Judiciary should not be seen as interfering in executive's work: SC
The bureaucracy's grouse about judicial interference in its domain could somewhat ease as the Supreme Court on Tuesday (2009) said the executive should be allowed to function properly and the judiciary could not be seen as interfering in its work. This observation came from a Bench comprising Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and Aftab Alam when a grievance was made that Baba Farid University had not allotted two seats to the 50% all-India quota in dental PG course for this academic year.
Nearly 25 years ago, the concept of all-India quota in government-run medical and dental colleges came into being through the Supreme Court's judgment in the Pradeep Jain case in 1984. It got crystallized in its subsequent judgments - Dinesh Thakur I and II -- by which 15% all-India quota in undergraduate courses and 25% quota in PG courses was reserved to be filled through a Common Entrance Test (CET). The PG quota was raised to 50% in the Saurav Chaudhary case.
The Bench knew that the all-India quota was created through the judgments of the Supreme Court but still felt that enough monitoring had been done for a quarter of a century and now, it should be left to the executive to implement it and no one should rush to the apex court on matters relating to admissions. "We have a great reservation about this. We are fixing calendars and admission schedule. Laying down broad guidelines is one thing, but monitoring admission to each and every college, we think, is not a judicial function," the Bench said.
Finally it admitted its contribution to the breakdown of the executive link in implementation of the guidelines laid down in the judgments by entertaining numerous applications relating to admissions. "We have also contributed to the breaking down by interfering with executive functions," it said.
Private colleges playing with future of students: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ticked off education regulators for the casual manner of giving recognition to private professional colleges. The court charged the regulators with disregarding the criteria laid down for the recognition.
The bench comprising Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and Aftab Alam was concerned about the practice of private institutions enrolling thousands of students even before they get the mandatory recognition. The plight of these students is then invoked, it said, to wangle recognition from regulators who are not keen to apply the standards laid down in the book. The private institutions cite the students' career as grounds to legalise the admissions they had done unauthorizedly, it said. The bench then went on to call, echoing the remark made by the court in a similar case, the institutions - "masked phantoms" - which do more harm to the education system than good. It also sounded a loud warning against the current policy premium on privatization, pointing to the pitfalls involved. Privatization of education was all right, but this sort of blatant violation of statutory requirements needed for starting a professional college by private parties amounted to playing with the future of thousands of students, it said.
The observation came during the hearing of a petition of a private institution, S V N College of Sagar in Madhya Pradesh, challenging a High Court order which had restrained it from admitting students without following the criteria. While the SC bench agreed to issue notice to the Madhya Pradesh government, it concurred with the HC's concern over the perils of unregulated privatization of education sector. "We fully share the anguish of the HC," Justices Reddy and Alam said as they refused to stay the HC order.
They did not relent when counsel for S V N College, a self-financed institute, senior advocate R Venkataramani and advocate Jasbir Malik, argued that it had the requisite recognition of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The bench said: “Our observation that regulatory bodies are casually granting recognition applied to the NCTE as well.”
For the regulators, the criticism could not have come at a worse time. They have been under intense attack, and there are indications to suggest that the recommendation of the Yashpal Committee for doing away with UGC, MCI and the Dental Council of India may find favour with the government.
The HC had referred to a 1986 judgment of the apex court emphasizing the need for proper inspection of the private institutes before grant of recognition on the grounds that ``private institutions unauthorizedly established were invariably ill-housed, ill-staffed and ill-equipped'' and deprecated the HCs which allowed such institutes to admit students.
State can regulate admissions in private unaided colleges: SC
The SC in 2009 on Wednesday said the state has a responsibility to maintain high standards of education and is hence competent to regulate admissions even in unaided private professional colleges.
This important order came from a vacation Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Deepak Verma, which ordered that private unaided medical and dental colleges in Madhya Pradesh would keep aside up to 50% of their seats to accommodate candidates successful in the state-conducted common entrance test. The Bench said despite three constitution Benches of SC- one comprising 11 judges, another 5 judges and still another with 7 judges — dealing with the issue of regulating affairs of educational institutions- minority, aided and unaided and non-minority- there appeared to be still some grey areas that needed clarification.
While the 11-judge Bench in the T M A. Pai case had said that greater autonomy has to be granted to unaided institutions compared to the aided ones, the 7-judge Bench in the P A Inamdar case had said it would be unfair to apply the same logic to aided and unaided colleges.
