petitioner PN Duda alleged that in that speech Shankar had made statements derogatory to the dignity of the Supreme Court, attributing to the court partiality towards affluent people and using extremely intemperate and undigni-

March 15, 2015

fied language, and that the speech contained slander cast on this court both in respect of the judges and the working of the court. The petitioner stated that he had approached the attorney general of India and the solicitor general of India to give their consent for initiating contempt proceedings. With both declining to deal with his prayer, an application for initiation of contempt under section 15(1)(a) and (b) of the act read with explanation (1) and rule 3(a), (b) and (c) of the contempt of Supreme Court Rules, 1975, was made, wherein Shankar, the attorney general, the solicitor general were made parties. The court issued notice. In response, Shankar filed an affidavit stating that he had delivered the speech on the subject of accountability of the legislature, executive and the judiciary and had made the comments on the accountability of the three organs and the theoretical implications thereof, and that he had intended no disrespect to any of the institutions or its functionaries, much less the Supreme Court. It was further stated that the contempt petition was not maintainable without the consent of the attorney general or the solicitor general. In the meantime, RN Trivedi, advocate, filed an application, claiming right to be impleaded as a party, stating that the attorney general and the solicitor general should not have been made parties to the contempt petition and that the alleged nonexercise of the jurisdiction by the attorney general and the solicitor general had not constituted contempt within the meaning of section 2(c) of the act. Declining to initiate contempt proceeding and

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL PAYING THE PRICE (Left) A Kerala newspaper faced contempt charges in 2001 for news against MK Damodaran, the then Advocate General of Kerala

dismissing the petition and disposing of the application filed by RN Trivedi, the court observed that in the free market place of ideas, criticism about the judicial system or judges should be welcomed, so long as such criticisms do not impair or hamper the administration of justice; in this case, the court had examined the entire speech. It felt that Shankar had examined the class composition of the Supreme Court, and though at places, intemperate, the statement of the minister could not be said to amount to interference with the administration of justice and contempt of court. BARADAKANTA MISHRA VS MR. JUSTICE GATIKRUSHNA MISHRA ON 21 JUNE, 1974, IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA In this matter, the appellant, a member of the judicial service of Orissa was promoted as addl. district and sessions judge on 31-7-1968. But on 30-3-1972, he was suspended by the high court as a disciplinary enquiry was decided to be started against him. On 29-4-1972, the appellant was chargesheeted and called upon to showcause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. In the meantime, the appellant appealed to the governor, complaining against the order of suspension and requesting him to cancel it on the ground that it was outside the authority of the high court. The high court withheld the appeal of the appellant and refused to forward it to the governor since, in its opinion, no appeal lay to the governor against an order of suspension passed by the high court. The appellant, thereafter, forwarded directly a representation to the governor with a copy to the high court, and by this representation, he moved the governor to transfer the disciplinary enquiry against him to the Administrative Tribunal. There were several submissions made in this representation which scandalized the high court and tended to lower its prestige, etc. The high court, therefore, suo motu, issued a notice dated 3-7-1972, calling upon the appellant to showcause why he should not be punished for contempt of court. The appellant appeared in answer to the notice and raised several contentions. One of the contentions was that whatever he had said in regard to the judges of the high court in the representation was in regard to their conduct in the discharge of administrative functions and not judicial functions and therefore, it did not amount to contempt of court. The appellant pleaded before the full bench that this contention should be tried as preliminary issue, but the full bench rejected the plea of the appellant. The

appellant thereupon, preferred a petition for special leave to appeal to this court, and in this petition, the appellant once again made submissions, which prima facie, appeared to be criminal contempt of court. The petition was rejected by this court, but the high court, taking note of the objectionable submissions contained in the petition, issued a supplementary notice to the appellant to showcause why he should not be punished for having committed contempt of court by publishing such statements. In the meanwhile, the disciplinary enquiry instituted against the appellant was entrusted to a single judge and he submitted his report to the high court, which based on the report, reduced him to the rank of ADM, Judicial. The appellant, however, took the view that some of the issues arising in the disciplinary enquiry were the same as those arising in the proceeding for contempt pending against him, and the decision on those issues by the high court amounted to prejudging them in the proceedings for contempt, a judicial proceeding, and the chief justice and other judges of the high court, who decided the disciplinary enquiry, were, therefore, guilty of criminal contempt of their own high court. As soon as the proceeding for contempt was decided by the high court, he moved the full bench for initiating a proceeding for contempt against the chief justice and other judges in their personal capacity. However, the full bench ruled that there was no contempt of court committed by the chief justice and other judges. and by reason of Section 15 (1), the INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

CASE RECORD/ contempt of court

LEGAL CLAMPDOWN (Facing page) A Calcutta High Court judge initiated a suo motu proceeding in 2005 against DC (Traffic) Kolkata regarding regulating public meetings. It led to contempt against newspapers who published views against the order (Below) Bal Thackeray was awarded imprisonment and a fine by the Bombay High Court in 1997

March 15, 2015

appellant was not entitled to move the high court for taking action against the chief justice and other judges since he had not obtained the consent in writing from the advocate general. The appellant, thereupon, purporting to appeal under Section 19(1) preferred the present appeal to this court. But a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the appeal was raised by the respondent. The case ended with this court taking the stand that the preliminary objection raised by the respondent was well founded and the appellant was not entitled to maintain the present appeal under Section 19 (1). The appeal was dismissed. VINAY CHANDRA MISHRA (THE ... VS UNKNOWN...) ON 10 MARCH, 1995, IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA In this case, Bansal Forgings Ltd took loan from UP Financial Corporation and made default in payment of instalment of the same. The corporation proceeded against the company under Section 29 of the UP Financial Corporation Act. The company filed a civil suit against the corporation and also fielded an application for grant of temporary injunction. The counsel for the corporation suo motu put appearance in the matter before trial court and prayed for time for filing of reply. The trial court passed an order on the said date that the corporation will not seize the factory of the c o m p a ny.

