Judicial review by courts in armed forces matters is very limited

In so far as the matters pertaining to Armed Forces (service matters, ie., transfer/posting, etc.,), the judicial review of courts are very limited and narrow.  Judgement of Madras High Court in this regard is reproduced below :-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.01.2013

CORAM:

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

W.P.No.2411 of 2013
&
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013




Abani Ranjan Bhuyan .. Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Chief of the Air Staff
Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhavan
New Delhi 110 011

2. The Air Officer Commanding
Air Force Record Office
Subroto Park
New Delhi 110 010

3. The Air Officer Commanding
No.23, Equipment Depot
Air Force Station Avadi
IAF Avadi Post
Chennai 600 055 .. Respondents






Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records leading to the impugned order (Signal) No.AFRO/RDB/458 Jan/03 dated 3.1.2013 passed by he 2nd respondent  and quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 10th Jan 2013, pending before the 2nd respondent and not to post out the petitioner from the present unit till 12th June 2013 or the petitioner may be given discharge from service with immediate effect.



O R D E R

The petitioner is working in Indian Air Force  Station at Avadi.  He is  in the post of Sergeant and by order dated 3.1.2013, he was transferred to Bhuj Air Force Station in Gujarat State. Challenging the said order, the Writ Petition came to be filed.

2. In the Writ Petition, two grounds were urged.  The first ground was that the petitioner was not given sufficient time as done in the other case and it was done violative of statutory Rules.  Secondly, he was permitted to do Master in Social Work from Bharathiar University and the final examination is scheduled and it is on this ground, the Writ Petition came to be filed.

3. It must be noted that in respect of the service matters in relation to the persons who were subject to Army Act, Navy Act and Air Force Act,  the matter was to be heard by an Armed Forces Tribunal constituted under Section 4 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.  The jurisdiction, power and authority to deal with service matters in terms of Section 14 of the Act, are exclusively vested upon the Tribunal constituted for the said purpose.  The term 'Service matter' is defined under Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act.  Insofar as the transfer and posting including change of place or unit whether individually or in part of the unit, the Tribunal is precluded from going into the same, as it has been excluded from the definition of the term 'service matter'.  Therefore, when the Parliament constituted  the said Tribunal to deal with the members of the Armed Forces, it was given power to deal with service matters except transfer and posting, which undertakes the fact that with relation to member of Armed Forces, the question of transfer and posting cannot be the subject matter of the judicial remedy by the Tribunal.  When Parliament gives limited power to the Tribunal in terms of service matter, which excludes the Tribunal  from dealing with transfer and posting, it does not automatically follow that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution can review what was excluded from the term 'service matter' under Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act.

4. Even otherwise in relation to the members of the Armed Forces covered by the three Acts set out above, the power of the court to judicial review regarding transfer came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Major General J.K.Bansal vs. Union of India and others reported in (2005) 7 SCC 227, and it has been held as as follows:

"12.  It will be noticed that these decisions have been rendered in the case of civilian employees or those who are working in public sector undertakings.  The scope of interference by the courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow.  It is for the higher authorities to decide when and where a member of the armed forces should be posted.  The courts should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of transfer of such category of persons and unless an exceptionally strong case is made out, no interference should be made."

5. In the light of the above, there being very limited judicial review on such matters, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer on the grounds set set out.  There is no case made out.  Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.  The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

SC orders v-recording of new drug clinical trials

The order to video record five new trials follows petitions complaining about lax implementation of the clinical trial regime

NEW DELHI, October 22: The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the government to video record clinical trials of five new drugs, making it tougher for multinationals to shirk responsibility when testing of their patented medicine reacts adversely on patients.

 

A bunch of petitions in the apex court had complained about lax implementation of the clinical trial regime and alleged that multinational manufacturers had exploited the loopholes to make India the testing ground of their new drugs.

 

Countering senior advocate Colin Gonsalves and Sanjay Parekh who argued for halting clinical trial of 162 new drugs permitted by the Drug Controller General till their usefulness for India was established, additional solicitor general Sidharth Luthra said the government had established a three-tier scrutiny system comprising New Drugs Advisory Committee, technical committee and apex committee to examine applications for clinical trials in India.

 

A bench of Justices RM Lodha and SK Singh said as far as the five new drugs permitted for clinical trial after the three-tier examination of its necessity were concerned, it would like patients undergoing clinical trials to be video recorded and the recordings preserved. It also asked the government to keep the identity of patients who were video recorded confidential.

 

Since the remaining 157 drugs were cleared before the three-tier system was put in place, the court ordered that they be subjected to scrutiny by technical committee and the apex committee keeping in mind three parameters - assessment of risk against benefits, innovation value compared to the existing options and medical need in the country.

 

The court said it would consider the petitioners' plea for halting the ongoing clinical trial for these 157 drugs after getting a report from the technical committee and the apex committee. Petitioners cited the parliamentary committee report on clinical trials to argue that norms were followed in breach and that most of the drugs under trial would benefit the multinationals.

 

Taking into account the petitioners' concern, the bench asked Luthra whether the government had information as to how many drugs under clinical trial in India were patented outside. "The clinical trials conducted in India must help us and not others. The apprehension of the petitioners must be allayed reasonably," it said.