Referring to Inamdar case judgment, the Bench said it was said if the admission process adopted by an unaided private college did not conform to the triple test- fair, transparency and reasonable fee-structure- then the state would have an occasion to interfere in it. The Justice Katju-headed Bench said the 7-judge Bench did not specify the body which would determine whether the admission process of a private unaided college was at fault.
“It can’t be left to the unilateral decision of the state to say that a private institution has failed the triple test. This will give an unbridled power to the state to say that a private institution has failed the triple test,” it said. It said: “To strike a balance between the responsibilities of the state as against the interest of the private unaided professional colleges, the court has to use its creativity.”
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi stressed the need to allow Association of Private Dental and Medical Colleges to fill seats through entrance test conducted by the association. However, MP Counsel, senior advocate Ravi Shankar Prasad, argued that the state had already conducted entrance test. Striking a balance, the court said as an interim measure for this academic year, private unaided colleges would leave out 50% of their seats to be filled by candidates in merit list drawn through entrance test conducted by the government.
The Government is preparing a roadmap for judicial reforms in the country which aims, inter alia, at reducing pendency in the courts, at providing quick and effective justice, introducing accountability of the judges and bringing the transparency in judicial processes for the litigants. The details of the roadmap are being worked out. Dr. M.Veerappa Moily, Minister of Law and Justice informed the Rajya Sabha.
Dr. M. Veerappa Moily, Minister of Law and Justice informed the Rajya Sabha in a written reply that allegations of corruption in the higher judiciary have come to the notice of the Government from time to time. As for the subordinate judiciary, the administrative control over its members vests with the concerned High Courts and the State Governments as per the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution of India, he added .
SC: Institution head, cops can be punished for ragging
The supreme Court on Friday added teeth to its earlier stringent anti-ragging directions by making the head of the institution and the local police chief liable for disciplinary action if any ragging incident takes place within their jurisdiction.
The fresh directives were added to its earlier guidelines, which among other punishments also provided for rustication of the errant senior if he indulged in ragging- related death of Amann Kachroo exposed the chinks in their implementation.
Pronouncing the elaborate measures, most of which were suggested by the SC committee headed by the former director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) R K Raghvan, a Bench comprising Justices Arikit Pasayat and A K Ganguly directed a national level committee to suggest remedial measures in the school curriculum to limit the ragging menace by studying the impact of this physical abuse on students. Each state would follow suit with similar committees, the apex court Bench said.
The 7 commands of SC
Penal consequences and departmental proceeding against institution and departmental heads who show apathy towards complaints of ragging
Fresher’s to be divided into small groups and affiliated to teaching staff who would keep constant vigil on their welfare and protect them from seniors
Round the clock vigil on hostel premises
Departmental action against principal of Rajendra Prasad Govt Medical College (RPGMC), where Amann Kachroo died after ragging
SHO/SP, within whose jurisdiction a particular college falls, shall be responsible for ensuring that no ragging takes place on the campus of concerned colleges.
Amann’s father Rajendra Kachroo to assist Raghvan Committee to provide a link age between committee’s effort and the NGO anti-ragging movement.
De-addiction measures in RPGMC where alcoholism is rampant.
Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan is not unduly worried about the new UPA government's forceful expression of intent to usher in judicial reforms to provide speedy justice to the poor standing last in the queue.
At a time when the judiciary is groaning under the load of over 3 crore pending cases at various levels and its image dented by sporadic reports of corruption among Judges, Justice Balakrishnan put up a brave face and asked "who is afraid of reforms" as it was "our constant endeavor to fast track the justice delivery process".
Though new law minister Veerappa Moily did not macro-elaborate his plans for judicial reforms except for saying "it is long overdue", he did stress the Manmohan Singh government's earnest desire to make the wheels of justice move faster to help the poor afford litigation.
The CJI is one with him on this aspect. "The 4,000 gram nyayalays would soon start functioning easing a lot of load on the subordinate courts. These would also save the poor litigants from traveling long distances to reach district courts for justice," he said.
But, the intermittent reports in the media about corruption in judiciary appear to be an irritant for Justice Balakrishnan. He says the present recruitment process for subordinate judiciary needs tightening.
He feels that an All India Judicial Services Examination, on the lines of Indian Civil Services Examination conducted by Union Public Service Commission, could provide a solution. The successful candidates could be appointed as District Judges directly and they could choose their state of posting, he said.