The company shall pay the amount of instalment and furnish security for the disputed amount. The court directed that security be furnished on 31-1-94 and the case was fixed on 15-3-94. During the proceeding, the judge put a question to BC Misra (who appeared for UP Finance Corporation) under which provision this order has been passed. “On putting the question, he started to shout and said that no question could have been put to him. He will get me transferred or see that impeachment motion is brought against me in parliament,” the order said. He asked the judge to follow the practice of this court. The judge further held that “it is not the question of insulting of a judge of this institution, but it is a matter of institution as a whole. In case dignity of the judiciary is not being maintained, then, where this institution will stand. In case a senior advocate, president of Bar and chairman of the Bar Council of India behaves in court in such manner, what will happen to other advocates”. The court held that “the contemner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks”. However, the sentence will remain “suspended for a period of four years and may be activated in case the contemner is convicted for any other offence of contempt of court within the said period. The contemner shall stand suspended from practising as an advocate for a period of three years from today, with the consequence that all elective and nominated offices/posts at presents held by him in his capacity as an advocate, shall stand vacated by him forthwith”. HARISH S/O MAHADEO PIMPALKHUTE ... VS BAL THACKERAY AND ORS ON 7 FEBRUARY, 1997, IN BOMBAY HIGH COURT In this case, it was alleged that respondent no 1, Bal Thackeray, on 21-10-1996 at a Dasera rally at Shivaji Park, Mumbai, made a statement, which precisely contains that he was reported by someone that a judge demanded `35 lakh for delivering a judgment in his favor. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for action against respondent No 1 and newspapers for committing contempt of court. The court held that Thackeray suffer sentence of “simple imprisonment for a period of one week and pay a fine of Rs 2,000 and in default, he shall suffer

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL additional sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks.” SHYAMAL KRISHNA CHAKRABORTY VS SUKUMAR DAS AND ORS. ON 27 JULY, 2001, IN CALCUTTA HIGH COURT In this case, the petitioner, a bus conductor, was terminated, inter alia, on the ground of unauthorized absence. Against the order, an appeal was filed to the appellate authority under the rules but was rejected. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed. A judge of the Calcutta High Court while hearing the writ petition quashed both the orders of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority. However, the matter was ultimately remanded to the appellate authority for consideration afresh in accordance with the provision of the law, and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Against the said order, the aforesaid appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the high court and it allowed the appeal with the direction to reinstate the petitioner with consequential benefits. After the order of the appellate court was communicated, the contemners reinstated the petitioner but did not pay the arrears of salaries and benefits together with increments for the period 29-1-1991 to 26-5-1999. It was submitted that there was a contumacious disregard of the high court’s judgment and order. The high court ruled that contempt in the case had not been committed by the contemners as it was not a deliberate defiance of the court’s order but an erroneous appreciation of the purport of the court’s order. The high court directed that contemners must pay the petitioner the entire salary to which he is entitled to in normal circumstances for the period he was kept out of employment as a result of the impugned order. STATE OF KERALA VS M.S. MANI AND ORS ON 6 SEPTEMBER, 2001, IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA In the present case, a contempt petition was filed by the State of Kerala complaining that the dignity and authority of the apex court was undermined by the

respondents by publishing a three-column news on the front page of the newspaper, The Kerala Kaumudi, on 5-5-1999. In the said column, the alleged contemnor imputed scandalous, malicious, vilificatory, defamatory and libelous criticism against KN Bhat, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court, MK Damodaran, Advocate General of Kerala and G Prakash, standing counsel for Kerala. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the contempt petition is not maintainable, inasmuchas consent of the learned attorney general/solicitor general under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act was not obtained before filing the contempt petition. However, the court held that “the Contempt Petition was filed on May 17, 1999, and the consent of the learned Attorney General was obtained on May 11, 2000. It is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now Section 15 has been complied with. “We are unable to accede to this contention. The fact remains that the motion to take action against the respondents under Section 15 was not made with the consent of the learned Attorney General or Solicitor General and therefore is incompetent. Subsequent obtaining of the consent, in our view, does not cure the initial defect so as to convert the incompetent motion into a maintainable petition” and INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

CASE RECORD/ contempt of court

hence dismissed the petition.

“The Court holds that the newspapers and the TV Channels have a right of reporting the statements of Shri Basu and by way of innocent reporting, no contempt has been committed by them.” The court held that Basu is guilty of contempt and punished him by simple imprisonment of three days and held that he also has to pay a fine of `10,000, and in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment of one day.

KALLOL GUHA THAKURATA AND ANR. VS BIMAN BASU, CHAIRMAN, LEFT FRONT ... ON 31 MARCH, 2005, IN CALCUTTA HIGH COURT In this case, a judge of the Calcutta High Court by a judgment and order dated 29.09.2003 (hereinafter called the said order) initiated a suo motu proceeding against DC (Traffic), Kolkata and others, and in the said proceeding passed certain orders for controlling the holding of public meetings within certain fixed hours on weekdays and also gave certain directions in connection therewith. The occasions for passing those orders arose as the judge, while coming to high court on 24.09.2003, felt obstructed by a procession as a result of which the traffic went haywire and his car got stuck in the jam. Since the said order contained several directions for controlling the holding of public meetings as also various directions on the public authorities in order to keep the streets of Kolkata free from such meetings, obviously it touched upon matters of public interest. Most of the newspapers lauded it and there was considerable media coverage over it. However, some political parties thought differently and felt that the said order curtailed the right of people to hold demonstration and public meetings on the streets of Kolkata. Biman Basu of CPM, a leading political figure, also vociferously criticized it and various newspapers published the criticism. Notices were directed to be served on those newspapers asking them to showcause why contempt rule should not be issued against them for publishing the statements of Basu in respect of the said order. The court held: “Now so far as the newspapers and TV Channels are concerned, this Court does not think that they are guilty of contempt. They have reported what has been stated by Shri Basu. They have stated before the Court that they do not share the views of Shri Basu, but they report the same as the views of Shri Basu are newsworthy and concern matters of public interest.