 

"With regard to the suggestions received by the central government from various stakeholders — National Human Rights Commission, advocate Sanjay Parekh, SAMA Resource Group for Women and Health & Locost Standard Therapeutics and Indian Society for Clinical Research and the central government's views thereon shall be considered by this court on December 16 along with pending applications."

 

Source & Credit: Dhananjay Mahapatra, The Times of India

The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on the Saharagroup after it found that the group had not satisfactorily complied with the court’s October order to submit title deeds of properties worth over Rs 20,000 crore. The court imposed restrictions on the entire group from selling any immoveable or moveable property and barred its promoter Subrata Roy Sahara from leaving the country. 

 

The order was passed in a contempt case filed by Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) against two group companies Sahara India real Estate and Sahara Housing Invest, which allegedly have not complied with the Supreme Court’s August 2012 order to refund Rs 24,029 crore they raised by issuing optionally fully convertible debentures(OFCD). Sahara, which paid Rs 5,120 crore to Sebi, claims it has refunded the rest directly to investors. 

 

The court adjourned the contempt proceedings to December 11. 

 

Last month, the apex court had directed the group to file original title deeds of properties worth Rs 20,000 crore to cover its dues.  It emerged that there were several flaws in the documents filed by the group.  

 

“They have not complied with the order. They also know it. Everybody knows it,” Judge KS Radhakrishnan said after hearing the explanation of Sahara counsel CA Sundaram and Sebi’s counter arguments. 

 

When Sundaram pleaded with the court to clarify which part of the order they have not complied with, Radhakrishnan said “This property is not worth Rs 19,000 crore.”

 

Judge JS Khehar told Sundaram, “It is not for you to understand. It is for Sahara to understand.”

 

Earlier, Sundaram had presented a detailed explanation of a valuation report of the 106-acre property in Versova done by Knight Frank. He presented an additional clarificatory report from the valuer explaining the methodology of valuation. He also presented an additional report by a second valuer. 

 

Both entities had put the valuation of the property between Rs 18,800 crore – Rs 19,300 crore under internationally accepted valuation methods such as market approach method and income method. 

 

The Sahara counsel also presented an additional clarificatory report from Knight Frank addressing certain objections raised by Sebi on Wednesday. He said the property was located in close to the upmarket Andheri-Lokhandwala complex in Mumbai and was within a kilometre’s distance from the proposed Metro terminus in Versova. The property also was said to enjoy a premium for its sea-view, being located between a river and the sea.

 

He said, quoting the valuers, that a residential complex developed by Oberoi just opposite the plot was selling flats at rates of Rs 36,000 per square feet. Windsor, another developer in the vicinity, was selling at Rs 30,000 to rs 35000 per square feet.

 

The valuers assumed an average rate of between Rs 27,000 to Rs 37,000 per square feet. This translated into a value of Rs 181-190 crore per acre, which in turn put the value of the entire plot.

 

But, all these arguments came to a naught, when Arvind Datar, the Sebi counsel pointed out that the entire property was situated in the middle of a “no-development zone” and that there was a clear direction by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests barring any development. “It is in the green zone. Nothing can be built on it. The FSI allowed is 0.5 and that is why there was a plan to develop a golf course.”

 

Datar also pointed out that the land was part of a larger disputed area of 614 acres and Sahara has been engaged in legal disputes with the original owners B Jeejeebhoy Wakaria and associates since 2001. 

 

Datar pointed out that the court direction was to submit “title deeds” and not reports of investment value. He submitted in view of the facts submitted that this property could not be considered worth more than Rs 118 crore.  

 

Sundaram pointed that there was a notification issued by Maharashtra government in December 2012 allowing development of townships alongside transport corridor and this would allow Sahara to develop the township. But, neither Sebi nor the court was convinced.  

Source & Credit - Business Standard.com

People with non-judicial background can be CIC: SC

In a significant ruling, the apex court recalled its own verdict on the appointment of central, state information commissioners across the country

  NEW DELHI, September 3: The Supreme Court on Tuesday recalled an order and admitted that it committed a "mistake of law" by directing that only sitting or retired high court chief justices or an apex court judge could head the central and state information commissions.

A bench of justices A K Patnaik and A K Sikri withdrew its order of September 13, last year in which a slew of directions were passed pertaining to appointment of information commissioners.

"It was mistake of law. We recall the directions," the bench said while reading out the operative portion of its judgement on a petition filed by the Centre seeking review of its last year's order. The Centre had sought review of the apex court's verdict, saying it is against the provisions of the transparency law.

The apex court, in its judgement last year, had said that like other quasi judicial bodies, people from judicial background be also appointed as members of the central and state information commissions and this should be done after consulting the CJI and chief justices of the respective high courts.

The court had directed the government to amend RTI Act for it. "Chief Information Commissioner at the Centre or state level shall only be a person who is or has been a chief justice of the high court or a judge of the Supreme Court of India," the court had said.

The bench had passed the order on a PIL challenging section 12 and 15 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, enumerating the qualifications needed for the appointment of members of the commissions. The bench had, however, refused to quash the sections but asked the government to modify them so that people from judicial background are also preferred for the posts.

Source & Credit: Deccan Chronicle

Reserve Bank of India has directed two Non-Banking Financial Companies(NBFCs), viz., Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. (MFCL) and Manappuram Finance Ltd.(MAFIL) to stop allowing the use of its premises / branches to acceptdeposits from public by their associate unincorporated bodies.

