Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Judges skirt global norms on conflict of interest

Judges skirt global norms on conflict of interest








|
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court judges do not seem to comply with internationally accepted standards for managing conflict of interest in cases where

they have a financial stake. The global norm is that a judge having any financial interest in any party should automatically recuse himself, while in India, the judge could just offer to do so.

This has been highlighted by the approach of Justice S H Kapadia in the Vedanta and SAIL cases and Justice R V Raveendran in the Reliance dispute where, in keeping with a voluntary code of conduct adopted by SC judges in 1997, they disclosed their shareholdings in the companies concerned, but only to check if there was any objection to their handling matters. Sure enough, the lawyers raised no objection.

The 1997 'Restatement of Judicial Values' allows a judge in India to remain on the bench despite conflict of interest if "he has disclosed his interest and no objection to his hearing and deciding the matter is raised". This is a far cry from the UN-sponsored 'Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct' which was adopted in 2002 by judges from across the world, including India, which was the host country.

Clause 2.5 of the Bangalore Principles stipulates, "A judge shall disqualify himself from participating in any proceedings in which ... the judge or a member of the judge's family has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy."

If such a taboo could be codified in the much-negotiated Bangalore Principles, it was because Clause 2.5 reflected a long-established and widely accepted judicial practice among cases where judges have a financial conflict of interest.

This is evident from the fact that the earliest judgment in Britain stipulating automatic recusal goes back to 1852: In Dines vs Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal, the court held that the maxim that no man could be a judge in his own cause was "not to be confined to a cause in which he is a party, but applies to a cause in which he has an interest".

Accordingly, before diluting the standard in their 1997 code of conduct, Indian judges too had treated any possible financial interest for them in the outcome of a case as an absolute disqualification for themselves.

The best known example is the Bhopal gas leak case in which Justice M H Kania, without consulting lawyers, recused himself after disclosing that he had shares in Union Carbide.

"I thought it was proper to let the court know that I hold shares, and I also thought it proper to withdraw myself from the case," Justice Kania told the media soon after his recusal in 1988. Despite the assurance from others that his shareholding had "nothing to do with the case", Justice Kania said: "I wanted to withdraw because something may be said later."

The principle of a judge withdrawing on his own rather than asking for consent from the lawyers has been upheld by the 1999 British ruling in the Pinochet case, a global landmark, which reaffirmed that "the mere fact" that a judge had a pecuniary interest in the outcome of a case was "sufficient to cause his automatic disqualification".

The Pinochet prescription of an automatic recusal has since become a part of the Indian law as at least three Supreme Court judgments have relied upon it: Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam vs Girija Shankar Pant (2000), State of Punjab vs V K Khanna (2000) and Inderpreet Singh Kahlon vs State of Punjab (2006).

For all such references to the international norm, the lower standard adopted by Indian judges — namely, just offering to recuse themselves — theoretically allows them to have their cake and eat it too.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Are conflicting orders inherent in judiciary?
Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN 21 September 2009, 03:27am IST


Identical issues and problems evoke different, sometimes even contradictory, views from people. But when it comes in the shape of orders from the

Supreme Court, the logic behind the diktats is prone to questioning. No one can argue that monuments and statues should be built at the cost of thousands of trees and huge expenses even if one accepts the fact that creation and destruction are part of the life cycle of everything. But when three Benches of the Supreme Court between May 29 and September 11 view a singular issue -- UP chief minister Mayawati's fetish for statues of dalit leaders and her own -- then it surely is a cause for concern. On June 29, a Bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and A K Ganguly took serious note of UP government's decision to be generous with the purse strings to fulfil her fetish. It had sought answers from the Mayawati government despite its counsel making a valid counter-point -- why no one questions the thousands of crores spent on etching names of politicians from a particular family? Two weeks later, on July 10, another Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam cut short a petitioner, who raised the matter of crores of rupees worth statue projects and drew a contrast with rampant poverty, illiteracy and lack of health infrastructure in the state. The court appeared to accept the state's plea that every penny being spent on memorials and statues was budgeted for and approved by the legislature. Refusing to pass any restraint order, the Bench had said, "If a democratically elected government takes a decision and the House approves it, there is little the courts can do unless diversion or misappropriation of public funds is involved." Two months later, on September 8, a Bench comprising Justices B N Agrawal and Aftab Alam had a very different judicial perception of the entire issue and was convinced that work at the memorial projects must stop as challenges to these were pending in the Allahabad High Court and SC. The UP government had little option but to volunteer an undertaking to stop work. It apparently did not and rightly invited the wrath of the SC, which warned that "playing with fire" could prove very costly. The jigsaw puzzle over the issue started unveiling with the May 1, 2008, order of a Bench comprising Justices H K Sema and Markandey Katju, which stayed an Allahabad HC order restraining the government from pulling down old buildings to make way for the memorials. The same Bench had observed, "When a court restrains the executive from doing its job mandated by the Constitution or law, then the executive can ignore such an order. If amendment to the Master Plan (of Lucknow) is permitted under law, the government can do it even if the courts order to the contrary." But contradictions, like creation and destruction, are also a part of life, be it a person, judge or the apex court. Famous American author and poet Oliver Wendell Holmes had agreed with this and said, "People who honestly mean to be true really contradict themselves much more rarely than those who try to be `consistent'." It was not an imagination of a poet alone. Famous French mathematician, physicist and philosopher Blaise Pascal had also seen the sign of strength in contradictions and said, "Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth." Be it poetry or judicial orders, Mayawati may not be amused at all. It reminds one of US president Thomas Jefferson's similar predicament when Chief Justice John Marshall's ruling in Murbury vs Madison (1803) laid down the firmfoundation for the doctrine of judicial review, which gave courts the power to strike down a law when it conflicted with the Constitution. Jefferson had said, "This doctrine made Constitution a mere thing of wax in the hands of judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." Well, the doctrine of judicial review is well entrenched in India and has paid more dividends to people than creating doubts.

dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Living persons’ statues can also be installed: UP govt