The CJI would not elaborate as the matter is subjudice before the SC.
Government t for judiciary recruitment revamps
The foul smell of corruption is increasingly enveloping the temples of justice, popularly referred to as courts. Almost everyone is aware of the level of corruption in the lower stream of justice. But, the screamers about instances of corruption in the higher judiciary appear to have forced the government and the CJI to look afresh for an effective antidote.
The common refrain is that there is something virulently wrong with the present process of selection of judges for the higher judiciary -- the high courts and the Supreme Court. For long, the Executive had this grouse that India was the only country where judges appoint their peers through a secretive method called consultation among the judges forming part of the Collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India.
Recently, on February 27, a day after the last session of the 14th Lok Sabha, renowned lawyer, parliamentarian and then Speaker Somnath Chatterjee articulated the grievance most succinctly -- "I still believe that India is unique in three things -- a television operated by Parliament, judges appoint judges and MPs fix their own salaries." A few days earlier, he was more direct: "India is the only country where judges appoint themselves. It is not a good system."
At that time, the entire political apparatus was virtually bracing up for the Lok Sabha elections and it appeared that Somnathda's terse words were lost in the poll cacophony. But, it does not appear so. His words actually had a lasting impression on those who matter in the new UPA government.
A thinking is gaining ground among the top echelons of the ruling coalition political leaders that the system of "Judges appointing Judges" has to undergo a change and the Executive must have a definitive say in it rather than performing the role of a mere postman -- sending to the President the names recommended by the Collegium headed by CJI for appointment as judges.
What could be the shape of the `say' that the Executive wants to have in the appointment of judges is not precise, but it is definitely tired of playing the role of a postman. The UK experience could be a guiding light.
Before the setting up of the independent Judicial Appointment Committee (JAC) in 2006, the judges were chosen by the senior member of the Executive through a process that was not only secretive but was roundly criticised as "a tap on the shoulder" method.
The new mechanism for selecting high court judges was to bring an end to the secretive process of picking judges, which the `Guardian' newspaper found responsible for producing a higher judiciary that was almost exclusively white and male (of the 108 HC judges, only 10 were women).
However, initial experience showed that JAC was virtually "old wine in a new bottle". The `Guardian' in January 2008 wrote a critical piece on the JAC's method of appointment. It said: "Those appointed since last September are remarkably similar to those selected under the old process. All 10 are white male barristers."
So, if the UPA government wants, in the wake of disturbing reports about corruption in the judiciary, to effect a systemic change in the process for appointment of judges, then it should put its proposal in open for a debate among the legal fraternity and parliamentarians.
The grievance may be well founded, for in no other country do the judges appoint themselves. But, the solution should not be worse off. To strike a balance, would it be acceptable to both the Judiciary and the Executive to have equal say in the appointment of judges?
Life sentence can be up to 20 yrs too: Supreme Court of India
The statute may provide that life sentence means a minimum of 14 years in prison, but keeping in view the gravity of offence a trial court can be well within law to award a 20-year jail term to a lifer, ruled the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
This ruling came from a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal, which dismissed an appeal by Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammad Saiyed, a Latif gang member convicted of shooting down nine members of a rival gang including its leader Hansraj Trivedi in 1992 in Ahmedabad.
Upholding the imposition of the 20-year sentence on Saiyed, Justice Sathasivam, writing the judgment for the Bench, said there was a reason to award the extreme penalty and hence the designated TADA court was justified in imposing life sentence with a condition that it should not be less than 20 years.
The Bench reminded the judiciary at large about the pitfalls in adopting a lenient approach while awarding punishment in cases that involved heinous crimes and said "too sympathetic a view merely on account of lapse of time" would be counter-productive and against the interest of the society which needed to be cared for.
"Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime... The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which both the criminal and the victim belong," the Bench said.
It said the designated court was right in observing while awarding the sentence that the main accused had brutally murdered the nine persons who were playing cards in Radhika Gymkhana and that was the reason to sentence him with the extreme penalty, which would meet the ends of justice.
Therefore, the decision to award a 20-year sentence was appropriate and there was no ground to modify it, it said.
Constant threat of consumer law on doctors not good for patients: Supreme Court
Doctors are no doubt liable under the Consumer Protection Act, but too much of threat of the law and court cases could be counter productive for patients as these could deter medical professionals from exercising their discretion, the Supreme Court has said.
