Suggestion to improve functionality of law tribunals, forums, etc.,

If an Act is enacted to prohibit Retired judges of High Court/Supreme Court to head any judicial commission (including human rights commission, consumer dispute forums, tribunals, etc.,), the decorum of the judiciary will be held in high esteem.  Senior advocates of concerned states be appointed to head such commission/tribunal/consumer forums, etc.,  This will also make the judiciary more transparent and will flush-in young blood.  Retired HC/SC judges can be made as monitoring committee members (on need basis).

Further, only those advocates having political connections are appointed to the posts of Govt pleaders/counsels.  Local advocates must be appointed to such posts with transparent selection panel. Applications are to be invited to those posts and selection committee must be appointed.  The selection should be transparent and the selection process (including marks obtained by the candidates) be published in concerned High Courts' website.  Govt should provide websites to all the Local Bar Associations and their activities must be made public.  

Welcome Judgment

புதுடில்லி : 'எந்த ஒரு கிரிமினல் வழக்கிலாவது, குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்டவர், கோர்ட்டால், நிரபராதி என விடுவிக்கப்பட்டால், அந்த விசாரணையை மேற்கொண்ட போலீஸ் அதிகாரிக்கு தண்டனை அளிக்க வேண்டும்' என, சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட், முக்கிய உத்தரவை பிறப்பித்துள்ளது.

ஆறு வயது சிறுமியை, கற்பழித்து, கொலை செய்ததாக, ஒருவர் மீது, வழக்கு தொடரப்பட்டிருந்தது. சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டில் நடந்த விசாரணையில், இது பொய் வழக்கு என, தெரியவந்தது. இதையடுத்து, குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்ட நபரை விடுவித்த நீதிபதிகள், சி.கே.பிரசாத், ஜெ.எஸ்.ஹேகர் ஆகியோர் அடங்கிய,'பெஞ்ச்' பிறப்பித்த உத்தரவு:கிரிமினல் வழக்குகளை விசாரிக்கும், போலீஸ் அதிகாரிகளுக்கு பொறுப்பு உள்ளது. எந்த சூழ்நிலையிலும், நிரபராதிகள் பாதிக்கப்பட்டு விடக்கூடாது. கிரிமினல் வழக்கில், குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்ட ஒருவர், கோர்ட்டால், நிரபராதி என, விடுவிக்கப்பட்டால், அந்த விசாரணையை நடத்திய, போலீஸ் அதிகாரியை தண்டிக்க வேண்டும். அவர் மீது, நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க வேண்டும்.

நீதி வழங்கும் நடைமுறையில், தோல்வி ஏற்பட்டு விடக் கூடாது. சமீபகாலமாக, அப்பாவிகளை, பொய் வழக்குகளில் சிக்க வைக்கும் நடைமுறை அதிகரித்துள்ளது. எனவே, அப்பாவிகளுக்கு, பாதுகாப்பு தேவை. தவறு செய்த போலீஸ் அதிகாரிகளை தண்டிக்க, அனைத்து மாநில அரசுகளும், உரிய நடைமுறையை உருவாக்க வேண்டும். இது தொடர்பாக, போலீஸ் அதிகாரிகளுக்கு, உரிய பயிற்சி அளிக்க வேண்டும். ஆறு மாதங்களுக்குள், இந்த நடவடிக்கையை மேற்கொள்ள வேண்டும்.இவ்வாறு, நீதிபதிகள் உத்தரவிட்டனர்.

Lords say it's upto anyone to address them in an appropriate manner!

Calling judges lord, your honour not mandatory: SC

PTI, Jan 6, 2014, 07.56PM IST

Supreme Court of India

NEW DELHI: Judges should be addressed in courts in a respectful and dignified manner and it is not compulsory to call them "my lord", "your lordship" or "your honour", the Supreme Court today said.

"When did we say it is compulsory. You can only call us in a dignified manner," a bench comprising justices H L Dattu and S A Bobde observed during the hearing of a petition which said addressing judges as "my lord or your lordship" in courts is a relic of colonial era and a sign of slavery.