Updated on Saturday, August 22, 2009, 14:40 IST Tags:Statues, Uttar Pradesh, SC, Supreme Court, Mayawati
New Delhi: The Uttar Pradesh government, which had made budgetary allocation of crores of rupees for installation of statues of Chief Minister Mayawati and her mentor Kanshi Ram in the state, has said it is a wrong notion that only statues of dead persons can be installed. The state government expressed dismay over the manner in which the hype is being created over installation of statues of Mayawati and quoted examples of superstar Amitabh Bachchan and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee whose statues have been erected.
google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
"It is a wrong notion that only statues of dead persons can be installed. There is no dearth of examples whether in the country or abroad about statues of living persons. In the Indian context, one can easily refer to AB Vajpayee Institute of Technology and Management, Gwalior and Amitabh Bachchan Institute at Saifai, Etawah," the state government said in an affidavit. "Abroad we have wax statues of film stars, cricketers and other living personalities finding place in Madame Tussauds museum," the state said. The Uttar Pradesh government was responding to the petition accusing it of misusing public funds for the installation of statues of Mayawati, Kanshi Ram, other Dalit leaders and that of elephants-- BSP's election symbol--at parks in Lucknow and Noida, adjoining Delhi. The affidavit said Mayawati's statues were installed only to fulfil the wishes of Kanshi Ram, who willed that wherever his statues were installed, the statues of Mayawati, "his only heir, must also be installed." The state government provided details of budgetary allocation for carrying out work at parks in Lucknow and Noida stating that Rs 294 crore and Rs 203 crore have been allocated for the two projects. "Money has been sanctioned by the state government through budgetary allocations approved by the Assembly and every expenditure was authorised by the state legislature," it said. "The cultural department made provisions of Rs 194.2 crore in the financial year 2008-09 and Rs 100 crore in the year 2009-10," it said in its 51-page affidavit. The state government said it was a wrong notion that the 'stupa' being built with other statues will cost Rs 500 crore. "The cost of stupa is about Rs 203 crore and not Rs 500 crore as stated in newspaper reports," the state government said. The PIL filed by advocates Ravi Kant and Sukumar has alleged that state government was misusing the exchequer to glorify Mayawati by installing her statues. They said statues of living persons should not be installed. While referring to the apex court judgement, the affidavit said, "The judiciary must exercise self-restraint and eschew the temptation to encroach into the domain of the legislature or the administrative or statutory authorities."
Earlier, the apex court had on July 10 cleared the decks for the Uttar Pradesh government to carry out work for installation of statues of Mayawati and other dalit leaders at a park in Noida. It had refused to interfere in the matter in which the approval has been granted by the state Cabinet. "If it has been approved by the government, this court cannot interfere," a Bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan had said, when an application seeking to maintain the status quo on the works was mentioned before it. "If the Cabinet has approved it, then we can't do anything," the Bench had said. The Uttar Pradesh government had proposed to install statues of several BSP leaders including that of Mayawati and party founder Kanshi Ram in the gigantic 4-km long walled area along the bank of river Yamuna in Noida. The PIL had sought a direction to restrain Mayawati from installing her statues and those of elephants at public places with public fund and demanded a CBI probe into the misuse of state funds. Bureau Report
New Delhi: The Uttar Pradesh government, which had made budgetary allocation of crores of rupees for installation of statues of Chief Minister Mayawati and her mentor Kanshi Ram in the state, has said it is a wrong notion that only statues of dead persons can be installed. The state government expressed dismay over the manner in which the hype is being created over installation of statues of Mayawati and quoted examples of superstar Amitabh Bachchan and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee whose statues have been erected.
"It is a wrong notion that only statues of dead persons can be installed. There is no dearth of examples whether in the country or abroad about statues of living persons. In the Indian context, one can easily refer to AB Vajpayee Institute of Technology and Management, Gwalior and Amitabh Bachchan Institute at Saifai, Etawah," the state government said in an affidavit. "Abroad we have wax statues of film stars, cricketers and other living personalities finding place in Madame Tussauds museum," the state said. The Uttar Pradesh government was responding to the petition accusing it of misusing public funds for the installation of statues of Mayawati, Kanshi Ram, other Dalit leaders and that of elephants-- BSP's election symbol--at parks in Lucknow and Noida, adjoining Delhi. The affidavit said Mayawati's statues were installed only to fulfil the wishes of Kanshi Ram, who willed that wherever his statues were installed, the statues of Mayawati, "his only heir, must also be installed." The state government provided details of budgetary allocation for carrying out work at parks in Lucknow and Noida stating that Rs 294 crore and Rs 203 crore have been allocated for the two projects. "Money has been sanctioned by the state government through budgetary allocations approved by the Assembly and every expenditure was authorised by the state legislature," it said. "The cultural department made provisions of Rs 194.2 crore in the financial year 2008-09 and Rs 100 crore in the year 2009-10," it said in its 51-page affidavit. The state government said it was a wrong notion that the 'stupa' being built with other statues will cost Rs 500 crore. "The cost of stupa is about Rs 203 crore and not Rs 500 crore as stated in newspaper reports," the state government said. The PIL filed by advocates Ravi Kant and Sukumar has alleged that state government was misusing the exchequer to glorify Mayawati by installing her statues. They said statues of living persons should not be installed. While referring to the apex court judgement, the affidavit said, "The judiciary must exercise self-restraint and eschew the temptation to encroach into the domain of the legislature or the administrative or statutory authorities." Earlier, the apex court had on July 10 cleared the decks for the Uttar Pradesh government to carry out work for installation of statues of Mayawati and other dalit leaders at a park in Noida. It had refused to interfere in the matter in which the approval has been granted by the state Cabinet. "If it has been approved by the government, this court cannot interfere," a Bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan had said, when an application seeking to maintain the status quo on the works was mentioned before it. "If the Cabinet has approved it, then we can't do anything," the Bench had said. The Uttar Pradesh government had proposed to install statues of several BSP leaders including that of Mayawati and party founder Kanshi Ram in the gigantic 4-km long walled area along the bank of river Yamuna in Noida. The PIL had sought a direction to restrain Mayawati from installing her statues and those of elephants at public places with public fund and demanded a CBI probe into the misuse of state funds. Bureau Report