MONIKA & ORS VS GOVT OF NCT & ANR ON 21 MARCH, 2013 IN DELHI HIGH COURT The order was written by Justice Kailash Gambhir. The challenge in these petitions had been made to the maintainability of the contempt petition bearing No. 331/1 and the notices of contempt dated 24.9.2009 issued therein by the concerned magistrate to these petitioners. Judge Gambhir quashed the contempt order based on several observations and comments made by him, the relevant portions of which are produced below in full: “I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and given my conscious considerations to the arguments advanced by them. “The question whether there is contempt of court or not is undoubtedly a very serious question. For the survival of the rule of law, the orders of the courts have to be obeyed by one and all unless such orders are modified or stayed by the higher courts. Incidents which undermine the dignity of the courts have to be viewed very seriously and also dealt with swiftly. The dignity and authority of the courts has to be respected and maintained at all stages and by all concerned, failing which the very constitutional scheme and public faith in the judiciary would run the risk of being lost. Having said this, it is also a settled legal position that the contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature must not conclude in conviction for alleged act of contempt unless a clear cut case of obstruction in administration of justice is made out against the alleged contemnor who with a clear cut intention and contumacious conduct, not explainable otherwise, commits any act of contempt thereby flouting or defying the orders of the court. It has been held by the Apex court in Debrata Bandopadhyay and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal and Anr., AIR 1960 SC 189 that “ ‘A question whether there is contempt of court or not is a serious one. The court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation. It behoves the

While defending her position against contempt charges in the Supreme Court, Arundhati Roy didn’t show any hint of remorse on her actions.

March 15, 2015

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished. It must be realised that our system of courts often results in delay of one kind or another. The remedy for it is reform and punishment departmentally. Punishment under the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one’s duty and in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged.’... RAJESH KUMAR SINGH VS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA ... ON 31 MAY, 2007, IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA In this case, Pradeep Mittal, judicial magistrate, first class, Dabra, sent a report dated 1.11.1999 to the inspector general of police, Gwalior circle, alleging that Chander Bhan Singh Raghuvanshi, station officer, Pichhor, came inside his court hall and threatened him. Mittal alleged that Raghuvanshi said that Mittal did not do any good by initiating contempt proceedings against him before the high court, and he was back at Pichhor police station; he threatened that he would set Mittal right like he had done with other magistrates in the past. The magistrate complained that it was unbecoming of a police officer to threaten a judicial officer in court and interrupt court proceedings, and the misbehavior warranted stern action. Mittal enclosed a copy of the order-sheet dated 1.11.1999 (recording the incident) and statements of two witnesses. Long before the 1.11.1999 incident, the high court had initiated contempt proceedings against Raghuvanshi on an earlier reference by Mittal, in regard to a false report submitted by him to his court in April, 1998. The second reference made by Mittal was also placed before the high court, in the pending contempt proceedings. The high court took note of the second reference on 12.1.2000 and issued a showcause notice to Raghuvanshi. In response, Raghuvanshi submitted his reply stating that he had not misbehaved with the judge. In support of his defense, he produced the inquiry

Biman Basu of CPM was found guilty of contempt by the Calcutta High Court in 2005 and jailed for three days, along with a fine of `10,000. report, dated 27.11.1999, submitted by the appellant to the superintendent of police along with statements of the witnesses examined in the inquiry. The high court disposed off the contempt proceedings against Raghuvanshi by holding him guilty on both incidents and imposed a punishment of three months’ simple imprisonment. With regard to the second reference, the high court held that Raghuvanshi had not only misbehaved with the judge on 1.11.1999 but had also raised a false defense by alleging that the magistrate had acted with malice. NARENDRA D V GOWDA S/O B ... VS VINEET JAIN ON 4 JULY, 2012 IN KARNATAKA HIGH COURT In this case, the petitioners who were practising advocates of the Karnataka High Court filed contempt against three leading newspapers, including The Times of India and Hindustan Times, for publishing comments of the public to a news item published online which criticized a statement made by the court. A reaction was published: “Comparison of Karnataka DGP with Saddam Hussein ‘unfortunate’: Chidambaram”. It was submitted by the complainants that the publication of comments was nothing but sheer acts of contempt. They alleged that the comments published brought the entire judiciary in disrepute as an institution, and, therefore, action under the contempt act deserved to be taken against the alleged contemnor. The high court dismissed the petition stating that due procedure laid down therein must be adhered to—while scrutinizing or dealing with the petitions filed by a private party seeking action of criminal contempt of high court on the basis of the information disclosed therein—if such petition is filed without seeking consent in writing of the Advocate General. IL —Courtesy: indiankanoon.org INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

PROFILES

A look into the achievements of some judges and the sea change their judgments brought about in their countries India

LEGAL

Justice VR Krishna Iyer ustice VR Krishna Iyer was sworn in as a Supreme Court judge in 1973. The former law minister of Kerala was known for his staunch support of human rights. In the Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration case in the Supreme Court (1979), Justice Iyer regarded the process of holding undertrials in solitary confinement as inhumane. This judgment led to the implementation of Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners, also

recommended by the UN. However, he came in for criticism when, on June 24, 1975, he granted a conditional stay on the Allahabad High Court order which had held Indira Gandhi guilty of corrupt practices in the 1971 general elections and barred her from contesting elections for six years. This escalated into a political crisis and led to the Emergency. Justice Krishna Iyer died in December 2014, aged 100.

Justice JS Verma ustice JS Verma served as the 27th Chief Justice of India (1997-1998). His contributions to the judiciary were immense even post retirement. Justice Verma was one of the first judges in the country to refuse the argument of the then government that the Emergency took precedence over right to life and liberty, and released scores of MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act) detainees. He also headed the commission of inquiry, which was set up to determine the lapse in security that led to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. His judgment in the Vishaka case, however, will be remembered the most as it led to the

March 15, 2015

formation of the Vishaka guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women at work. And when the horrendous Nirbhaya rape case took place in Delhi in December 2012, he presided over a committee which recommended making rape laws stronger and raised the bar of punishment for many sexual offences. At the same time, the committee rejected the demand for introducing death for rape. However, his most controversial judgment was the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Hindutva judgmentâ&#x20AC;? in 1995, wherein he said that Hindutva should be taken as a way of life or a state of mind, strengthening the argument of right-wing parties.

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

LUMINARIES

INDIA LEGAL

Justice Kuldip Singh his green judge of the Supreme Court (1988-1996) was instrumental in putting a lid on pollution around the Taj Mahal through his landmark judgment in the MC Mehta Vs Union of India & Ors (30 December 1996). His tough stand on the petrol pump distribution scam involving

Satish Sharma and out-of-turn allotments of government houses involving Sheila Kaul created a flutter in political circles. After retirement, he headed the National Delimitation Commission (2002-2008) that redefined Lok Sabha and assembly constituencies across the country.