RBI directive on acceptance of deposit by Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. (MFCL) and Manappuram Finance Ltd.

NBFC Deposit Scheme

The Reserve Bank of India has directed two Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs), viz., Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. (MFCL) and Manappuram Finance Ltd. (MAFIL) to stop allowing the use of its premises / branches to accept deposits from public by their associate unincorporated bodies.

Muthoot Estate Investment (MEI), was collecting public deposits through the branches of MFCL located in Kerala, which is a violation of the provisions of section 45-S of the RBI Act, 1934. The Manappuram Agro Farms (MAGRO), a sole proprietary concern of Shri V.P. Nandakumar (Executive Chairman of MAFIL) was accepting fresh deposits from the public. MAFIL, which was earlier a deposit taking (Category ‘A’) company, became a non-deposit taking NBFC in March, 2011. However, its maturing deposits were being renewed with MAGRO. Both these actions were in violations of section 45-S of RBI Act, 1934.

In the case of the MEI, total amount of deposits from the public and outstanding as on 31.01.2012 was Rs. 1,913 crore. Out of these unauthorized deposits accepted by the unincorporated body, an amount of Rs. 1,173 crore was outstanding as on 30.06.2013. RBI has issued a press release and an advertisement in local newspapers informing and cautioning the public that it was not allowed to raise deposits under the provisions of the RBI Act. RBI has issued a show cause notice to MFCL under section 45-IA of the RBI Act. RBI has also referred the matter of deposit collection by MEI to State Government of Kerala for appropriate action at their end under Chapter IIIC of the RBI Act, 1934 as the State has necessary machinery and reach for action.

RBI had issued directions to the MFCL under section 45-L of the RBI Act, 1934 to desist from associating itself, its premises, branches or officials in any manner with MEI in accepting deposits from the public.

As regards MAGRO, out of Rs. 143.85 crores of public deposits held by MAGRO as on 29.12.2011, there are currently 506 customers with Rs. 93 lakhs in outstanding deposits.

A show cause notice was issued to MAFIL on 07.05.2013 for cancellation of its Certificate of Registration under the provisions of section 45-IA (6) of the RBI Act, 1934. Based on the company’s reply and the findings of the scrutiny thereon, it was concluded that MAFIL has taken steps for disassociating its name, officials, etc. from MAGRO and other promoter group entities. At present, MAGRO does not have presence in any of the branches of MAFIL. Further, an amount of Rs. 119.18 crore was transferred to an escrow account maintained with Punjab National Bank towards repayment of deposits. At present, the remaining amount of outstanding deposits is being paid out of this escrow account.

This was stated by Shri Namo Narain Meena, MoS in the Ministry of Finance in written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha.

CCI penalises shoe companies

CCI imposes penalty of Rs. 6.25 crores on 11 Shoe Companies

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has imposed a penalty of Rs. 625.43 Lakhs on 11 Companies in a case filed by Director General-Supplies & Disposal (DGS&D), New Delhi relating to a tender for supply of polyester blended duck ankle boots rubber sole. CCI found these 11 Companies to have violated the provisions of Competition Act, 2002 which deals with anticompetitive agreements. CCI had worked out the penalty @ 5% on the average of the gross turnover for financial years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. CCI has directed these companies to deposit thepenalty amount within 60 days from the receipt of the order.

This case was initiated on a reference made by Director General-Supplies & Disposal (DGS&D), Department ofCommerce, Ministry of Commerce & industry, Govt. of India, New Delhi. The reference pertained to a tender enquiry dated 14.06.2011 for conclusion of new rate contracts for polyester blended duck ankle boots rubber sole. Thereference alleged bid rigging and market allocation by the suppliers while bidding against the above tender enquiry.

After a detailed investigation, Competition Commission of India held that the bidder-suppliers by quoting identical/ near identical rates had, indirectly determined prices/rates in the Rate Contracts finalized by DG S&D and indulged in bid rigging/ collusive bidding in contravention of the provisions of section 3(1) read with section 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(d) of the Act. Further, the Commission noted that the parties had also controlled/ limited the supply of the product in question and shared the market of the product amongst themselves under an agreement/ arrangement in contravention of the provisions of section 3(1) read with sections 3(3)(b), 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) of the Act.

Accordingly, CCI directed the contravening parties to cease and desist from indulging in such anti-competitive conduct in future. The Commission also imposed a penaltyon each of the contravening company at the rate of 5% of the average turnover of the company.

The order of the Commission has been passed in Ref. Case No. 01 of 2012 and a copy of the order has been uploaded on the website of CCI at www.cci.gov.in.

Supreme Court stays execution of Maganlal - The Hindu

Supreme Court stays execution of Maganlal - The Hindu

Shameless to continue in the post!

SC moved for Balakrishnan’s removal as NHRC chief

The Supreme Court was moved Friday seeking direction to the government to start proceedings for the removal of former Chief Justice of India K.G.Balakrishnan as the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission.

NGO Common Cause has sought direction to the government that it should make a reference to the apex court under Section 5(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act for holding an inquiry against Justice Balakrishnan for his alleged acts of misbehaviour during his tenure as CJI.