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Judges and the Right to Information Act
D V Shylendra Kumar
First Published : 20 Aug 2009 11:01:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 19 Aug 2009 11:16:01 PM IST
It is a matter of utmost paradox that the chief justice of the most powerful Supreme Court in the world should be expressing, apprehension for the safety and security of the judges of the superior courts in this country by saying that revealing the particulars of assets of the judges and throwing open the information to public domain may result in harassment to judges and in turn prevent the judges from performing their duties without fear or favour. He has also expressed his fear that this may impair the independence of judges and affect their functioning.
It is equally ironic that the apprehension should have been expressed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of India, that too in an interview given to a news daily and as the chief justice of the apex court of the country and in the context of the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of Right to Information Act (RTI Act), a piece of legislation which was commended for legislation by the very Supreme Court in terms of its judgment in ‘Peoples union for civil liberties vs Union of India’ (AIR 2002 SC 2112J). This judgment upholds the high moral principle that the rule of law should operate uniformly; that the Constitution is above every one; that rights of citizens guaranteed under Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution of India, i e, right of expression, should outweigh the personal difficulties and hardships that can be pleaded by persons occupying high positions and serving as public servants. It must be remembered that the Supreme Court had emphatically ruled that no immunity can be claimed by any person, including one holding a constitutional position on the ground of any possible exposure to harassment and consequential difficulties if the particulars of the assets held by persons in such high public positions are revealed and made public. As is well known, the Right to Information Act was enacted with the object to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens by, ensuring access to information on any given issue.
The extent of applicability of the provisions of the RTI Act and persons or officers brought within the scope of the provisions of this Act naturally can be a matter for judicial determination. It is possible to have a divergence of opinions concerning the interpretation of the meaning and extent of applicability of the relevant provisions of the RTI Act. The object of this article is to dispel the most damaging and uncalled for impression created in the minds of the public at large and litigants in particular, that the judges of the superior courts in this country, who enjoy high constitutional protection and immunity, are wary of disclosing their assets or are not prepared to throw open the information relating to the acquisition and holding of their assets to public domain; that they would rather prefer to keep the information well-guarded and also cover up a possible misdeed or a possible improper acquisition of assets and would like to avoid either scrutiny or an explanation, if one was needed in respect of their asset holdings.
Info sought on assets
But such an impression has been created by a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court on behalf of the Supreme Court of India, orders on which are pending. The petition questions the legality of an order passed by the central information commissioner, the purport of which is that the registrar general of the Supreme Court is required to furnish certain information sought for by someone who is entitled to do so. The information sought for is about the assets held by judges of the Supreme Court and high courts.
Meanwhile, the Chief Justice of India has articulated an opinion that seems to have created some misgivings in the minds of the people. This was in an interview that he gave to some news dailies. A further development is the failed attempt to introduce a Bill in Parliament for enacting a law making it obligatory for judges of the superior courts to disclose their assets through declarations filed before the chief justice of the high courts concerned. The judges of the Supreme Court, including the chief justice, would have been required to file such declarations before the President of India.
What, however, created a storm was the provision in the Bill that information contained in the said declarations would remain confidential and not accessible to the public. Not quite unexpectedly, the Bill has drawn flak and has become a subject for controversies. The Bill will naturally take its course in accordance with Parliamentary procedure and constitutional provisions. The immediate objective of this article is to dispel the impression created in the minds of the people about the conduct and behaviour of the judges of the superior courts of this country and to convey the message that whatever has been said and done in this regard is not necessarily the way that all judges of the superior courts view this issue.
On the legal plane, the Chief Justice of India does not have the authority to speak for all other judges of the superior courts, whether of the Supreme Court or of high courts, unless any of them have either confided in the chief justice or have authorised him to speak on behalf of others also.
Judiciary is one among the three organs of the state as envisaged in the scheme of our Constitution and has a unique role to play in comparison to the executive and the legislature, which are the other two organs. Under the scheme of our Constitution, judiciary is assigned the role of acting as an arbiter of disputes not only in respect of the disputes arising between citizens and citizens and persons and persons, but also in respect of disputes arising between the state and the citizens. For this purpose, the judges of the superior courts have been conferred with the power and jurisdiction to review both the executive actions and the legislative actions of the state on the touchstone of the constitutional provisions and relevant statutory provisions.
The architects of our Constitution were conscious of the very significant and special role assigned to the judiciary in the scheme of the Constitution. It was envisaged as the organ for protecting the rights of the citizens, guaranteed under the Constitution. There was the recognition that judges, particularly the judges of the superior courts, who have the power of judicial review of administrative and legislative actions, should function without fear or favour and that the judiciary should remain totally independent and fully insulated from any external interference.
This has been ensured through appropriate constitutional protections, among which is a definite and assured tenure of office to every judge of the superior courts of this country. When once a judge assumes office, till he lays down the office on attaining the age of retirement as indicated in the Constitution itself, he/she is insulated from any outside interference in his/her duties. The tenure of office of a judge of the superior court can be put to a premature end only when he/she is impeached by a resolution of Parliament, supported by not less than two-thirds of the combined membership of Parliament. Further, an impeachment requires that the motion for impeachment be based on proved misconduct on the part of the judge concerned.
No impeachment so far
How foolproof and effective the protection is can be gauged from the fact that not a single judge of the superior court has been impeached so far in the past 59 years of the working of the Constitution and in fact a motion of this nature was moved in Parliament only once in the isolated case of Justice V Ramaswamy, which also failed for want of requisite majority support. It is beside the point whether this failure was because of some political considerations?
The founding fathers of our Constitution have provided such a foolproof protection and security to a judge and to the tenure of office occupied by judges only to ensure that the judges of this country not only act in absolute independence, in the sense that they are not in any way troubled or pressurised by the possibility of their losing the office or post, but also to ensure that they always act without any fear or favour. In fact, every judge of the superior courts, before assuming office, subscribes to an oath either in the name of god or on solemn affirmation, as envisaged under the Constitution, which is as under:
I, AB, having been appointed chief justice (or a judge) of the Supreme Court/high court at…, do swear in the name of god/solemnly affirm that, I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.
There cannot be any better protection to a judge than the one given by the Constitution. There is no question of any person either improving upon the protection or in any way detracting from such protection, whether by any executive action or even by legislative measures, unless the relevant provisions of the Constitution itself are amended. Such an impregnable protection and assured term of office is a mark of the faith and confidence reposed in the judges by the Constitution. It is thus incumbent on them to function with ability, competence, impartiality and fearlessness.
The institution of the court is sustained by the faith and confidence reposed in it by the people, especially by the litigant public. The judicial wing of the state thus cannot fail the people. It is with this faith and confidence that litigants approach the court for any relief. When once that trust and confidence is eroded, there are no seekers of justice or persons coming for relief before the courts of law and there cannot be any further justification for the existence of courts.
In the scheme of our Constitution, courts are here to stay and judiciary has a unique and specified role to play. There is no question of the state being envisaged without the judicial wing. It is a well thought out scheme and design that there should be checks and balances on the functioning of all wings of the state. Ensuring that the executive and the legislative wings of the state not only adhere to the assigned roles but also do not transgress or exceed the constitutional limitations, is the responsibility of the judicial wing of the state.
Confidence of litigants
Effective and purposeful functioning of the judiciary for achieving this object should be ensured at all times. It is for the judiciary to inspire at all times the confidence of the litigant public through its own conduct. There cannot be any discordant note on this. There can never be an impression conveyed or created in the minds of the people that judges of this country are in any way either wanting in this task or are afraid in any manner ill performing their duties and functions.
In this background, on the issue of the judges of the superior courts disclosing their assets or making it known to the public at large or as the phrase goes throwing it into public domain, it is clear that there need be no hesitation or reluctance on the part of the judges either to disclose their assets or to make available the information to the public at large.
In fact, it is a misnomer to think that the judges of the superior courts are not ready to disclose their assets. The judges of the high courts are appointed after being drawn from the Bar or on promotion from the subordinate judiciary in the ratio of 2:1 which means that for every promotee judge, there will be two judges appointed directly from the Bar. Judges promoted from the subordinate judiciary happen to be occupants of the post of district judge and every district judge is required to declare his/her assets every year, as part of the conditions of service.
(To be concluded)
(The author is a Judge in the High Court of Karnataka in Bangalore)