"To address the court what do we want. Only a respectable way of addressing. You call (judges) sir, it is accepted. You call it your honour, it is accepted. You call lordship it is accepted.These are some of the appropriate way of expression which are accepted," it said while refusing to entertain the PIL filed by 75-year-old advocate Shiv Sagar Tiwari.

The bench said his plea for banning the use of such terms and directing the courts that the judges should not be addressed in such a traditional manner cannot be accepted.

"How can this negative prayer be accepted by us," the bench asked, adding "Don't address us as lordship. We don't say anything. We only say address us respectfully."

"Can we direct the high courts on your prayers? It is obnoxious," the bench further said while making it clear that "It is for you to say Sir, Your Lordship or Your Honour. We can't direct how you have to address the court."

"It is the choice of the lawyer to address the court. Why should we say that brother judges should not accept being addressed as lordship. We have not taken exception when you call as sir," the bench said.

Ganguly quits as Bengal rights panel chief

Ganguly quits as Bengal rights panel chief

TNN, Jan 6, 2014, 05.46PM IST

Justice Ganguly.

KOLKATA: Former Supreme Court Judge A K Ganguly has submitted his resignation as chairman of West Bengal Human Rights Commission to the West Bengal governor, according to TV channel Times Now. He faces charges of sexually harassing a law intern.

Former attorney general Soli Sorabjee on Sunday said that Justice Ganguly had called him over telephone and told that he had been thinking of resigning as chairman of West Bengal Human Rights Commission (WBHRC).

Justice Ganguly's talks with Sorabjee came close on the heels of Union Cabinet approving a proposal for sending a Presidential reference to the Supreme Court on the issue, which was seen as a step towards his removal as WBHRC chairman.

A three-judge Supreme Court panel had indicted Justice Ganguly by holding that the statement of the intern, both written and oral, had prima facie disclosed "an act of unwelcome behaviour (unwelcome verbal/non-verbal conduct of sexual nature)" by the judge with her in the Le Meridien hotel room on December 24 last year.

Justice Ganguly has denied the allegations of the law intern and blamed "powerful interests" of trying to tarnish his image due to certain judgments delivered by him.

NGT restrained:

HC puts brakes on NGT, says it cant act on its own

TNN, Jan 4, 2014, 07.00AM IST

CHENNAI: Clipping the wings of the southern bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which has been taking suo motu cognizance of issues at will and issuing directions, the Madras high court has restrained the forum from initiating proceedings on its own.

NGT is not a substitute for high court in all respects, said a division bench of Justice Satish K Agnihotri and Justice K K Sasidharan, adding: "The tribunal has to function within the parameters laid down by the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It should act within the four corners of the statute. There is no indication in the act or the rules made thereunder with regard to the power of NGT to initiate suo motu proceedings against anyone, including statutory authorities."

The bench was passing orders on a PIL filed by advocate P Sundararajan, who took objection to the suo motu proceedings of the NGT and said the tribunal had been taking up matters on its own and adjudicating them without any authority.

His counsel M Radhakrishnan said the tribunal's suo motu proceedings had no legal sanctity and as such, it should be restrained from initiating such proceedings. NGT was constituted for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and forest conservation, including enforcement of legal rights relating to environment.

Finding substance in the submissions, the judges said: "Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are extended to the tribunal only for a very limited purpose. It is true that the tribunal is given power to regulate its own procedure and it is not bound by the strict rules of evidence. However, that would not convert the tribunal into a high court, to initiate suo motu proceedings." The bench, citing the SC rulings, said while courts were entrusted with the inherent power for administration of justice in general, tribunals are established under a statute and are meant to adjudicate disputes arising under the particular legislation. While all courts are tribunals, all tribunals are not courts, it said.

Adjourning the matter to January 22, the judges said: "There shall be an interim injunction restraining the NGT, southern bench, from initiating suo motu proceedings."

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