Chennai-based orthopaedic surgeon Dr C P Sreekumar would not agree less. For, the apex court absolved him of the charge of medical negligence that hung over his head since 1992 and quashed a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum order asking him to pay a patient Rs 5.5 lakh. Looking into the legal aspects and judgments of the apex court relating to the issue, a Bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and D K Jain said: "Too much suspicion about the negligence of attending doctors and frequent interference by courts would be a very dangerous proposition as it would prevent doctors from taking decisions which could result in complications and in this situation the patient would be the ultimate sufferer."
Sreekumar had detected a hairline fracture on the leg of one S Ramanujam and chose a conservative line of treatment by putting it in a plaster. But, the fracture aggravated needing a surgery for internal fixation. The patient, however, continued to complain of pain, took a second opinion and started accusing Sreekumar of messing up the operation. He underwent another operation under the supervision of a different doctor and then claimed Rs 12 lakh as compensation from Sreekumar by filing a petition before the State Consumer Forum.
The state forum dismissed the claim saying the patient had not been able to prove mishandling by the hospital staff or negligence or deficiency in the services rendered by Sreekumar.
However, the National Consumer Forum on November 15, 2006, allowed Ramanujam's appeal and asked Sreekumar to pay Rs 5.5 lakh. While Sreekumar challenged the direction to pay the huge sum in the Supreme Court, Ramanujam also moved the SC seeking enhancement of the compensation to Rs 12 lakh.
After examining the case records and hospital documents of Ramanujam, the Bench said: "Merely because of the fact that there is some divergence of opinion as to the proper procedure to be adopted, it cannot be said with certainty that Dr Sreekumar was grossly remiss in going for hemiarthroplasty."
Justice Bedi, writing the judgment for the Bench, said: "It would, thus, be seen that Dr Sreekumar's decision in choosing hemiarthroplasty with respect to a patient of 42 years of age was not as palpably erroneous or unacceptable as to dub it as a case of professional negligence.” It allowed Sreekumar's appeal and dismissed the claim of Ramanujam.
‘Bride burners must be hanged’: Supreme Court of India
We are coming across a Large Number of Such Cases, Notes SC
Spiraling crime against women in matrimonial homes invited sharp reaction On Monday from the Supreme Court, which said those convicted of burning their wives for bringing insufficient dowry or for any other reason deserve no leniency and should be awarded capital punishment.
Though it was a case relating to burning of woman by her husband because of her protest against his alleged illicit relationship, the Vacation Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Deepak Verma took the opportunity to vent its ire against those persons who resort to bride burning.
Angered by the plea of the convict challenging life sentence, the Bench was of the firm opinion that persons like him deserved no leniency and should be awarded death penalty. Though it threatened to issue notice to the appellant seeking his response to `why the punishment be not enhanced to death penalty', it adjourned hearing in the case when counsel Jasbir Malik pleaded that it was not a case of dowry harassment.
However, this did not deter the Bench from observing that to put an end to the barbaric practice of bride burning, courts should take a stern view and award death sentence.
"If people like you are hanged, then only will this barbaric practice stop. We are coming across a large number of bride burning and dowry death cases these days," it said.
In such cases if the trial court awards life sentence to the convict, the appellate courts should issue notice to the convict for enhancement of punishment, the Bench added.
The Bench's anguish was not ill-founded. If bride burning cases hovered around 5,000 every year, dowry death cases have kept heading northwards. In 2005, as many as 6,787 dowry death cases were reported. This increased to 7,618 in 2006 and 8,093 in 2007. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) had reported a whopping 75,930 incidents of torture and cruelty against women in matrimonial homes in 2007.
Though the Supreme Court had consistently held the view that violence in matrimonial homes should be dealt with sternly, Justice Katju is known for his radical views in such cases. Just a couple of years back while hearing a corruption case relating to the fodder scam, he had observed that the corrupt should be hanged from the nearest lamp post.
The case in hand related to the death of one Rajni who in her dying declaration alleged that her husband Mahender Gulati, his elder brother Prem Kumar and the latter's wife Vimla had poured kerosene on her on December 9, 2003, and set her on fire. She had also accused Mahender of having an illicit relationship with Vimla and that the motive behind the crime was her protest against the affair.
A Bhiwandi trial court had convicted Mahender, Prem Kumar and Vimla of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Punjab and Haryana HC had upheld the conviction and sentence.