Friday, August 14, 2009

Friday, August 14, 2009 New Delhi Today's Issue
Home ePaper


City Nation Edit Op-Ed Business The Big Story World VivaCity Avenues Sports Columnists Forecast Editor's Mail
STATE EDITIONS Bhopal Bhubaneswar Ranchi Kochi Lucknow Chandigarh Dehradun
SUNDAY PIONEER Agenda Foray
FRONT PAGE Friday, August 14, 2009 Email Print
EC, Cong get taste of Maya medicine
Pioneer News Service New Delhi
BSP says Cong spent public money to promote ‘Nehru-Gandhi brand’The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) was at its vitriolic best on Thursday as it took a hard-hitting swipe at the Election Commission and Congress in its reply on the issue of installation of statues of party president Mayawati and its election symbol — the elephant. Slamming the EC’s double-faced approach in choosing to target BSP for allegedly violating its code of conduct by installing these statues, the BSP reminded the EC that successive Congress Governments have spent huge money promoting the “Nehru-Gandhi brand”.“Obviously, the objective is to ensure maximum recall of brand Congress among voters. Has this not given undue advantage to the Congress for many, many years at the cost of public money? Do all the principles of fair play apply to non-Congress parties only?” said party general secretary Satish Mishra.Mishra was responding on behalf of the BSP to an EC notice on a petition filed by two advocates Sukumar and Ravikant, who claimed that installation of statues had violated the EC notification prohibiting display of images of political functionaries and party symbols in Government offices or public places.Taking a dig at the Congress, the BSP said, “The Congress in order to gain unfair advantage over other political parties has named all major programmes, projects and institutions in the country after their leaders belonging to Nehru-Gandhi family — which totally distorts the level-playing field in the electoral arena.”There were over 450 Central and State Government programmes, projects and institutions named after Rajiv Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, the reply submitted. Contrasting this with the statues of Mayawati and that of the elephants, it said that the statues of Mayawati have been installed keeping in view the desire of party founder Kanshi Ram who willed that wherever his statues are installed, the statue of Mayawati, his only heir, should be installed alongside.So far as the elephant symbol was concerned, the party stated the memorial was a “welcome symbol” and should not be seen as depiction of party symbol. From time immemorial elephant statue was considered as a welcome symbol and so it finds place at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, the Raj Bhavan, the Akshardham temple at Delhi and even Parliament House at Singapore.Attaching voluminous literature on the deep attachment elephant has held in the country’s history, the BSP found sufficient defence in highlighting that the Congress Government in Uttar Pradesh in 1979 had installed a huge elephant statue in a park in Lucknow, which still exists with the place popularly known as “Hathi Park”.
Email Print Rate: 12345
Post Comment

COMMENTS BOARD ::

Time for a breather to naming after Sonia's familyBy asha on 8/14/2009 3:03:07 AMHoarding of prime real estate in the name of memorials for all the Gandhi family members, government funded Rajiv foundation run like a private property of Sonia, naming innumerable government schemes after some Gandhi or the other, list goes on. The Congress government spends crores to build a brand for this one family.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Can’t make rules for showing respect to Bapu’

TNN 11 August 2009, 02:44am

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a plea making it mandatory for people to show respect to Mahatma Gandhi.

The decision came in response to a PIL against UP chief minister Mayawati’s alleged description of Gandhiji as a ‘natakbaaz’ (a hypocrite or gimmicky). The petitioners — advocate Ravi Kant and Sukumar — had cited Gandhiji’s contributions to argue that he deserved respect from every citizen. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan and Justice B S Chauhan patiently heard the petitioners, but declined to lay down a code enjoining upon citizens to show respect to Gandhiji. “We totally agree with you on what you said on Gandhiji. But, we are not here to frame or issue guidelines to citizens for showing respect to Mahatma Gandhi. We cannot entertain such PILs,” the Bench said. The petitioners had sought the court’s intervention for the framing of guidelines, citing the absence of a law to prosecute anyone showing disrespect to the Father of the Nation. The Bench dismissed the PIL even before the petitioners could elaborate on the alleged derogatory remarks of Mayawati against Mahatma Gandhi and their plea for framing of suitable guidelines for showing respect to the Father of the Nation. Citing media reports, the petitioners had accused Mayawati of showing disrespect to Mahatma Gandhi by allegedly describing him as a ‘natakbaaz’ at a congregation of BSP leaders and members last month. The petitioners also criticised her remarks justifying the state government’s decision to install her own statues and those of dalit leaders on the ground that the money spent on these was miniscule compared to the amount spent on ‘samadhis’ at Rajghat.

Friday, August 7, 2009

SC panel inspects Maya's pet park project in Noida
9 Comments Post Comment





ANI Tags : Supreme Court, Mayawati, Noida park project Posted: Thursday , Aug 06, 2009 at 1517 hrs Noida:

Most Read Articles
Cong talks of poor but works for rich, says MulayamMayawati demands Rs 27