The NGO, in its PIL, alleged that during the tenure of Justice Balakrishnan, his close relatives including his daughters and sons-in-laws acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income.

It has also alleged that ‘benami’ (proxy) properties were purchased in the name of his former aide M. Kannabiran.

The PIL said that Justice Balakrishnan approved “evasive and false replies given by CPIO, Supreme Court in response to the RTI application filed by Subhash Chandra Agarwal regarding declaration of assets by judges…”

It claimed that the response to RTI application also suppressed a letter written by a high court judge alleging that then union minister A. Raja tried to interfere in his judicial function and alleged Balakrishnan lied to the press that he had not received any such letter.

The PIL said that the government has neither taken action nor responded to its representation seeking reference to the apex court for an inquiry into the misbehaviour of the former chief justice.

(Source:IANS)

Very very lenient way of punishing corrupt!

Two Years Rigorous Imprisonment to Then Deputy Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise in a Disproportionate Assets Case

            The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, has convicted Shri. K.R Velu, then Deputy Commissioner Customs & Central Excise, Chennai in a disproportionate assets case and sentenced him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/-.

            A case was registered on 07.08.2002 against Shri K.R Velu, then Deputy Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Chennai; his wife and his daughters on the allegation that Shri K R Velu while working as Customs & Central Excise had abused his official position and acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The investigation revealed that during the check period from 01.01.1986 to 09.08.2002, Shri K R Velu, had allegedly acquired assets both movable & immoveable to the tune of Rs.75,65,964/-(approx) in his name & in the names of his wife & daughters, and incurred an expenditure of Rs.26,65,304/- as against his total income of Rs.49,26,516/-. Shri K R Velu had fraudulently & dishonestly opened savings bank account in name of his father in Corporation Bank Mylapore Branch, Chennai in August 2000 by forging the signature of his father in the bank application forms & vouchers and opened Fixed Deposits in the nameof his father, while his father expired in 1998 itself. Investigation also revealed that Shri K R Velu had allegedly opened & operated savings accounts and Fixed Deposit in various fictitious names. The disproportionate assets held by him against his known sources of income was calculated to Rs.53,04,752/-(approx) which was 107 %.

            CBI filed charge sheet against Shri K.R Velu; his wife and his daughters U/s 120 B IPC r/w sec 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988; U/s 467, 468 and 471 IPC, and specific offences under 193 IPC.

            On completion of the trial, the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, convicted Shri K R Velu, and acquitted his wife & daughters.

Source- CBI Press Release, New Delhi , 05.08.2013

UPDATION OF COURT/TRIBUNALS INFORMATION AT GOVERNMENT WEBSITES FOR THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC

On 05^th August 2013, there was a case posted before National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone), Chennai [APPLICATION No. 90/2013, Indian council for Enviro Legal Action & 2 others Vs. UOI & 230 others].  The said case is an environmental issue case transferred from A.P. High Court to the Green Bench at Chennai.  To locate the address of the Tribunal, several problems were faced by several litigants who were from A.P., and most of them are first-time visitors to the Tribunal.  Astonishingly, there is no mention about this Tribunal  even at Supreme Court website, leave alone Madras High Court website.  Google search also proved futile. 

The Southern Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the first permanent zonal bench, which is operational since December 2012 cover four southern States and the Union Territories of Puducherry and Lakshadweep.  Already, environment-related cases in the Green Benches of the High Courts of the southern States were being transferred to the NGT’s southern zonal branch. The objective would be to provide effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environment protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources, including enforcement of legal rights and compensation or damages in environment matters.  NGT has got original and appellate jurisdiction on matters pertaining to seven Acts related to water, air, forest conservation, environment protection and biological diversity.  Being such an important Tribunal, non-availability of it’s web-presence/search engines absence about its’ location is a matter of concern!

If all the Courts/Tribunals address (including phone numbers) are displayed at appropriate Government websites (including SC website), it will be useful to the litigants.  

The Tribunal is located at 950/1, TNPCB Building, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600106.  (From Koyambedu Bus Stand it is reachable by share-Auto).  

What about black market/looters?

No sand mining from riverbed without green nod

As the row over suspended Uttar Pradesh IAS officer Durga Shakti Nagpal rages unabated, the National Green Tribunal Monday restrained sand mining from riverbeds across the country without prior environmental clearance.

Issuing notice to chief secretaries of all states, the tribunal said large scale mining activity was carried on in violation of laws, causing losses to state revenues to the tune of lakhs 

of crores of rupees.

The five-member bench headed by tribunal chairperson Justice Swatanter Kumar asked the states to respond by Aug 14.

The bench said the contention is that majority of those carrying out activity of removing minerals from the river bed have no licence to extract sand.

“In the meantime, we restrain any person, company, authority to carry out any mining activity or removal of sand, from river beds anywhere in the country without obtaining environmental clearance from environment ministry and licence from the competent authorities,” the order said.

Nagpal, a 28-year-old 2009 batch officer of the Indian Administrative Service, who had taken on the sand mafia in Noida, was suspended by the Uttar Pradesh government July 29.

The state government suspended Nagpal accusing her of jeopardising communal harmony by ordering demolition of a wall of a mosque. She has denied the charge.