Justice Fathima Beevi ustice M Fathima Beevi was the first woman judge of the Supreme Court of India (19891992) and any apex court in Asia. However, her appointment, superceding several senior judges was seen as a political decision by Rajiv

Gandhi to tone down the backlash over the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. On her retirement, she served as a member of the National Human Rights Commission and as governor of Tamil Nadu (1997–2001).

Justice Arijit Pasayat n a career spanning over 40 years, Justice Arijit Pasayat practiced with the Orissa High Court as an advocate while simultaneously pursuing chartered accoun-tancy. In 1999, he became the chief justice of the Kerala High Court, and within a year, took over as the chief justice of the Delhi High Court. In 2001, he was inducted to the judge’s bench in the Supreme Court. During his eight-year stint as a Supreme

Court judge, Pasayat was part of the constitutional bench that stayed the law which provided for 27 percent reservation for other backward classes (OBCs) in elite institutions like IITs and IIMs in 2007. He was also a part of the bench that ordered a re-trial into The Best Bakery case, and made critical recommendations in University of Kerala Vs Council, Principals’ Colleges, Kerala & Ors in 2009, to monitor and counter ragging in educational institutions. INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

PROFILES

The United States

Justice Hugo Black idely considered to be one of the most influential Supreme Court judges in the 20th century, Justice Hugo Black’s stellar career took many unconventional turns. Black first graduated in medicine, then switched to law, and also served in the US Army during World War-I, attaining the rank of captain. Black also admitted to joining the notorious Ku Klux Klan (KKK), which he later left in an attempt to garner votes to win a seat in the Senate. He proved his severing of ties with the KKK in the United States Vs Price case, in which 18 KKK members had charges of murder dismissed by a trial court. A unanimous Supreme Court bench, of which Black was a member, reversed the dismissal. The subsequent trial

The UK

Justice William J Brennan nown for his outstanding contribution to several landmark cases overseen by the US Supreme Court, Brennan was hailed as a powerful proponent of the court’s liberal wing. He was an associate justice in the Baker vs Carr case, wherein the court formulated the “one person, one vote” for legislative “redistricting” (effective redrawing of American electoral boundaries). Brennan was also a part of the New York Times Co Vs Sullivan case, which decided the “actual malice standard” to determine if any press report is liable to be classified as defamation or not. For his exceptional endeavors, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award of the US, by President Bill Clinton.

found seven members guilty. Black was considered an upholder of civil liberties, and was part of a landmark ruling —Brown Vs Board of Education—which said that state laws that advocated separate schools for Black and White students were unconstitutional.

Lady Brenda Hale ady Brenda Hale has come a long way to cement her legacy in Britain’s judicial framework. At the age of 59, she was not only the youngest judge in the Supreme Court of the UK, but was also the first woman law lord (one of the 12 judges of the Supreme Court.) Hale spent nearly two decades teaching law at Manchester University, and is a self-proclaimed feminist who wants “to see changes in the way society is organized, rather than wanting

Lord Alfred Denning ord Denning worked in the House of Lords, served in the army and authored several books. He came into prominence due to his report of the Profumo political scandal in 1963. The report sold 4,000 copies in the first hour and was described by historian Lord Lexden as the “raciest and most readable blue book ever published”. Other popular judgments include becoming the first judge to treat co-habiting couples in the same way as mar-

March 15, 2015

women to conform to male-determined roles”. Her most decisive contribution has come in the form of The Children Act 1989, a groundbreaking legislation for safeguarding child welfare. Her other important contributions include the Family Law Act 1996 (domestic violence legislation) and the Mental Health Act 2005 (empowering vulnerable people). In February 2013, BBC Radio 4 named her as the fourth most powerful woman in the UK. ried couples, long before cohabitation was common. Renowned for his excellent memory, Lord Denning was also called the “People’s Judge” for his attempts to make sweeping changes to common law so that it would favor the common man. The most famous is the Starr vs Ministry of Pensions case, wherein he reformed the guidelines under which servicemen were eligible for war pension.

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

Australia

Sir Owen Dixon ustralia’s sixth chief justice, Sir Owen Dixon, is hailed as one of the finest jurists to grace the continent’s premier court. He built a steadfast reputation as a member of the High Court bench. Many of Dixon’s judgments were considered “classic statements of the common law”. Dixon’s joint statement was crucial in overturning the verdict in Tuckiar vs The King case (1934), where, in a daylong trial, an all-white jury had found an Aboriginal

man guilty of murder without consideration of self-defense or provocation. He was also an indispensable part of the Bank Nationalization case and the Communist Party case, both regarded as landmark judgments in Australian judicial history. Dixon’s excellent reputation led to the UN extending an invitation to him to be the official mediator between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue in 1950.

Erstwhile Soviet Union

Major General Iona Nikitchenko nown for taking charge of the notorious “show-trials” during Stalin’s regime, Major-General Iona Nikitchenko was a Bolshevik war veteran, who served as chief justice in the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union. He was also one of the key drafters of the Nuremberg Charter, a decree developed by the victorious Allied Forces after World War-II to prosecute

and punish major war criminals of the Axis Powers. Among the four judges selected for the Nuremberg trials, Nikitchenko represented the Soviet Union in the International Military Tribunal. Before the start of the trial, Nikitchenko made the Soviet agenda explicitly clear, saying: “The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime.”

Pakistan

Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry ustice Iftikhar Chaudhry, the youngest chief justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court, is known for his stiff fight against the country’s military rulers. Appointed by President Pervez Musharraf in 2005, Justice Chaudhry was sacked for questioning his right to remain in office. He was reinstated after huge protests, but was ousted again and put under house arrest in November 2007, when Musharraf imposed a state of emergency. Justice Chaudhry managed to get reinstated after a long series of

street marches in which tens of thousands of people rallied around him. It ultimately led to the ousting of Musharraf. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was praised as the only judge in Pakistan’s history to have stood up to a military ruler and won. One of his most prominent rulings was when he suspended the privatization of the Pakistan Steel Mills, observing that privatization did not serve the intended purpose of poverty alleviation.At present, corruption and poll rigging allegations loom large against him. INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

SPECIAL FEATURE/ legal films

The reels of justice churn onâ&#x20AC;Ś some of the greatest films are based on courtrooms, high-profile lawyers, passionate defense and the travesty of justice By Somi Das

here is nothing more riveting or gripping than courtroom dramas. It is one of the oldest and most successful genres of filmmaking. The themes could range from death sentences, juvenile justice system, civil cases to criminal sentences. What makes these dramas so important is that they hinge on justice, and courtrooms are the only place where this can be meted out. We list some of the greatest courtroom dramas of all times. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s not an exhaustive list but shows the sheer variety of drama based on the issues shown.