The Supreme Court panel on Thursday inspected Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati's Noida park project.
A high-level committee constituted by the apex court visited the Ambedkar Park to look into the alleged violation of environmental laws in the construction of a park in NOIDA.
Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary was also present.
In July, the Ministry of Environment and Forest sought an explanation from Uttar Pradesh Government over alleged violation of environmental laws in the construction of a park.
Uttar Pradesh Government is constructing Memorial Park in 33-hectare area along the Yamuna riverbed in Sector 15 -A of NOIDA.
The State Government is installing statues of Mayawati, her political mentor Kanshi Ram, and Dr B. R. Ambedkar in this park. This park is a new addition to the controversial statue installation projects taken up by the Mayawati''s Government.
Ads by Google
Residents and environmentalists are opposing to the statue installations as it violated the green law.
Earlier, the team of Indian Forest Service officers sent by the Central Government to probe the alleged violations found out that around 6,000 trees have been chopped down for the project. Their report also pointed that the State Government ignored an environment impact assessment required for such a projects.
Earlier, a two-Judge Bench of the apex court had refused to intervene in the statue installation projects of the Uttar Pradesh Government.
08/07/2009 10:21INDIA
For India’s Supreme Court kicking one’s wife is not an act of "cruelty"
by Nirmala Carvalho
According to the ruling the husband and family should not be prosecuted for abuse. An Indian deputy calls for the intervention of the Ministry of Justice. Activist condemn the decision as "an insult to all humanity" and point the finger at the "patriarchal"society that legitimizes violence.
New Delhi (AsiaNews) - India’s women are in revolt against a recent Supreme Court decision, which states that "kicking one’s daughter-in-law is not an act of cruelty." Women have branded the ruling as "retrograde" and are demanding the intervention of the Ministry for Justice.
The dispute stems from a family case between a woman and her husband, who lives in South Africa. The highest judicial body in India has ruled that the man and his relatives can not be prosecuted for "cruelty" towards his wife, just because the mother-in-law or other family members of the group beaten and kicked her and threatened her with divorce.
A branch of the Supreme Court, chaired by the Chief Judge SB Sinha explains that other charges can be laid, but not to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which punishes the husband’s - or his relatives - maltreatment of the woman. Brinda Karat, a key figure in the Marxist-inspired Communist Party of India, sent a letter to Minister for Justice Veerappa Moily, requesting a review of the trial because it is the roadmap "to legalize domestic violence”.
Julia George, a lawyer and activist from Stree Vani - "Voice of Women", an association based in Pune, in Maharashtra - describes the story as "not only an insult to women, but to all humanity”. “Even the act itself of kicking is inhumane - she explains to AsiaNews -It is distressing that, even today, there are honourable members of the judiciary that take this position”.
The lawyer stressed that the question arises within families, where women are "beaten to death not only by husbands, but also by his relatives”. “The question – states Julia - exceeds the boundaries of social class, education or wealth”. It is due to the "patriarchal" logic typical of Indian society, which "encourages women to accept gender oppression."
The activist, reports that during her professional career in Maharashtra she has witnessed many cases of domestic, physical and mental violence. For this reason it is essential to strengthen "education" but it "must not be one sided only, men too must be educated and sensitized." "Women - Julia George concludes - face tremendous obstacles and difficulties even to denounce cases of abuse. The same police officers are reluctant to receive complaints. Laws are the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution and what we do is invite women to take a step forward and to help them do so".
Judicial system must meet people’s expectations, says President
Legal Correspondent
President Prathiba Patil receiving the book, “The Judge Speaks,” from Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, Chairman of the Law Commission of India, at Rashtrapat Bhavan in New Delhi.
New Delhi: The judiciary “is one of the basic pillars of the Constitution and has played a crucial role in the development and evolution of our democracy,” said President Prathiba Patil.
This was her message on the book, “The Judge Speaks,” by Law Commission Chairman Justice A.R. Lakshmanan.
“As Justice Lakshmanan has commented, the confidence of the people in the legal system and in the justice delivery system is an essential pre-requisite for the very survival of democracy. Our judicial system must function in a manner that meets these expectations of the nation and its people,” the President said. She received a copy of the book at a function held at the Rashtrapati Bhavan on Tuesday.
The speeches Justice Lakshmanan delivered during his tenure as Supreme Court judge and subsequently as Law Commission Chairman are published in the book. Salient features
Justice Lakshmanan, who was accompanied by his wife and members of the Commission, briefed the President on the book and apprised her of three other books (two in English and one in Tamil — ‘Varalatru Suvadugal’) he authored. He also briefed Ms. Patil on the salient features of the Commission’s reports on various issues relating to the justice delivery system.
In his message, Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan said: “The contents of the speeches range from philosophical insights into constitutionalism, justice and the rule of law to concrete suggestions pertaining to contemporary areas of legislation and adjudication such as intellectual property, regulation of cyberspace, economic offence, tax and property laws.”Crucial role
Justice Lakshmanan said: “The judiciary has played a crucial role in the development and evolution of society in general and in ensuring good governance by those holding the reins of power in particular. Perhaps, there can be no two views about the significance of the role expected of the judiciary, vis-À-vis, the goal and good governance in a free , society.”

The Hindu 7th Aug 2009

Supreme Court should holiday less, work more

Supreme Court should holiday less, work more


Nagendar Sharma, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, August 07, 2009




To deal with the piling backlog of cases, the Supreme Court and high court judges must cut down holidays and put in longer hours at work, said a body that advises the government on law and judicial reforms.
“Considering the staggering arrears, vacations in the higher judiciary must be curtailed by at least 10 to 15 days and the court working hours should be extended by at least half an hour,” the law commission has said.
The commission is appointed by the government to review and suggest changes in the legal system. A former Supreme Court judge heads it, but its recommendations are not binding.
The above suggestion comes in a report given to law minister Veerappa Moily on Wednesday. The government has not yet taken a view on it, and an official in the ministry said it was too early to respond.
The Supreme Court works only 190 days a year, by its own admission to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice. That’s just a little over six months. A long summer vacation, weekly offs and national holidays such as the Independence Day make up the rest.
And look at the pending cases: 50,000 in the Supreme Court and 37 lakh in the 21 high courts in the country. The apex court adds thousands to the backlog every year with its present pace of work.
“It is an outdated British legacy which should have been done away with six decades back,” said former Chief Justice of India JS Verma, adding he couldn’t think of any other country where judges have as many holidays
This is a hangover from the colonial days when the scalding heat of Delhi summer forced the judges – mostly British when the practice took root – to shut down the courts and escape to Shimla, the nearest hill station.
When independent India switched to its own legal system, it borrowed heavily from the colonial set up, including the vacations, which Verma said, should have been dropped.
They could perhaps reach down to the lower courts for inspiration – they have a much shorter summer vacation , only 24 days compared to 50 days for SC and 30 for HCs

Thursday, August 6, 2009

EC seeks Mayawati’s comments

EC seeks Mayawati’s comments
J. Balaji
NEW DELHI: The Election Commission has sought comments from Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and Bahujan Samaj Party president Mayawati by August 12 on a petition alleging that she violated the EC orders by installing permanent structures of the BSP’s election symbol (elephant) and her own statues in various parts of the State on government land at the government’s expense.
The EC has also forwarded a copy of the petition, filed by advocates Ravi Kant and Sukumar, to Ms. Mayawati along with the letter, EC sources said.
The petitioners claimed that the installation of the statues in public places by spending crores from the State exchequer, violating the EC’s order on April 1, 2009, would severely violate the Model Code of Conduct for elections.EC’s order
They quoted the EC’s order which read: “The underlying intention of the [Election] Commission’s instruction was that photographs and images of political functionaries, who have deep influence on minds of electors and many of whom are still active in public life and may even be contesting the current general elections, should not be displayed in government buildings and premises, as that would have the effect of disturbing the level playing field vis-À-vis the political functionaries of other parties and candidates.”
“In this regard,” it added, “the Commission would like to state that the above-mentioned underlying purpose of the instruction needs to be fully appreciated while being acted upon.” Code of conduct
The petitioners alleged that the continued presence of the permanent election symbol and statues during elections would provide a much higher playing ground to the BSP vis-À-vis to other political parties, and seriously hamper the Model Code of Conduct.
The Hindu 6th AUG 09

