Posts
The new Office and the Court Room of the Cyber Regulation Appellate Tribunal inaugurated on July 27, 2009 in New Delhi. Speaking on the occasion, Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Chief Justice of India said while administrating the regulations Tribunal will face a challenge to strike a balance between the interests of the Government and end users of internet. Highlighting the need for Tribunal, Shri A. Raja said that it will help prevent all possible cyber contraventions. Mr. Sachin Pilot, Minister of State for C&IT said Tribunal is destined to a path breaking work to check cyber fraud, cyber crime and even cyber terrorism. Speaking on the role of Department of Information Technology (DIT), Secretary Mr. R. Chandrashekhar said that DIT will facilitate and support the functioning of the Tribunal. He said in view of intermixing of legal and technical issues a multimember Tribunal has been constituted to look into the cyber contraventions. The tribunal has been established under Section 48 of the Information Technology Act. The Information Technology Act 2000 came into force on
- “Computer” means any electronic, magnetic, optical or other high speed data processing device or system which performs logical, arithmetic, and memory functions by manipulations of electronic, magnetic or optical impulses, and includes all input, output, processing, storage, computer software, or communication facilities which are connected or related to the computer in a computer system or computer network;
- Section 3 of the Act provides with regard to Digital signature and the Authentication of electronic records.
- Section 4 provides the legal recognition of electronic governance in short known as E. governance. For adjudicating of the dispute under the Information Technology Act, Section 46 was enacted which has given the power for adjudication of the crimes. The power has been give to the Secretary, Information Technology and he has power to adjudge the quantum of compensation under Sections 46 and 47 of the Act.
- Section 46 provides for appointment of an adjudicating officer not below the rank of a Director to the Government of India. Every adjudicating officer shall have the powers of a civil court, which are conferred on the Cyber Appellate Tribunal under Section 48. The Act provides for penalty for damage to computer, computer system etc: penalty for failure to furnish information return; residuary penalty and publishing information which is obscene in electronic form etc.
Source: Press Information Bureau
Registration of Indian girls with NRI grooms compulsory
The National Law Commission has recommended that the registration of Indian girls with NRI grooms will be made compulsory to tackle the problem of abuse of Indian brides by NRI husbands. Main recommendations with regard to marriage of Indian brides with NRI husbands are given in Annexure-I. The number of such complaints received in the Ministry is given in Annexure-II. Action on guilty persons can be taken only based on court orders in each case.
This information was given by the Minister of Overseas Indian Affairs, Shri Vayalar Ravi in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha on
Annexure-I
Main recommendations with regard to marriage of Indian brides with NRI husbands:
- Registration of marriages must be made compulsory;
- Dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be introduced in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954;
- Where one of the spouses is an NRl, parallel additions must be made in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to provide for provisions for maintenance and alimony of spouses, child custody and child support and as also settlement of matrimonial property;
- In the matter of succession, transfer of property, repartition of NRI funds etc., the respective State governments must simplify and streamline procedures;
- The Commission has already recommended in its 218th Report as to the need to accede to the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of International Child Abduction;
- Inter-country Child Adoption Procedures must be simplified and a single uniform legislation must be provided for in the matter of adoption of Indian children by NRIs.
Annexure-II
Total number of Complaints received in MOIA State wise up to June, 2009
| Sr.No. | Name of the state | Number of cases |
| 1 | | 86 |
| 2 | | 56 |
| 3 | Haryana | 20 |
| 4 | Uttar Pradesh | 18 |
| 5 | Andhra Pradesh | 31 |
| 6 | | 13 |
| 7 | | 15 |
| 8 | | 16 |
| 9 | Tamil Nadu | 21 |
| 10 | Kerala | 12 |
| 11 | J&K | 7 |
| 12 | | 4 |
| 13 | Rajasthan | 6 |
| 14 | Karnataka | 3 |
| 15 | Madya Pradesh | 3 |
| 16 | | 2 |
| 17 | Orissa | 2 |
| 18 | Chhattishgarh | 1 |
| 19 | Uttarakhand | 1 |
| 20 | Himachal Pradesh | 1 |
| | | Total = 319 |
Source: Press Information Bureau
Setting up of CBI courts across the country
Central Government has decided to set up 71 additional Special Courts exclusively for trial of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) cases in various States. A statement showing location-wise and state-wise details of these Courts is as under:
| State | Location | No. Addl. Courts proposed |
| Andhra Pradesh | | 3 |
| | | 2 |
| | Guwahati | 2 |
| | | 3 |
| Chhattisgarh | | 1 |
| | | 15 |
| | Ahmedabad | 2 |
| | | 1 |
| Himachal Pradesh | Shimla | 1 |
| Haryana | Ambala | 1 |
| Jharkhand | | 2 |
| | Dhanbad | 4 |
| Jammu & Kashmir | | 1 |
| Karnataka | | 2 |
| | Dharwad | 1 |
| Kerala | Ernakulam | 1 |
| Madhya Pradesh | | 1 |
| | | 1 |
| | Mumbai | 3 |
| | Pune | 1 |
| | | 1 |
| | | 1 |
| Orissa | | 4 |
| Rajasthan | Jaipur | 2 |
| Tamilnadu | Chennai | 3 |
| Uttar Pradesh | | 4 |
| | | 2 |
| | Kolkata | 6 |
| Total | | 71 |
Governments have been requested to expedite establishment of these Special Courts. No firm time frame can be indicated as different State Governments are involved. Recurring expenditure of Rs.30 lacs per annum and non-recurring expenditure of Rs.15 lacs on setting up of each
This information was given by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Shri Prithviraj Chavan in a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha on
Source: Press Information Bureau
Not paperwork, treating patient is a doctor’s first duty: SC
In a blessing to injured accident victims who are often kept waiting for treatment for fear of legal complications, the Supreme Court has ruled that the primary job of a doctor is to attend to the patient and not to take down his name, cause of accident, etc. A Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Cyriac Joseph made the observation which could also save doctors of a lot of headache and harassment in the court during their examination as witness in a case.