The green tribunal said removal of minerals from river beds was posing threat to their flow, forests on river banks and most seriously to the environment of these areas.

Citing a Supreme Court order, the bench said: “Anyone carrying mining activity in less than five hectares, are expected to take environment clearance.”

“Besides, sand mining on either side of the rivers … is one of the causes for environmental degradation and also a threat to the biodiversity,” it said.

The bench directed the deputy commissioners, superintendents of police and mining authorities of all states to ensure compliance of the order.

(Source:IANS)

Honouring extradition agreement

Abu Salem’s prosecution under death penalty law to be withdrawn

Supreme Court Monday allowed CBI to withdraw the prosecution of mafia don Abu Salem under the provisions of criminal law that attracts death penalty.

The apex court bench headed by Chief Justice P. Sathasivam also vacated the stay on the trial of the cases going on against Salem in several courts across the country.

While disposing off the petition by Abu Salem, the court ruled out his return to Portugal from where he was extradited to face trial for his alleged involvement in 1996 Mumbai serial bomb blast cases.

Salem had moved the apex court challenging his trial under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) which mandatorily attracts death penalty. He had contended when he was extradited, the government had given an undertaking that he would not be tried under the provisions of criminal law that attracts death sentence.

Chd UT CAT ruling

Retirement age of teachers enhanced to 62 from 60

Now, government teachers to retire at 62 instead of 60

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh on Wednesday ordered that retirement age of teachers in government medical colleges be increased to 62 years from 60 years.

The UT administration, which follows service conditions including retirement age as specified by the Punjab government, was supposed to increase the age of retirement after Punjab increased the age of superannuation in November 2011.

However, since the UT administration did not comply with the decision, an appeal was filed in the CAT by Dr. Harsh Mohan, head of the Pathology department at the Government Medical College.

Mohan, who was to retire on July 31 this year, sought direction from the CAT that the age of retirement for medical teachers in government medical colleges be changed to 62 years.

Dr. Harsh Mohan said “I am happy as I will be able to serve the institution for some more time and share my experience with my colleagues and students”.

He had earlier made a representation to the Department of Medical Education in April 2012 and January 2013.

However, the administration did not convey any decision to him following which Mohan sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Mohan then came to know that the matter was under active consideration of administration and had been referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs.

In 2007, when the Punjab government increased the retirement age from 58 to 60 years, the UT administration did not follow the decision.

Following this an appeal was filed in CAT which ordered the UT administration to increase the age in 2008.

Source : www.indianexpress.com

[http://www.indianexpress.com/news/now-government-teachers-to-retire-at-62-instead-of-60/1149680/]

Court wants to know mechanism for complaints on social sites

The Delhi High Court Friday asked Google and Facebook to inform it about their mechanism to deal with complaints, including misuse of social networking sites by children below 13 years of age.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice B.D. Ahmed and Justice Vibhu Bakhru asked the social networking site and the search engine to appraise it about the procedure they follow to deal with complaints and posted the matter Aug 23.

The court’s direction came on a PIL filed by former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader K.N. Govinda charya alleging that the websites have no mechanism for protection of children from online abuse.

The bench also asked the sites to hand over at least one complaint with regard to minors having accounts on such websites.

Advocate Virag Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, was also asked by the court to give a complaint to the information technology ministry who will then forward it to Facebook and Google Inc, which also runs social networking site Orkut.

Meanwhile, the bench also expressed its displeasure after the social networking sites told the court that they cannot display on its home page a statement that children below 13 are not allowed to open an account on these social networking sites.

The counsel for Google Inc told the court that the website is being governed by American law the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and it cannot display the statement in the home page as the Indian IT law and the rules also did not mandate it to do so.

The plea had said that children below 18 years are getting into an agreement with the social networking sites to open accounts which is against the Indian Majority Act, the Indian Contract Act and also the Information and Technology Act.

(Source: IANS)

RTI amendment

Amendment to the Right to Information Act, 2005

Press Information Bureau 

Government of India 

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions

02-August-2013 14:41 IST

Amendment to the Right to Information Act, 2005

The Union Cabinet has approved introduction of a Bill in the coming session of the Parliament to amend the Right to Information Act, 2005, to exclude the political parties from the definition of Public authority for the purpose of the Act.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) in its decision dated 03.06.2013, has held that the political parties, namely, AICC/INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP, and BSP are public authorities under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. While deciding that the said political parties are public authorities, the CIC has relied mainly on the grounds that there is substantial (indirect) financing of political parties by the Central Government and they perform public duty.

The political parties are registered with the Election Commission under the provisions of section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Under this section any small group of persons, if they so desire, can be registered as a political party by making a simple declaration under sub-section (5) of section 29A.

With reference to the political parties, detailed provisions exist in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which provides for dissemination of information relating to political parties, candidates and donations. The said Act, inter alia, provides for –

•    Registration with the Election Commission of associations and bodies as political parties (section 29A) 

•    Political parties entitled to accept contribution (section 29B) 

•    Declaration of donation received by the political parties (section 29C) 

•    Declaration of assets and liabilities (section 75A) 

•    Account of election expenses and maximum thereof (section 77) 

•    Lodging of account with the district election officer (section 78) 

•    Penalty for filing false affidavit etc. (section 125A)

The above provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 indicate that there are sufficient provisions in the Act to deal with each and every aspect of financing, its declaration and punishment for filing false affidavit and all such information is made available to the public through the website of the Election Commission.