Mayawati gets EC jolt

Mayawati gets EC jolt
PNS New Delhi
‘Violated orders by installing elephant statues’On a statue-building spree, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati, who recently got Supreme Court nod for carrying out personal glorification campaign, received a jolt from the Election Commission on Tuesday.Finding the statues of Mayawati, other Dalit leaders and that of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) symbol, the elephant, to be prima facie violative of the model code of conduct, the Commission issued show-cause notice to the BSP chief and the party asking them to respond by August 12.Although the Supreme Court on July 10 had refused to stay the installation of statues citing that decisions approved by State Cabinet cannot be interfered with by the courts, the EC notice could be a cause of worry for the Chief Minister.The notice came on a complaint by Ravi Kant and Sukumar, two practicing advocates of the Supreme Court, who cited an April 1, 2009 notification issued by the Commission which expressly prohibited display of image or photograph of political functionaries in any form in Government offices or public places. With the elephant being the BSP symbol and the statue of Mayawati who herself would contest the election in the coming State Assembly poll, the petition said, “The Bahujan Samaj Party and the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh have violated the orders of the Election Commission by installing permanent structures of the election symbol replica of BSP and constructing several statues of the Chief Minister in public places in Lucknow and Noida. These structures will severely violate the Model Code of Conduct during elections.”According to the information collected by the complainants, a total of 60 elephant statues would be installed in the State at a total cost of Rs 52.2 crore. Besides a sum of Rs 1940 crore was spent by Mayawati for constructing her statues in several parts of the State. Citing grounds for EC to interfere, the petition stated, “The statues have been put up in vantage points to ensure that the supremacy and fear of the power of the BSP is conveyed to the voter” in a manner to influence them and destroy fair play.
Even the April notification of the Commission stated, “This would have the effect of disturbing the level playing field vis-à-vis the political functionaries of other parties and candidates.” Taking this into account, the petitioners asked the Commission to consider stalling the construction of statues.According to EC sources, the Commission had received the complaint and a copy of it had been sent to the BSP seeking its comments. The matter relating to the validity of statues is already pending in the Supreme Court, which is expected to take up the case for hearing later this month.

SC panel inspects Noida park, meeting on Aug 12

SC panel inspects Noida park, meeting on Aug 12
Smriti Singh , TNN 7 August 2009, 01:09am IST

NOIDA: Mayawati's ambitious Noida memorial was under scrutiny yet again when members of the Supreme Court's centrally-empowered committee (CEC)

visited it on Thursday. The high-level committee including P V Jaikishan, chairman, Sanjeev Chaddha, member-secretary and Mahinder Vyas, member inspected the park along with the petitioners and residents of Noida who had approached the CEC. The inspection took place at 11am amid tight security. Noida police officers were deployed at each entrance, and other than the petitioners, no residents were allowed to go inside. The visit lasted for about an hour. A team of enviromental experts, along with the Uttar Pradesh chief secretary, was also present. The panel has now fixed a meeting with all the parties on August 12. The CEC has asked the ministries of forest for Delhi and Lucknow to be present. After the inspection, petitioner Kanan Vihari Jaiswal said that questions were raised by the panel about the number of trees felled during construction of the park. "The Noida authority confirmed that the project was worth over Rs 600 crores,'' Jaiswal said. The main concern expressed by both committee members and residents was that the memorial park is being constructed next to the Okhla bird sanctuary, in violation of several environmental laws. Commodore Lokesh Batra, an intervener in the PIL and also a resident of Noida, said the panel sought original records which were prepared before execution of the construction plan. Several residents had approached the apex court a few months earlier, accusing the state government of cutting down more than 6000 trees to make way for statues of Mayawati, Kanshi Ram and Dr BR Ambedkar. They had faulted the memorial on three counts it was too close to a protected sanctuary, was located on the riverbed and was almost next to a state boundary. Five parks in Noida had been cleared to make way for this memorial, and until recently, no official from the Noida authority was willing to speak about the project. Recently, Supreme Court advocate Ravi Kant filed a petition in court after which a two-judge bench sent a notice to the UP government. While the bench refused to stay installation of the statues, the government had been given four weeks to reply to the notice, only after which the case could be listed for hearing. However, it has been over five weeks now with no reply from UP. Barely a month ago, a team of the central environment ministry had also inspected the site and found several violations. Soon after its inspection, the area, that had been a virtual sea of concrete till then, was greened with several thousand saplings and grass being planted almost overnight. Workers at the park had reportedly been instructed to finish the work on priority. Last week, 11 statues, wrapped in blue and black, arrived at the park and were installed without much ado.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

NOTICE ISSUED TO BSP BY ECI

हाथी की मूर्तियों पर बसपा को नोटिसनई दिल्ली (एसएनबी)। पूरे उत्तर प्रदेश में अपनी तथा पार्टी के चुनाव चिह्न ‘हाथी’ की मूर्तियां लगवाने के लिए भारत निर्वाचन आयोग ने बसपा प्रमुख मायावती को नोटिस भेजा है। आयोग ने मूर्तियों के रूप में अपनी तथा चुनाव चिह्न ‘हाथी’ पर खर्च हो रही धनराशि के साथ-साथ चुनाव चिह्न के दुरूपयोग पर नोटिस भेजकर 12 अगस्त तक स्पष्टीकरण मांगा है। रविकांत और सुकुमार ने 15 जुलाई को निर्वाचन आयोग को दी अपनी याचिका में कहा है कि बसपा प्रमुख ने पूरे उत्तर प्रदेश में पार्टी के चुनाव चिह्न ‘हाथी’ की मूर्तियां लगवाकर आदर्श चुनाव संहिता का उल्लंघन किया है। याचिका में यह भी कहा गया है कि मायावती अपनी तथा चुनाव चिह्न ‘हाथी’ की जिस तरह से मूर्तियां लगवा रही हैं उससे स्वतंत्र एवं निष्पक्ष चुनाव प्रभावित हो रहा है। याचिका में मायावती को चुनाव लड़ने से रोकने तथा चुनाव चिह्न के दुरूपयोग के चलते बसपा के चुनाव चिह्न को जब्त किए जाने की मांग की गई है। इस याचिका के साथ-साथ निर्वाचन आयोग को दो और याचिकाएं स्वयंसेवी संस्था ‘राष्ट्र निर्माण’ के अतुल कुमार सिंह की आ॓र से 18 जून को तथा ‘कॉमनकाज’ के निदेशक कमलकांत जायसवाल की आ॓र से 25 जून को मिली थी।

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Cabinet steps open to judicial review: Ex-CJI

Cabinet steps open to judicial review: Ex-CJI
TNN 25 July 2009, 12:20am IST

NEW DELHI: Commenting on the recent stand of the Supreme Court over the installation of Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati's statues, former
Chief Justice of India J S Verma on Friday said judicial review of Cabinet decisions was relevant and necessary. Verma referred to the major development activities along the Yamuna riverbed including Akshardham and a 33-hectare stretch along the Yamuna riverbed in Noida being turned into a park dotted with the UP chief minister's statues. Earlier this month, the apex court had taken the stand that if the statue installation had been approved by the Cabinet, it could do nothing. Speaking at a convention on sustainable city development and legal interface in the capital organised by the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), Verma expressed his reservation about the judiciary taking a lenient view of PILs filed in these two cases, whereas it was necessary for making cities sustainable. Referring to the S R Bommai judgment where he himself was a member of the bench, Verma said the ruling empowered the judiciary to review its decision from time to time. He added that it was because of this judgment that the Central Cabinet decision to dissolve Bihar Assembly and bring the state under President's Rule was entertained for review. He expressed his displeasure over the rejection of PILs in the two cases, which have changed the landscape of the Yamuna riverbed. Verma said he was sharing his view from a citizen's perspective. He added that the government should actively participate to bring in transparency and accountability to the system, which has been seriously lacking. Further justifying growing rural migration to cities, the ex-CJI indicated that the facilities available in Delhi in education and health domains were not available elsewhere, therefore more people migrated here. On the other hand, the developers and planners should ensure that essence of equity in the usage of land was maintained, he said. Addressing the gathering, Fali S Nariman, president of Bar Association of India and senior Supreme Court advocate, said that people, who don't take pride in nation, can't take pride in their cities.