March 15, 2015

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)

irector Bily Wilder turns Agatha Christie’s short story by the same name into a racy script. Leonard Vole, played by Tyrone Power, is accused of murdering a rich old widow, who supposedly was in love with him and bestowed upon him all her money. The highly respected Sir Wilfrid Robarts (Charles Laughton), who finds his health to be an obstacle in the pursuance of his acclaimed career as a criminal lawyer, agrees to defend Vole. The twist in the plot comes when Christine Vole, wife of Leonard, played by the very charming Marlene Dietrich, becomes a witness for the prosecution and testifies against her husband. However, Robarts proves that Christine testimony is false and she is eventually charged of perjury while securing a “Not Guilty” verdict for Leonard. However, as the plot unravels, one realizes how ordinary people like the Voles can take the judiciary for a ride. Indeed, Vole had murdered the old widow for her money and his wife was hand-in-glove with

him all this while, ready to serve a term in return for the money and her husband’s love. The film ends on a tragic note with Christine killing Leonard for leaving her for a younger woman. Robarts concludes: “She killed him? (No), she executed him!” This sharply brings home the message that it is sometimes justified to take the law into one’s hand and the court would be merciful considering the circumstances in which the crime was committed.

12 Angry Men (1957)

eleased the same year as the above film, it clinically rips apart the criminal justice system that relies on flimsy circumstantial evidence to send people who do not have enough legal aid to the gallows. A teenager from the slums is charged with murdering his abusive father on the basis of circumstantial evidence and two witnesses. The 12-member jury must arrive at a consensus to pronounce the accused guilty or not guilty. On being proven guilty, he will be given capital punishment. The jury comes from different walks of

life and is not related to law in any way. They must use reason to come to a conclusion. However, most of them have their personal biases and are convinced that the boy has killed his father. One jury member even gives this bizarre reason for his conviction—aren’t all children from the shanties obnoxiously violent and prone to committing heinous crimes? Juror number 8, played by James Fonda, is the only one who is ready to argue for the accused. Eventually, through sound reasoning, he destroys the case for prosecution, its witnesses and its evidences—something that the defense counsel should have done all along. Fonda tells his fellow jurors: “It’s possible for the lawyer to be plain stupid”, pointing towards the fact that often government lawyers do not stand up for the accused as they have nothing to gain. The film also has a stimulating discourse on the juvenile justice framework. Shouldn’t the boy’s background, his social standing, his daily struggles for survival and violence-ridden childhood be taken into account while deciding whether he is guilty and given a death sentence? This film remains relevant even today for raising questions about how differently the legal system treats the rich and the poor. INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

SPECIAL FEATURE/ legal films

I Want to Live (1958)

usan Hayward plays the Oscar-winning role of Barbara Graham, a serial offender and murder accused. This box office hit is based on the real life story of Graham, who was third of only four women in California to be gassed to death. The film draws its facts from articles written by Pulitzer-

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

he celluloid adaptation of Harper Lee’s classic book gave us one of the most beloved lawyers of all time—Atticus Finch—played to perfection by the handsome Gregory Peck. Finch stands up for the rights of a black man, Tom Robinson, who is falsely accused of raping a white teenager, at the cost of his own and his family’s safety. It would be unfair to call it just a legal drama, for it is much more than that. It is a commentary on the inhumanity that human beings are capable of inflicting on their own kind based on racial differences. And that the justice system is not untouched by the discriminations that rule the real world. The reason Why Mockingbird would always top the lists of legal films is that it has one of the best appeals to the jury made by Finch, wherein he asks a prejudiced jury to “do your duty, in the name of God”.

March 15, 2015

winning journalist, Edward S “Ed” Montgomery, on Graham’s conviction in the murder of Mabel Monohan, a rich widow. Dumped by her accomplices with whom she was involved in petty crimes, Graham is left to fend for herself. A single mother, she is left not only to fight a lengthy legal battle, but also face a parallel media trial. The film is a case study on how a hostile media can actually interfere with judicial proceedings and influence the final verdict. A major part of the film deals with the press’s obsession with the Mabel Monohan case and their projection of Graham as an unapologetic, cold villain, even naming her “bloody Bab” for her habit of dressing up glamorously and speaking her mind during the trail. The last 30-minutes of the film are entirely devoted to the elaborate arrangements being made to execute Graham in the gas chamber. This has a chilling effect. Graham never accepted that she actually had a role in killing Monohan. Death sentence as a form of punishment looks even more hideous when one sees a beautiful, eccentric young mother being gassed to death. Even the heart of the staunchest supporter would melt on seeing how Barbara meets her death despite her tremendous will to live, albeit on her own terms.

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

In Cold Blood (1967)

ere’s another film that makes a strong case against the death sentence. This, too, is an adaptation of a real life incident documented by Truman Capote in his book by the same title. Two criminals—Perry Smith and Richard “Dick” Hickock, played by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson— are out on parole when they hatch a burglary plan in order to live a comfortable life in Mexico. But unfortunately, after taking the Clutter family hostage, they realize there was no huge sum of cash stashed away anywhere in the house. They end up killing all the four members of the family. Thereafter, the film follows their journey through their arrest, trial and eventual hanging. The linear narrative of the film is interspersed with scenes from Smith’s childhood—part happy, part violent. He often goes into fits while recalling his abusive, alcoholic father beating up his promiscuous mother. In fact, he murdered the Clutters during one such fit.

The film provides an insight into the agony of murder convicts waiting for their mercy petitions to be heard. The full impact of the title comes alive right after the hanging of both protagonists—what could be more cold-blooded than the meticulously planned hanging at a predetermined place and time.