Under section 13A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the political parties claiming exemption from tax are required to file their return of income before the due date before the tax authorities along with audited accounts; and form 24A prescribed under section 29C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Rule 85B of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 declaring the list of persons making donations to the political parties exceeding 20,000/- rupees.

As per section 138 of the Income-tax Act, any information with the Income-tax Department would be ordinarily held confidential, but can be made public, if in the judgment of the Commissioner of Income-tax, it serves public purpose.

Under section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for failure to lodge the account of election expenses as per the requirement of law, the defaulting candidate may be disqualified by the Election Commission for three years from the date of the order of disqualification.

Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides that each political party shall submit report to the Election Commission (before filing its income-tax return) regarding all contributions in excess of 20000/- rupees received by it in a financial year and failure to submit this report will deprive them of the tax benefit. Further, the candidates are required to file affidavit along with their nomination papers giving the annual income of the candidate and filing of false affidavit attract punishment for furnishing wrong information.

The RTI Act was enacted to provide for an effective framework for effectuating the right of information recognised under Article 19 of the Constitution. The RTI Act was enacted to ensure greater and more effective access to information by making the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 more progressive, participatory and meaningful.

The definition of public authority given in clause (h) of section 2 of the RTI Act is well defined to include only such authority or body constituted by or under the Constitution or by any law made by Parliament which is substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. The political parties do not fall within the parameters of the definition of public authority given in the RTI Act, as they are only registered and recognised under the RP Act, 1951.

Retirement age enhancement regarding

Retirement Age 62 – Cabinet decision to increase retirement age deferred

Cabinet decision to increase retirement age deferred

The government may make the announcement in the Prime Minister’s 15 August address…

A proposal to increase the retirement age of government employees from 60 to 62 years came to the Cabinet on Thursday but a decision was deferred. The government might make the announcement in the Prime Minister’s Independence Day address, his last before general elections in 2014. The ministry of personnel, public grievances and pensions has proposed an increase in retirement age of government employees from 60 to 62 years, top sources confirmed.

There are around five million central government employees in India. The previous occassion the government raised the retirement age of central government employees was in 1998, from 58 to 60 years. The move is meant to ease the financial burden on the government in terms of its pension liabilities, sources said.

The retirement age of professors in all central universities was recently raised to 65 years. D L Sachdev, national secretary of the All India Trade Union Congress, said his union was totally against the increase of the retirement age beyond 60. It would hurt the youth, especially when the government is doing nothing to create jobs for them, Sachdev said.

Congress-affiliated Indian National Trade Union Congress national president Sanjeeva Reddy said his union had been demanding increase in the retirement age to 62 years and would welcome it.

Minister for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions V Narayanaswami had ruled out an increase in the retirement age to a question in Parliament in the winter session this year. An official in the ministry, when asked, refused to speak about it.

Source : www.business-standard.com 

[ -->

Cancellation of bail on 2G case

SC notice to Unitech MD

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear CBI’s plea for cancellation of bail granted to Sanjay Chandra, MD of Unitech Ltd, in 2G case for allegedly trying to “sabotage the trial” and issued notice to him.

A bench headed by Justice G S Singhvi granted two weeks time to Mr. Chandra to file his response on CBI’s petition alleging that he had misused the relief given to him by approaching the then CBI prosecutor A K Singh and trying to “materially interfere” with the prosecution in an “attempt to influence” the conduct and outcome of the trial.

The CBI has sought recall of the apex court’s November 23, 2011 order by which he was granted bail.

It has alleged that conduct of Mr. Chandra was questionable during the period of bail as he was found holding discussion with the prosecutor about crucial witnesses.

“It is apparent the freedom granted to accused by means of enlargement from custody has been misused by him and that allowing him to continue unabated will be detrimental to the conduct of this trial and to the greater public interest,” CBI has said in its application.

His conversation with the prosecutor, who was removed from the case, reflected that the entire strategy of CBI in dealing with the case was compromised, the agency has said.

The CBI said it had registered a Preliminary Enquiry report which named Chandra and prosecutor Singh.

The investigation also suggested that the conversation took place between the two when the statement of crucial witness A K Srivastava, Department of Telecom’s former Deputy Director General (AS) was being recorded in the court, it has said.

The agency has also stated that the CFSL report has also confirmed that the recorded conversation was neither tampered with nor any editing was done and it was the voice of Chandra and Singh.

PAN card application fee

Foreign citizens/NRIs can now pay PAN application fee in any currency using Credit /Debit Card

As per information uploaded on NSDL website Facility for payment of PAN application fee in Indian Rupees & foreign currency by foreign citizens/NRIs using ‘Credit Card/Debit Card’ is now available for those applicants who apply PAN online.

Foreign Citizen /NRI if If communication Address is within India can pay by any of the following methods :-

   - Demand Draft

 - Cheque   - Credit Card / Debit Card  +

– Net Banking

If any of addresses i.e. office address or residential address is a foreign address, the payment can be made only by way of Credit Card / Debit card and Demand Draft payable at Mumbai.