‘No post-retirement rehab for tainted judges’: Supreme Court of India
Adopting a `zero tolerance' policy towards stigmatized judges, the Supreme Court in an emphatic ruling has said that the taint acquired during judgeship will be a big disqualification for the person's post-retirement appointment as head of a tribunal or a commission.
Serious about maintaining public trust in judiciary as an institution, the SC said if an additional judge of a High Court was found ineligible for an extension or being confirmed as a judge, the same person could not be appointed as the head of a statutory body like the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC).
"Judiciary holds a central stage in promoting and strengthening democracy, human rights and rule of law. People's faith is the very foundation of any judiciary. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and therefore the people's faith in the judiciary cannot be afforded to be eroded," said a Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and M K Sharma.
Dealing with `who had been a judge of the HC' qualification for post-retiral appointments as head of tribunals and commissions, the Bench said: "A judge whose tenure ended by way of non-extension as a stigma would not come within the purview of the definition of the term `has been a judge of the HC'."
This judgment, delivered on March 6 but made available on Thursday, came in the peculiar case concerning Justice S Kannadasan, who had to demit office as a judge of the Madras HC on November 5, 2005, after serving for two years as an additional judge as his term was neither extended nor was he confirmed as a permanent judge.
In November 2006, the TN government appointed him as an additional advocate general. In June 2008, the HC in a full court meeting presided by then Chief Justice resolved to treat Kannadasan as a former judge of the HC and decided to recommended his name along with two others for appointment as the chairman of SCDRC.
From the three, the TN government chose Justice Kannadasan as the chief of SCDRC. Interestingly, acting on the judicial side, the HC had on December 12 last year allowed PILs which had challenged his appointment as president of SRDRC. Justice Kannadasan had moved the SC challenging the HC's order.
While dismissing his appeal, the Bench headed by Justice Sinha expressed its anguish that the then CJ of the Madras HC appeared to have taken lightly the decision of the Collegiums headed by the Chief Justice of India not to confirm the services of Justice Kannadasan as a judge of HC, which had required him to quit the HC on November 5, 2005.
Noticing the cogent reason for the Collegium's decision not to confirm Justice Kannadasan as a permanent judge, the Bench asked: "An additional judge who had not been made permanent, technically could be appointed as an acting or additional judge but then the question which was required to be asked was: Should a person who had not been found fit be so appointed? The answer to the aforementioned question clearly would be a big emphatic `no'."
Justice Sinha, writing the judgment for the Bench, said "If a person has made himself disqualified to hold the post of a judge, the Chief Justice should not consider his name at all" for appointment to any statutory post like president of SCDRC.
What followed was even more hard-hitting. "If the collegiums of the Supreme Court judges including the CJI, which is a constitutional authority in the matter of appointment of judges and re-appointment of additional judges, did not find him (Justice Kannadasan) eligible, it would be beyond anybody's comprehension as to how the Chief Justice of a high court could find him eligible/suitable for holding statutory post requiring possession of qualification of holder of a constitutional office," the Bench said.
Supreme Court of India deadline on High Security Number plates
Supreme Court on Tuesday set a three-month deadline for the Centre and the state governments to implement high security registration plates (HSRPs), removing all ambiguity about the mandatory nature of its earlier order on the issue.
The SC had on May 8, 2008, given governments six months to implement the HSRPs after making modifications in the scheme drafted by the Centre. However, most of the states, citing doubts about whether the SC order was mandatory or not, have not implemented it. A Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and A K Ganguly dispelled the doubts outlined by advocate Wasim Qadri, who appeared for the Centre and the Delhi government. It said the states could not sidestep an important public interest measure that was directed to be implemented by the SC.
The development means that the state governments will soon be getting after the motor vehicle owners to switch to the HSRPs in order to carry out the order. The court had, in its earlier judgment, dismissed challenges to the scheme holding it to be in public interest. The HSRP can track down stolen vehicles through satellite monitoring since it is fitted with a security chip, thus preventing the misuse of such vehicles in crimes.” Use of stolen vehicles in crimes, especially terrorism related offences, are increasing steadily and this can be controlled to a large extent by implementation of the HSRP,'' the court had said.
When most of the states did not implement the court's year-old order, petitioner Maninderjit Singh Bitta moved an application seeking a directive to the governments to take urgent steps. Bitta said that it was a matter of concern that except for a few states none had implemented the HSRP.