The Verdict (1982)

his is the second legal masterpiece directed by Sidney Lumet, who also directed Twelve Angry Men. Paul Newman plays the role of alcoholic lawyer Frank Galvin, who is tired of being an “ambulance chaser” (a lawyer who makes a living out of encouraging victims of accidents to sue for damages). He finds his rhythm when a case of medical negligence falls into his

lap. He has to defend a woman in coma, who turned into a vegetable because her doctors, who are highly respected, gave her the wrong anaesthesia during delivery. Despite all attempts by the bishop, who owns the Catholic hospital where this woman was being treated, and constant pleas from the impoverished relatives of the victim to settle for a hefty sum, Galvin goes to trial. The odds are stacked against him from the word go. The judge hearing the case has an acrimonious relation with him; his opponent, Ed Concannon, has a huge, intelligent team to back him and the resources to manipulate the press. Galvin’s portrayal of a struggling lawyer is commendable. The film has some terrific dialogues on judicial system, one being: “The court doesn’t exist to give them justice. The court exists to give them a chance at justice.” Justice, nevertheless, is meted out in the end. In a moving courtroom scene, a surprise witness—a nurse who was present in the operating room—testifies against the doctors. The Verdict makes a case for practicing conscientious law. INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

SPECIAL FEATURE/ legal films

A Few Good Men (1992)

The Devil’s Advocate (1997)

his film, starring Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves, takes us into the murky world of giant law firms that exist only to defend the crimes of their corporate clients—chemical weapon deals, toxic waste, money laundering—making a mockery of the justice system. Reeves plays ambitious young attorney Kevin Lomax, who has never lost a case. This lands him a dream job with a New York shark, headed by John Milton (Pacino). Lomax must kill his soul to win the cases for his clients. He is awash in money and comfort. But the work he does destroys his family life. This legal thriller essentially focuses on Lomax, an attorney whose only fear is losing a case. It has one of the best courtroom scenes, where Lomax, in a flash of brilliance, gets a “Not guilty” verdict for his client, a school teacher and a child molester, by demolishing the credibility of his teenage victim.

irected by Rob Reiner, this box office hit is an old-fashioned courtroom drama. It deals with the court-martial of two US marines stationed in the rough terrains of Guantanamo Bay. They are accused of killing a fellow marine, Santiago, who could not face the harsh Cuban conditions. The film gives an insight into the “American way” of dealing with its military force. It is an expose on the use of extrajudicial practices like “Code Red”, meant to punish any weakness and meekness within the force. Tom Cruise gives one of the best performances of his career as navy lawyer, Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, defending the two marines. The marines say they were only following orders from their superior to give a Code Red. The high point of the film is the “You Can’t handle the truth!” cross-questioning scene between Kaffee and Col Jessep (Jack Nicholson), where the latter is forced to concede that he ordered the marines to give a Code Red to Santiago, leading to his death. It exposes the false dignity that the American armed forces take pride in, while compromising human values and lives.

March 15, 2015

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

A Civil Action (1998)

he film deals with the real life incident of chemical contamination of a river in Woburn, Massachusetts, that led to many children dying of leukemia. It also provides an insight into how law firms actually thrive on personal injury claims and out-of-court settlements. John Travolta plays a cocky Boston attorney, Jan Schlichtmann, whose firm has made a fortune out of personal tragedies. He even figures on the most wanted bachelors list of Boston. The secret of Jan’s success hitherto had been his ability to sort things out of court. His principle till then has been simple: “A lawyer who shares his client’s pain and suffering does him such a great disservice. He should have

his license to practice law taken away.” But the resolute, pragmatic lawyer forgets his own talisman and gets way too involved with the suffering of his clients, resulting in his bankruptcy. Jan’s opponent, Jerome Facher, played by the towering Robert Duvall, is also a teacher at Harvard. His lectures to law students provide comic relief as to how law is just a customer-oriented service and not a tool to provide justice to the wronged ones.

Nothing but the Truth (2008)

scintillating story about a journalist’s fanatical protection of her source, this film gets us straight into the debate on national security vs freedom of speech. The First Amendment of the US constitution gives protection to journalists from revealing their sources. But national security mustn’t be meddled with. So when a reporter, Rachel Armstrong (Kate Beckinsale) writes a front page story in a national daily, revealing the identity of a CIA agent, she is harassed, apprehended, tried and finally sent to prison, all for protecting the name of her source. In her report, Armstrong writes that the CIA agent is question was on a fact-finding mission to Venezuela, where the agent found out that the country had nothing to do with an assassination attempt

on the US president, thus questioning the justification for military action against it. The government sees it as a direct threat on the nation and appoints special federal prosecutor, played by the devilish Matt Dillon, to investigate the matter. Armstrong is made to depose before a grand jury and sent to remand. Her case is taken up in the Supreme Court of the US. A 5-4 verdict rules in favor of national security, overruling the great personal sacrifice that Armstrong made to protect her source.

The Judge (2014)

uccessful Chicago lawyer and estranged son Hank Palmer (Robert Downey Jr) visits his hometown Carlinville, Indiana, after a long time to attend his mother’s funeral. But he finds himself in a situation where he must defend his father Judge Joseph Palmer (Robert Duvall) in a hit and run case. In his capacity as a judge, his father had sent him to juvenile detention for

causing a massive car accident that had incapacitated his elder brother, a promising baseball player, for life. During the course of the trial, Hank comes to discover many unknown facts about his father’s life. He secures a nonguilty verdict on charges of first degree murder from the jury. The film ends with Joseph acknowledging that Hank is the best lawyer—an acknowledgment that he has pined for all his life. INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

PHOTO FEATURE/ court architecture

Building Blocks SOME are grand, imposing, aweinspiring. Others are low-key, flat and merge with the surroundings. While the aim of supreme courts is to dispense justice, the structure of the building itself can be an extension of the architectural legacy of that country. Is it meant to overawe and dominate? Or be in sync with the modern spirit of equality and be more accessible? While Australia, Sweden and Turkey have simple, whitish buildings which are nothing to write home about, those of France and Italy take your breath away with their imposing facades and gates, reflecting the culture and architectural genius of European Renaissance. Others blend with topography—Canada’s apex court has a slopping roof to let the snow slide down—while Israel’s is akin to a row of bunkers, probably keeping in the mind the turbulent Middle East region. As for Russia, it is huge and yellow in color. Right color for the red bastion? 70

March 15, 2015

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

of Justice

INTRICACIES OF JUSTICE

The Court of Cassation in Paris, the apex court of France, occupies part of a magnificent palace complex, which came up in the late 13th and early 14th centuries, and was envisaged by the rulers as the “Finest palace anyone in France has ever seen”. But the resplendent section where the court is housed, came up only in the 1860s. Gutted in 1871, it was refurbished fully by the 1890s

