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 

[ -->