Friday, July 10, 2009

SC steers clear of statues

SC steers clear of statues
10 Jul 2009, 2355 hrs IST, TNN NEW DELHI: Two weeks after it sought her response to a PIL questioning her fetish for statues of herself and dalit leaders at a huge cost to the
exchequer, the Supreme Court on Friday gave enough reason for Mayawati to smile about as it refused to stay installation of her statues at Noida and Lucknow. The same petitioners -- Ravi Kant and Sukumar -- on whose PIL SC had issued notice to Mayawati and her government on June 29, again moved an application before a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam and sought stay on installation of her statue at a prime park opposite Noida's posh Sector 15 residential colony. If they got a sympathetic hearing on June 29 from a vacation Bench headed by Justice Dalveer Bhandari, the Bench headed by CJI on Friday matter-of-factly told them that the court's jurisdiction to interfere in such matters was very limited. "If a democratically elected government takes a decision and the House approves it, there is little the courts could do unless diversion or misappropriation of public fund is involved," the Bench said and posted the application seeking stay on the installation of statues along with the main petition. Senior advocates Harish Salve and Satish Chandra Mishra were quick to spin a pun for the petitioners and had even the Bench smirking. "Earlier, people used to challenge the validity of statutes, but now they are challenging the validity of statues," Salve said. The Bench said the petitioners, instead of moving the Supreme Court, should have approached the Allahabad High Court, which was already seized of similar matters. The petitioners had alleged that spending over Rs 1,200 crore from the exchequer on statues by the government was irresponsible, especially when UP had the largest population -- 59 million -- living below the poverty line. They also detailed how massive money was being spent on installing statues of Mayawati and Kanshi Ram in various parks of Lucknow -- Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar Samajik Parivartan Sthal, Manyawar Kanshi Ram Memorial at Alambag, Kanshi Ram Bahujan Nayak Park, Ramabai Ambedkar Rally Maidan, Kanshi Ram Sanskritik Sthal, Dr Ambedkar Samajik Parivartan Prattek Sthal, Manywar Kanshi Ram Yaadgar Vishram Sthal, Buddha Sthal, Eco Park, Samatak Mulak Churaha and Dr Ambedkar Chauraha, Buddha Shanti Upwan and Prerna Sthal.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

NOTICE ISSUED IN MAYAWATI MATTER

REVISEDITEM NO.38 COURT NO.7 SECTION PIL SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 266 OF 2009RAVI KANT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.)Date: 29/06/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY [VACATION BENCH]For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravi Kant, Adv. Mr. Sukumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. U.U. Lalit, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jyotinder Mishra, Sr.Adv. Mr. Pramod Swarup, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.K. Dwivedi, Adv. for Mr. G.V. Rao, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER
Two public spirited persons who are practicing advocates have filed this writ petition in which the grievance has been made that hundreds of crores of public money is being spent by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for personal glorification by erecting statues particularly of leaders who are presently in power. It is also incorporated in the petition that 2the installation of sixty elephants' statue at the cost of RS. 52.20crores is not only wastage of public money but also contrary tothe circulars issued by the Election Commission. It is alleged that the Uttar Pradesh Department ofCulture has almost spent 90% of its budget for erecting thesestatues. In the petition, a reference has been made to thecommunication sent by the Election Commission of India on1.4.2009. The relevant portion of the communication reads asunder: "The underlying intention of the Commission's instruction was that the photographs and images of the political functionaries, who have deep influence on the minds of electors and many of whom are still active in public life and may even be contesting the current general elections, should not be displayed in the government buildings and premises as that would have the effect of disturbing the level playing field vis- a-vis the political functionaries of other parties and candidates. In view of the inputs received, the Commission had issued the above instructions. In the meanwhile, certain doubts have been raised and clarification has been sought about the removal of the images of some national leaders, poets and prominent historical personalities of the past. In this regard, the Commission would like to state that the above mentioned underlying purpose of the instruction needs to be fully appreciated while being acted upon. It is clarified that while the photographs of Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, Ministers and other 3 political functionaries should not be displayed, this instruction, however, is not applicable with regard to the images of national leaders, poets and prominent historical personalities of the past, and the President of India and the Governors. It is further clarified that in case of any doubt in this regard regarding removal of any photograph or images, the issue may be referred to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State/ Union Territory concerned before taking action in the matter." In the petition, it is also mentioned that in the State ofU.P., human development index is among the lowest in thecountry. It is further stated that: 1) U.P. has the lowest literacy rate in the country ­ 56.27% (68.82 male and 42.22 females -2001 census) 2) U.P. tops in India on maternal mortality. 3) In neo natal mortality U.P. is among the top five states. 4) U.P. has the highest number of child labour as per 2001 census. 5) U.P. had the largest number of poor with 59 million living below the poverty line. 6) Out of 97122 villages, 56977 villages are electrified (59%) as per CEA data of 2005. In the petition, it is stated that the State of U.P. needsmore funds for the emancipation of socio economic problems. Itis also stated that it is the duty and obligation of the State tomake policy and programmes for the welfare of the public at 4large and especially for the weaker sections of the society. Thepetitioners would perhaps have no objection if there would havebeen one or two symbolic statues for drawing inspiration in theState. The huge public funds which are otherwise meant forimproving the conditions of millions of people living below thepoverty line cannot be legitimately diverted for erecting statuesand parks. The State must properly set its priorities. Theconcerned authorities in power must realize that they areholding public money in trust and it must be judiciously spent. In the petition, it is alleged that the respondents haveshown utter disregard to the constitutional mandate whiledeciding to spent huge money on installing a very large numberof statues. According to the petitioners, the funds need to beused for the welfare and development of people and particularlyof the weaker sections of the society. Notice to show cause as to why this petition be notadmitted. Mr. G.V. Rao, advocate accepts notice on behalf ofrespondent Nos. 1 & 2. He prays for and is granted four weeks'time to file counter-affidavit. Notice be sent to the remainingrespondents. (Pardeep Kumar) (Neeru Bala Vij) Court Master Court Master