“It is not the requirement of law that doctors, even before admitting the injured or during their treatment, must note down every bit of details of the incident or names of the witnesses in the registers maintained by them,” said Justice Sinha, writing the judgment for the Bench.
The ruling came in a criminal case where the doctor’s testimony was rejected on the ground that he had not noted down the relevant details of the crime and the name of the injured and the witnesses who brought him to the hospital.
The Bench dismissed the appeal filed by one Gurunath Donkappa Keri challenging his conviction and sentence by a Karnataka trial court, which was later upheld by the High Court. Citing discrepancies in the doctor’s testimony relating to recording of the name of person who had brought the injured to hospital, the accused had sought acquittal.
Source: The Times of
SC rules for bail over jail
The Supreme Court has stitched a link between a person’s right to life and his reputation and stepped in decisively to protect a person from the ignominy he suffers on being arrested even for lesser offences just because trial courts take time to decide his bail plea. It said the courts could continue to decide regular bail pleas after perusing the case diaries and other evidences, but it would be well within their jurisdiction and discretional powers to grant interim bail to the accused to protect their reputation from being dented by arrest by the police. “We reiterate that a court hearing a regular bail application has got inherent power to grant interim bail pending final decision of the bail application. In our opinion, this is in view of Article 21 of the Constitution which protects the life and liberty of every person,” said a Vacation Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Deepak Verma in 2009. The reputation of a person is his valuable asset and is a facet of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the bench said. As per the prevailing practice relating to grant of bail, when a person applies for regular bail then the court concerned lists the application after a few days so that it can look into the case diary which has to be obtained from the police authorities and in the meantime the applicant has to go to jail.
The consequential loss of reputation of the person seeking bail bothered the bench a lot. It said: “Even if the applicant is released on bail thereafter, his reputation may be tarnished irreparably in the society.” “Hence, we are of the opinion that in the power to grant bail, there is inherent power in the court concerned to grant interim bail to a person pending disposal of the bail application. Of course, it is the discretion of the court concerned to grant interim bail or not, but the power is certainly there,” the bench said. This order came from the bench in a case where one Sukhwant Singh had appealed against the
Source: The Times of
Disabled can be denied promotion on grounds of security, efficiency: SC
In a significant Judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government or an employer can deny promotion to a disabled person if they are of the opinion that it can compromise efficiency, security or safety. A Bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran and P Sathasivam gave this ruling despite being fully aware of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which mandated that "no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability". Allowing an appeal of the Union government, the Bench said the 1995 Act would have no significance where the employer stipulated minimum standards for promotion keeping in view safety, security and efficiency.
"If the employee is unable to meet the higher minimum standards on account of any disability or failure to possess the minimum standards, then the Act would not be attracted, nor can it be pressed into service for seeking promotion," said Justice Raveendran writing the judgment for the Bench. Clarifying that it was not against the legislative intention behind the 1995 Act, the SC said: "Where the disability is likely to affect the maintenance of safety and security norms, or efficiency, then the stipulation of standards for maintaining such safety, security and efficiency will not be considered as denying a person with disability, promotion merely on the ground of his disability."
The Bench said it was aware of the intention of the Act that was to give a helping hand to persons with disability so that they could lead a self-reliant life with dignity and freedom.
"But, the intention of the Act is not to jeopardize the safety and security of public, co-employees, or the employee himself or the safety and security of the equipments or assets of the employer nor to accept reduced standards of safety and efficiency merely because the employee suffers from a disability," the Bench said.
Source: The Times of
Long Study Leaves: SC bats for the boss
Want to avail long leave for further studies or other work during employment? Just apply and pray that your employer agrees. This is what the Supreme Court has said while vesting an employer with absolute discretion whether or not to grant an employee leave for a long period. Taking this view in favour of employers, a Bench comprising Justices S H Kapadia and Aftab Alam in a recent order said even if an organisation had a policy in place allowing employees to apply for long leave, the final decision would have to rest with the employer. "These are matters which fall in the category of `administrative exigencies' and this court cannot sit in appeal thereon," the Bench said setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order asking the state to grant a Medical Officer, Dr Sanjay Kumar Bansal, leave for 5 years.
Bansal had applied for 5 years' special leave for self-employment. When it was refused, he moved the HC alleging discrimination on the ground that other similarly placed doctors had been granted such leave in the past.
"Special leave is not a matter of right vested in the employee. It depends on administrative exigencies," said the Bench accepting the administration's stand that shortage of doctors was one of the reasons for not granting special leave to Dr Bansal. Even in the case of a perceived discrimination, that is the special leave being granted to one and not to the other employee, the Bench felt that it should be left to the employer's discretion as to who should be given long leave and who should not.
"Even on the case of discrimination, it is for the administration/management to take into account the contingencies which may arise in the course of administration. The services of an employee may be required in a given case on more emergent basis vis-a-vis other employees," the SC said. In such cases, the services rendered by an employee, his seniority, the nature of work which he was required to do, his responsibilities etc, were pertinent parameters which were required to be taken into account while taking the decision on applications seeking long leave, it said.
Source: The Times of
No comments:
Post a Comment