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।