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

PHOTO FEATURE/ court architecture

March 15, 2015

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL SENTINELS OF HISTORY

(Clockwise from left) The Cassation Court of Vatican City gels with the grand architecture of the surroundings, with preponderance of Renaissance architecture The Constitutional Court of Italy, commissioned by Pope Clement XII and completed in 1735, is a two-storey facade, with ornate window- and door-heads and roof top The Four Courts in Dublin, which houses Irelandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Supreme Court, was completed in 1796. Heavy bombardment during the Irish Civil War in 1922 destroyed much of the building. Lack of archives for reference and funds meant that the redesigned structure is much simpler

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

PHOTO FEATURE/ court architecture

GOING MODERN

(Clockwise from above): The Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa is elegant and simple. Completed in 1940, it has long window panels and a slanting, chateau style roof, apt for the heavy snowfall of Canada The Supreme Court of the UK is housed in a Gothic-style building. It was built only in the early 20th century, though its architecture, rooted in history, would suggest otherwise The Constitutional Court of Russia, St Petersburg, is distinct from the Supreme Court, and decides constitutional matters and disputes between various organs of the state. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s housed in the Building of Ruling Senate, House of Laval and Borkh Polyakov Tenement Building, all adjoining 19th century structures. Surprisingly, despite the massive dimensions, the facade is bleak if you compare it to Russian architecture of the period.

March 15, 2015

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

PHOTO FEATURE/ court architecture

CONTOURS OF OUR TIMES

(From above) In Australia, the final court of appeal is High Court, whereas supreme courts are state courts. The Supreme Court of South Australia in Adelaide is an ornate Samuel Way Building, which housed Mooreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Department Store from its inauguration in the 1880s till the 1970s In contrast to the above building, this simplistic building in Canberra is the High Court of Australia. It was inaugurated in 1980. The building housing the Constitutional Court, Turkey, reflects the modern ethos of the country, which adopted a modern constitution in 1961

March 15, 2015

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INDIA LEGAL

CORRIDORS OF POWER

(Left) The iconic Supreme Court of the US in Washington DC was built in a neoclassical style in 1935, reminiscent of Greek columns (Below) The Supreme Court of Israel, combining a host of architectural elements, was built in 1992. But the predominant impression that this aerial view creates is that of a bunker, arising out of its violent existence

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

PHOTO FEATURE/ court architecture

CLOSER HOME

(From above) Designed by Japanese architect KenzĹ? Tange, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Islamabad, has clean geometric lines, with minimal touches of Islamic elements Painted red, and with arched corridors, the Supreme Court of Myanmar could well have been an educational institution Notice the faint similarities to tombs in the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, Cairo

March 15, 2015

1. Spell it right. A: Hemorrhage B: Hamorrhage C: Hemmorhage D: Hammorhage 2. Who’s a “hoofer”? A: Climber B: Novice C: Collegian D: Dancer 3. Dolce vita. A: Life of luxury B: Narcotic drug C: Soft music D: Tough life 4. Firewater, anyone? A: Coconut water B: Alcoholic drink C: Apple juice D: Cough syrup 5. An Argus at home but a ... abroad. A. mule B. cat C. mole D. tiger 6. To deep-six. A: To swim B: To drown C: To dispose of D: To butcher 7. Are you a pedigree chum? A: Eligible bachelor B: Dog lover

have fun with english. get the right answers. play better scrabble. By Mahesh Trivedi

C: Bosom pal D: Veterinary doc 8. Heard of “squillion”? A: Small fish B: A large number C: Name of a color D: No such word 9. A baby fish is called .... A: leveret B: cygnet C: tadpole D: fingerling 10. What’s a “hum-hole”? A: Small shop B: Mouth organ C: Mouth D: Navel 11. She just SMSed: 9. A: Good night B: A parent is watching C: 9 pm tonight D: Call at 9 12. YTB. A: You’re the best B: Why to buy C: Yes to buy D: You take a break 13. Worn to a …. A: rag B: tatter C: shadow D: wick 14. Whatever will be,

will be.

ANSWERS

A: Veni, vidi, vici B: Que sera sera C: Quid pro quo D: Nec habeo, nec careo 15. Wrong simile. A: As quick as silver B: As quick as mercury C: As quick as a wink D: As quick as lightning 16. Fear of road travel. A: Acrophobia B: Airophobia C: Agoraphobia D: Hodophobia 17. Study of noses. A: Rhinology B: Nosology C: Scatology D: Olfacology 18. On one’s jack. A: On one’s bike B: On one’s hate list C: Happy D: Self-dependent 19. By the yard. A: In a large quantity B: Nearby C: Very thin D: On the way 20. Palsy-walsy A: Sentimental B: Intimate C: Fraudulent D: Strange

1. Hemorrhage 2. Dancer 3. Life of luxury 4. Alcoholic drink 5. Mole 6. To dispose of 7. Eligible bachelor 8. Large number of 9. Fingerling 10. Mouth 11. A parent is watching 12. You’re the best 13. Shadow 14. Que sera sera 15. As quick as mercury 16. Hodophobia 17. Rhinology 18. Self-dependent 19. In a large quantity 20. Intimate

Y L D R WO ISE

SCORES

0 to 7 correct—You need to do this more often. 8 to 12 correct—Good, get the scrabble board out. Above 12—Bravo! Keep it up! textdoctor2@gmail.com

INDIA LEGAL March 15, 2015

1st ANNIVERSARY of new

INTERNATIONAL BRIEFS

INDIA LEGAL

Aviation executive faces prison A FORMER KOREAN AIR executive, Cho Hyun-ah, will spend a year in jail for violating aviation law, a Seoul court has ruled. Cho, daughter of Korean Air’s chairman, had forced the crew of a Korean Air flight to change its route on December 5 as she was not satisfied with its service. The reason for her being upset was that she had been offered macadamia nuts in a bag instead of a dish. She was also found guilty of obstructing the flight captain in the performance of his duties and forcing a crew member off a plane, reports The Guardian.

Dress code for Saudi women anchors THE SHURA COUNCIL of Saudi Arabia, the country’s advisory body, has made it mandatory for women TV anchors to be dressed modestly and not show off their beauty, according to Arab News. This call comes amid a controversy wherein a senior member of the Saudi diplomatic mission to the United Nations did not wear a scarf while delivering a speech at the UN Security Council on January 30. Her stance came in for immediate criticism, and social media strongly condemned her for embarrassing the country. Now, the Shura members want a national dress representing Saudi Arabia, which must reflect the values and social traditions of the Saudi people.