Cash-at-door: Order to frame charges against ex-judge (retired peacefully)

Cash-at-door: Order to frame charges against ex-judge

A CBI special court Wednesday ordered the framing of charges against retired high court judge Nirmal Yadav accused of corruption and conspiracy in the Rs.1.5 million cash-at-door scandal.

Justice (retired) Yadav will have to be present in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) special court here Aug 12 when charges would be framed. She had been exempted from court appearance till now.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court was hit by a scandal after a packet containing Rs.1.5 million was found Aug 13, 2008 at the doorstep of the Sector 11 house of a newly-appointed judge Nirmaljit Kaur. She complained to police and got a case registered.

Yadav was also a judge in the high court here when the scandal came to light.

The police later arrested then Haryana additional advocate general Sanjeev Bansal, property dealer Rajiv Gupta and Delhi-based hotelier Ravinder Singh in this connection.

Police claimed Bansal and Gupta told them that the money was meant for Justice Nirmal Yadav.

The two claimed that another packet containing Rs.1.5 million was separately delivered to Yadav at her Sector 24 official residence later, since the first packet was wrongly delivered to the other woman judge, police said.

A case was registered by the Chandigarh Police initially and later the investigation was handed over to the CBI.

Despite objections from Yadav, the Supreme Court had set up an independent enquiry into the case. The high court , in 2011, directed Yadav to appear before the trial court.

Yadav was later transferred to the Uttarakhand High Court from where she retired in 2012.

The CBI filed a charge-sheet against Yadav for corruption, conspiracy, destruction of evidence and creation of false evidence.

(Source: IANS)

Now, everyone will start asking like this!

2G case: AIIMS team checks Dayalu Ammal’s health

A four-member team of medical experts from New Delhi’s AIIMS carried out a check on Dayalu Ammal, the wife of DMK president M Karunanidhi, here on Saturday to ascertain whether she is in a good condition to depose before a CBI court in the 2G telecom scam.

A key prosecution witness in the case, Dayalu Ammal, 84, is one of the directors of Kalaignar television. She has sought exemption from appearing and deposing before the trial court on grounds of her old age and ailments.

The medical team arrived at her Gopalapuram residence at around 11.30 am and completed their work by 2 pm. The team will submit its report to the apex court which earlier this month ordered the director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to set up a medical board to examine her health condition.

 The court passed the order on a petition filed by her daughter Selvi seeking an order to exempt her mother from appearing before the trial court as prosecution witness on health grounds.

Selvi’s counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted to the court that Dayalu Ammal had been diagnosed with cognitive and behavioural abnormalities and was suffering from Alzhemier’s disease.

The case relates to the receipt of Rs 200 crore by Kalaignar TV Pvt Ltd, in which Dayalu Ammal owns 60 percent stake. The remaining stakes were shared equally by Karunanidhi’s daughter (by another wife) Kanimozhi and channel CEO Sharad Kumar.

The Rs 200 crore received by Kalaignar TV is alleged to be a bribe from Dynamix Realty through Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt Ltd and Cineyug Films Pvt Ltd, connected to Shahid Usman Balwa of Swan Telecom.

Former telecom minister A Raja is also an accused in the case.

Though Karunanidhi’s wife holds more than a majority stake in Kalaignar TV, the CBI has not termed her as an accused as she was just fulfilling a legal responsibility after delegating day-to-day operations to CEO Kumar.

(Source: IANS )

Regulation on clinical trials

SC seeks firm set-up to regulate new drugs’ clinical trials

The Supreme Court Friday asked the central government to discuss with states all facets of a legal framework to regulate and monitor clinical trials of new drugs by foreign firms across India.

A bench of Justice R.M.Lodha and Justice Madan B. Lokur also asked petitioner Swasthya Adhikar Manch, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), NGOs and other organisations to submit their suggestions for strengthening the legal regime to regulate clinical trials so as to minimise the harm to the patients upon whom the new drugs were being tested.

The court asked the union health secretary to call a meeting of the chief secretaries/health secretaries of the states and union territories and report to it on the outcome as it directed the next hearing Sep 24.

The court’s order came on a public interest litigation by Swasthya Adhikar Manch of Indore and others who sought a halt to “unethical” clinical trials by multinational drug companies of their new products in India and treating of Indian patients as guinea pigs.

Complimenting the NGO and others for focusing on the issue, Justice Lodha said: “Your efforts have brought some changes. They (government) have become conscious of difficulties or the problems people are facing.”

Noting that the central govenment has taken some measures to strengthen the mechanism to regulate the clinical trials, the court said: “What we are interested in is that what has happened in the past should not get repeated. Arrest the recurrence of death and side effects because of clinical trials.”

The court’s observation came after Additional Solicitor General Siddartha Luthra told the court that the government was bringing amendments to the law that will put in place a stringent regulatory mechanism and provide for punitive punishment for those violating it.

He told the court that amendments would be effected in the monsoon session of parliament.

Making clear that it was up to the government to take the call to put in place a strong legal regime to regulate the clinical trials, the court said that alternatively it will have to step in.

In the course of the hearing, the court asked Luthra why can’t there be a committee to oversee the clinical trials.

“Why don’t you consider constitution of an oversight committee to oversee all such clinical trials?” it asked.

“Technology must grow”, Justice Lodha said, adding that “regulation has to be in such a way that no harm is caused (to the patients tht was begin tested upon) or it is minimized”.