Why the fetish for statues? SC asks Mayawati government

Why the fetish for statues? SC asks Mayawati government

30 Jun 2009, 0106 hrs IST, Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN
NEW DELHI: In what could trip UP chief minister Mayawati's plans to construct grandiose stone images of herself, BSP founder Kanshi Ram and Dalit
icon B R Ambedkar, the Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the leader on a PIL alleging a massive waste of public money. The Supreme Court has indicated that it might have some tough questions for the Mayawati government even as the BSP leader's aide Satish Mishra, who also pleaded her case in court, hit back claiming that monuments and memorials to upper caste leaders never seemed to generate the same concern and outrage. The BSP argued that the developmental work of the Mayawati government never attracted any attention while the monuments were selectively highlighted. The BSP's accusation of a political agenda and bias did not deter the SC from asking for some responses while it explained that it was not passing any sort of interim order. With the PIL arguing that public funds could be better utilised to help UP's poor, the SC seemed to pose a "Why the fetish for your own statues" query for the Mayawati government with a Bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and A K Ganguly quoting from the petition filed by PIL by advocates Ravi Kant and Sukumar. The PIL alleges that spending over Rs 1,200 crore on statues was irresponsible when UP had the largest population -- 59 million -- of people below the poverty line. Not surprisingly, the SC notices left the Mayawati government bristling. Appearing for the state, Mishra tried to convince the Bench that the PIL was politically motivated. He even objected to a large portion of the petitioner's allegations being quoted in the order. When the Bench appeared unimpressed, Mishra gave vent to the anguish of the Mayawati government and said memorials for other leaders seldom raised an eyebrow, except when they were meant for a Dalit icon. He sought to buttress his argument by citing the example of the sprawling Teen Murti Bhawan in Delhi, which is a memorial for the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. "We would like the court also to focus on larger issues like Teen Murti Bhawan which at present would be worth more than Rs 3,000 crore. It hurts when no one questions such memorials. But, if a memorial for Dr Ambedkar is built, then objections are raised," he said after the court issued notices. Earlier, senior advocate U U Lalit said the PIL petitioners had no connection with UP and that all the expenditure on the statues and renovation of parks had been duly sanctioned by the assembly and that nothing was being done without proper sanction. When the court said it has not issued any interim order but was merely seeking response of the state government, Mishra said: "We will bring all the larger issues before the court and it should deal with them." Given the tone and tenor of the arguments, the Mayawati government is sure to list out the number of memorials for upper caste leaders and draw a contrast with the smaller numbers dedicated to Dalit leaders. Mishra also told TOI that huge amounts were being spent by the Mayawati government for the upliftment of the poor, building schools and hospitals besides social upliftment schemes for oppressed class. "The media highlights only the memorials built to honour Dalit leaders and ignores the developmental work of the Mayawati government," he said. Petitioner Ravi Kant, who collated information using the RTI provisions, told the court how massive money was spent on erecting statues of Mayawati and Kanshi Ram in various parks of Lucknow -- Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar Samajik Parivartan Sthal, Manyawar Kanshi Ram Memorial at Alambag, Kanshi Ram Bahujan Nayak Park, Ramabai Ambedkar Rally Maidan, Kanshiram Sanskritik Sthal, Dr Ambedkar Samajik Parivartan Prateek Sthal, Manywar Kanshiram Yaadgar Vishram Sthal, Buddha Sthal, Eco Park, Samata Mulak Churaha and Dr Ambedkar Chauraha, Buddha Shanti Upwan and Prerna Sthal. The petition said all these extravagance was happening when UP had the dubious distinction of having the lowest literacty rate of 56.27%, the highest maternal and neo-natal mortality rate, largest child labour force, largest number of people living below the poverty line and only 59% of villages (56,977 of 97,122) electrified. The petitioners also said that the erection of statues of Mayawati and those of elephants violated the Election Commission's model code of conduct which prohibited display of even pictures of political leaders contesting elections. On the contrary, the Mayawati government was busy installing statues of the chief minister and the party symbol -- elephant -- all over the state, they said.

dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com

QnA: What happens if Mayawati becomes PM of India someday?

40 comments on this story. Read them and post your own.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Maya, Maya and more Maya

Maya, Maya and more Maya

27 Jun 2009, 0255 hrs IST, ET Bureau


NEW DELHI LUCKNOW: UP chief minister Mayawati’s ambitious dream to see herself cast in stone in sprawling parks across the state appears to have
run into a stonewall. Encouraged by the public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Supreme Court questioning the wastage of public funds by the narcissist chief minister to build her own statues and memorials, the opposition parties in UP on Friday joined hands to pull down the chief minister from her high pedestal. While Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav threatened to bulldoze all the structures once his party returns to power, Congress leader Digvijay Singh alleged of graft in the supply of stones for building the BSP leaders’ statues and memorials. The opposition’s onslaught against Ms Mayawati comes soon after the chief minister, in an obvious bid to pre-empt an adverse order by the Supreme Court on the PIL concerned, hurriedly unveiled 15 statues of herself and her mentor Kanshi Ram on Thursday night, almost nine days ahead of the original July 3 schedule. An incensed SP chief lashed out at the brazen move of the chief minister, telling reporters in Lucknow that he will run the bulldozer over all the statues and memorials erected by the Mayawati government the moment SP comes to power. “Bulldozers will be used somewhere,” he replied when asked whether he would demolish the structures if SP comes back to power. Charging the Mayawati regime with letting loose a reign of terror, he said, “a sense of insecurity has gripped the UP government, as it thinks its days are numbered.” Congress, which staged a major comeback in UP in the 2009 Lok Sabha polls by bagging 21 seats, was equally acerbic in its comments on Ms Mayawati’s obsession with setting up her own idols and memorials. In Delhi, Mr Singh demanded an inquiry into the whole episode, accusing her of “wasting public money.” “Money of people is being wasted. People will not forgive her. She has seen the result in Lok Sabha elections earlier... BSP will be finished in 2012,” Mr Singh told reporters. Ever since she came into power in UP two years ago, Ms Mayawati has unveiled several projects involving construction of memorials and statues of herself and other Dalit leaders. The cost involved runs into several thousand crores. Infact, thousands of priceless trees have been cut in Noida’s green belt to make way for a sprawling memorial. Mayawati’s statues are seen as an unaesthetic attempt to cast her in stone, complete with garish details like her trademark handbag. The lack of aesthetics apart, her “memorial” obsession has run into widespread criticism as it is seen as an assault on the public exchequer.

In a PIL filed in the Supreme Court, petitioners Sukumar and Ravi Kant had sought an urgent hearing so that the inaugural function for the memorials, slated for July 3, could be stopped. When the Supreme Court obliged by posting the hearing for June 29, the Mayawati government panicked. In an obvious haste to avoid an adverse order by the court, it decided to inaugurate the memorial and statues, even where construction was yet to be completed, on June 25 itself.