SA bars foreigners from real estate SOUTH AFRICA MIGHT bring into effect a law that will prohibit foreigners from buying property in the country, according to agency reports. This is part of major land reforms aimed at doing away with inequalities in land distribution since colonial days. As per a statement issued by the president’s office, the reform will address “the need to secure our limited land for food security and address the land injustice of more than 300 years of colonialism and apartheid”. Following the land reforms, foreigners will only be able to lease property for a specified duration of time. And if the land is deemed “strategic” by the country’s government, they will have to give up their right over it.

March 15, 2015

Emergency in Myanmar region PRESIDENT THEIN SEIN of Myanmar imposed a three-month martial law in Kokang, following fighting between ethnic-minority rebels and the army, according to a BBC report. The fighting was triggered by the return of rebel leader Phone Kya Shin after a five-year exile in China. Close to 100 people—both government troops and rebels have died— in violent clashes between the military and rebel fighters of the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army.

Jail for posting “revenge porn” THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE and Courts Bill in England and Wales will make it a crime to post revenge porn, and offenders will face up to two years in jail, according to BBC. The bill is set to get a royal assent. According to the news report, it covers “images shared on and offline without the subject's permission and with the intent to cause harm.” Besides images sent on social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter etc, physical distribution of images will also be covered. A similar law might be introduced in Scotland and Northern Ireland too.

NO I HOLDS BARRED

INVESTIGATION How CBI under former boss Ranjit Sinha became a new employment exchange 24

NDIA L EGAL E L N INDIAL EGAL NDIA L EGA I

SECTIONto66A smother License ch? free spee

NJAC a Still on ride bumpy

RTANT EVENTS FIVE IMPOthat will 60 lonline.com of 2014 our lives www.in www indialega change

www.indialegalonline.com

February 28, 2015

`100

BCCI SC judgment on N Srini n provi him enough room to wrigvasa gle out des

2015 January 31,

HL DATT ER CJIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s concUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;SernLETT over frivolous comp laints 10 www.in ww www ww

February 15, 2015

dialegalonline

.com

`100

STORIES

STORIES THAT COUNT

NT THAT COU

Who scripted Modiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Delhi Disaster ? S U CAMPUS RUMP

STORIES

FINAL THE LY, FUSION

ITY UNIVERS MUSLIM ALIGARH

e w men hatt wo n wh orrtt on all repo ciiia ec pe sp

ntt 18 an wa w

ALS0

EDATORS PATENT PR , basmati and After turmeric t eyes khadi. Can neem, the Wes the threat? 34 off d war a Indi

ALS0

ARD COAST GU er, denied A senior offickno cks at promotion, doors 28 judiciaryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

BUDGET 2015 Will Modi address the impatient electorate and bring his growth agenda on the right track? 26

MAKE IN INDIA Hurdles in the civil aviation sector 36

THAT COU NT

INDO-US NUCLEA R DEAL

ALS0

The arduous work on liab has seemingly ility laws result. But is yielded a positive it the end for the N-deal of troubles ? 16

EUROPE Faced with UNDER SIEGE MA cal Islamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s KE IND it bury its radi IA n door poli threat, will Lessons onIN Islam reallyope mes And, is rule unforgiving?cy? s from iasy 56 Indiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hastNok y exit 20

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t miss a single issue of this independent, scintillating new fortnightly magazine and get special discounts for yourself and your friends For advertising & subscription queries sales@indialegalonline.com

SUBSCRIBE TO INDIA LEGAL GET FABULOUS DISCOUNTS HTb 8 f^d[S [XZT c^ bdQbRaXQT c^ 8=380 ;460; \PVPiX]T U^a cWT ^UUTa X]SXRPcTS QT[^f Tick one

Term (Years)

No. of Issues

Cover Price (`)

You pay (`)

You save (`)

% Saving

1 Year

24 Issues

2400/-

1200/-

50%

2 Years

48 Issues

4800/-

1920/-

2880/-

60%

=P\T) 0VT) BTg) 0SSaTbb) 2Xch) BcPcT) ?X]) ?W^]T ATb ) >UUXRT) T \PX[) 4]R[^bTS 33 2WT`dT =^ ) 3PcTS) 3aPf]) Uâ `) 2PaS =^ ) BXV]PcdaT) 5â ^dcbcPcX^] RWT`dT _[TPbT PSS ` $ 33 2WT`dT c^ QT SaPf] X] UPe^da Û 4= 2^\\d]XRPcX^]b ?ec ;cS C^ QT bT]c c^) 4= 2^\\d]XRPcX^]b ?ec ;cS 0 ( BTRcâ %' 6PdcP\ 1dSSW =PVPa =>830 D ? ! " ( CTa\b R^]SXcX^]b P__[h ?[TPbT _aêXST db # fTTZb c^ bcPac h^da bdQbRaX_cX^]

PEOPLE / loving pets FEARLESS LOVE A Buddhist monk plays with tigers at the Wat Pa Luang Ta Bua, otherwise known as the Tiger Temple, in Kanchanaburi province in Thailand. Thai officials recently raided the Buddhist temple that has more than 100 tigers. They found that 143 Bengal Tigers were in good health. LISTEN TO ME Horse whisperer Martin Tata sits on his five-year-old horse “Primavera” while training the beast in his typical style that does not use violence or force.

HUMAN WARMTH A dog snuggles under a beggar’s blanket outside a post office on a chilly day in Bikaner.

LOOK AT ME! A cat sits on its owner’s shoulders during “The best cat of Belarus” international cat exhibition in Minsk.

PUBLIC BATH Boys lovingly wash their pet goat next to motorcycle spare parts shops in old Delhi. LET’S WALK A woman walks dogs wearing jackets during icy conditions in Newtown Linford in Central England.

Photos: UNI, Compiled by Kh Manglembi Devi

RNI No. UPENG/2007/25763

Postal Regd. No. UP/GBD-197/2014-16 3ULQWHG RQ HYHU\ PRQWK 3RVWHG DW 6XE 3RVW 2IÃ&#x20AC;FH 6HFWRU 1RLGD