The court’s observation came in response to Luthra’s submission that the available medicines had to develop to treat new strains of diseases. He said that people suffering from ailments defying treatments volunteer to be tested on new medicines.

Senior counsel Colin Gonsalves, appearing for one of the petitioners, said the statutory provision for regulating clinical trials was good but was not being enforced.

On the other hand, senior counsel Sanjay Parikh told the court that there was nothing new in the government response and it was same as it had given to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health.

“New chemical entities that have not been tested should not be allowed to be tested in India as they were resulting in deaths,” Parikh said, alleging that in fact it were the drug companies that were authoring reports on their drugs on which the drug controller was putting his signatures.

(Source: IANS)

An interesting Land-grabbing case 

A lady who was in need of loan for her son's business had approached a person who promised her to obtain a bank loan.  As the process was getting delayed, he has introduced her to a Bank Manager who has given her Rs. 50,000/- loan after taking her land documents (the land was situated near chennai sub-urban area and was having a value of Rs. 1,50,000/- during that period).  When she tried to obtain the documents from the lender after a year.  He simply told her that the land has been sold as she has not paid interest and principal in time.  When she approached me, I asked her as to whether she has signed any document and/or visited Registrar office.  She said that she has signed some loan documents and not visited any registrar office to execute any deed.  I asked her to lodge a criminal complaint against the lender and his accomplice.  Unfortunately, there was no land-grabbing cell operating at that time in Tamil Nadu Police Department.  As usual, they asked her to go to Civil Court and obtain remedy.   Meanwhile, I had a thought that there must be some document registered which is why the lender is so adamant.  When checked through the Registrar office concerned, no encumbrance (that time General Power of Attorney Document was not reflected in Encumbrance Certificate, hence, that needed to be checked personally).  To be on a safer side, the lady's self-acquired plot of land was settled to her younger son by way of a Settlement Deed. After registration of settlement deed, obtained an Encumbrance Certificate to verify the registration. In the EC, there was a Sale entry (luckily the Sale Deed was registered a day after our Settlement Deed).  A copy of the Sale Deed was obtained and it was seen from the document that the lady has appointed the lender as her Power Agent and by virtue of that document he has sold the land.  As I had some sort of premonition or something learned through practice, I have drafted the Settlement Deed in Tamil in which a sentence was included ''The land being settled herein is not encumbered in any manner and I have not executed any General Power of Attorney Deed and if there is any such GPA it will not have effect after this Settlement Deed, etc..''.  After learning that the land was sold illegally by the lender, a Legal Notice was issued to him and the buyer, which did not invoke any response (other than that the Buyer of the land  threatened my clients and me when his negotiation to buy us failed), hence, a Private Complaint was lodged at Magistrate Court to direct the police to investigate the case and register complaint. During the admission stage, the Magistrate asked as to how the ''Prohibition of charging exorbitant interest Act'' (in Tamil ''கந்து வட்டி தடுப்பு சட்டம்'', which was enacted during that time by Tamil Nadu Govt after the suicidal death of one famous film producer) will be applicable in this case. As the act defined the ''exorbitant interest'' as the one in which the lender charges his borrower any money or material (in Tamil ''பணமாகவோ அல்லது பொருளாகவோ''), my submission was admitted and the police were directed accordingly.  (Even my colleagues were having negative thoughts that the case will not stand!).  When the Buyer learned this, he paid my clients a reasonable amount which was reached after several negotiation meetings!  Thereafter, the case was withdrawn and also the Settlement Deed cancelled.  This case ran for about 2 1/2 years and I have endured several threatening as well as resisted several offers of money (At one time, the accused were even offering 1/2 of what they were asked to pay the legitimate owners!).   

Looking back, feeling satisfied that if you are right, everything will be right! Listening to inner-voice helps, always!

A point of mention that the TN Govt has initiated several steps to safeguard the interest of the innocents.  (i)  There is a separate cell operating at TN Police department to handle land-grabbing cases, (ii)  General Power of Attorney document registration is to be made at the concerned registrar office where the property is located, (iii)  GPA entry endorsement is reflected in Encumbrance Certificate, which will alert the buyers regarding the existence of such document, (iv)  Registration fee for GPA (for appointing an Agent who is not a family member) enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. 

Stay for hearing BCCI matter by CIC

CIC adjourns BCCI hearing

The Central Information Commission today adjourned a crucial hearing on declaring the Indian cricket board as public authority under RTI Act after the sports body produced a stay from the Madras High Court.

The Commission had constituted a Full Bench to hear the matter and issued notice to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and all its member units to bring along with them details of land, buildings, stadiums allotted by state government among others.

The Board was also asked to produce Income Tax exemptions received by it.

The hearing was scheduled to start today at 4 PM but BCCI produced the stay granted by Madras High Court after which the transparency panel decided to adjourn the matter till stay is vacated or an appropriate order is received from higher bench of the High Court or Supreme Court.

“Matter of bringing BCCI under purview of RTI Act is of utmost national importance when BCCI conducts cricket matches with teams controlled by it named as ‘Indian team’ getting all types of recognition and facilities from Union and state governments,” RTI applicant Madhu Agrawal had pleaded before the Commission.

(Source: IANS)