TRAI gets Supreme Court of India nod to fix TV tariffs
It Will Also Examine Capping Of Subscription Charges to Broadcasters
The Supreme Court on Thursday gave the green signal to TRAI to work out a fresh tariff regime that would determine how much a consumer paid for watching TV channels.
And it would work this out without being caged by the stinging observations of TDSAT, which had directed TRAI to study the matter afresh and issue a comprehensive order covering all aspects including the issue of subscription base.
While TRAI counsel Harish Salve agreed to look into the matter without being bound by TDSAT directive for reworking the amount to be levied from consumers, it was senior advocate Fali S Nariman who argued that TRAI should also look into the grievance of broacasters.
Nariman said while TRAI had capped the tariff to be levied from consumers for watching TV channels, the broadcasters were made to cough up astronomical amounts to cable operators (MSOs) to carry the channels to the homes. He said the amount has gone up from Rs 6 crore in 2004 to Rs 33 crore at present.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishna and Justice P Sathasivam and J M Panchal brushed aside the objection of senior advocate C S Vaidyananthan, appearing for MSOs, that the issue of capping the carrier charges was not the subject matter in the appeal.
It said: “TRAI shall also consider the feasibility of putting cap on subscription charges to the broadcasters and any other allied aspects in this regard.” “The TRAI may also consider the matter de novo as regards all other relevant aspects and give a report to this court by August 1, 2009,” the bench said
TRAI had filled the appeal in the SC alleging that TDSAT’s decision to strike down its traffic regulations has put the people at the mercy of broadcasters who generally club a good channel with a number of not so good channels and offer them as a bouquet with a ‘take all or none’ condition.
Witness protection a must to make justice a reality: SC
The Supreme Court has sounded the alarm on the growing trend of witnesses turning hostile in criminal cases involving the rich and influential, stressing that justice would remain a far cry unless a witness protection mechanism was put in place.
"In cases involving influential people, the common experience is that witnesses do not come forward because of fear and pressure... (it) depicts a tremendous need for witness protection in our country if criminal justice administration has to be a reality," the apex court said.
The blunt acknowledgement of reality came in a recent judgment relating to an 11-year-old incident in Government Girls College at Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, where an influential politician's son crushed a girl under the wheels of his jeep for daring to confront him over his rowdy behavior.
The arrogant youth's ego was hurt when the girl demanded an explanation for his unruly behavior and refused to give way. Angered by this, the accused drove the jeep over her and crushed her skull right inside the college. Many friends of the victim witnessed the brutal killing. Not just that. Some of them even tried to catch hold of the assailant and his flunkies.
All of them, however, turned hostile when it came to telling the truth before the trial court.
Upholding the conviction of Samarvijay Singh, who was behind the wheels of the jeep on December 3, 1998, when the incident occurred, a bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat (since retired) and A K Ganguly termed this case a "classic case of deficiency in the criminal justice system to protect witnesses from being threatened by accused".
The bench said it appeared from the record that friends of the victim, her fellow classmates, were eyewitnesses to the incident yet they turned hostile before the trial court, backing out from the statements they had made before the police at the time of investigation.
"The statement made before the police during investigation is no evidence. Unfortunately, in cases involving influential people, the common experience is that witnesses do not come forward because of fear and pressure," the bench said.
Convinced that this case involved exertion of a lot of pressure on witnesses, the bench noticed that one of the victim's friend broke down during cross-examination and blurted out partial facts and requested the trial court not to call her again.
"The plight of the girls who were under pressure depicts the tremendous need for witness protection in our country, if criminal justice administration has to be a reality," the bench said.
Girls above 18 entitled to live with or marry anyone: SC
What it had observed two days ago, the Supreme Court on Thursday put it in writing — Girls above 18 years of age can live or marry with anyone of their choice. Unhappy parents could at best severe their ties with her and dare not harass or torture her taking law into their hands, it warned.
This order was passed by a vacation Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Deepak Verma while protecting one Fiaz Ahmed Ahanger of Jammu and Kashmir from harassment at the hands of the police on the basis of a complaint lodged by the parents of his wife, a Hindu girl.
The girl, with an infant in her lap, stood before the Bench, braved questions and was unflappable in her resolve to live with her husband. But, there was a urgent plea from her to save her husband from harassment at the hands of the police and threats from her parents and brothers who did not agree to the inter-religious marriage.
Convinced that she had attained majority, the Bench put it down in writing: "India is a free country where girls after attaining the age of 18 years have the freedom to live with or marry anyone they like. Parents, if not happy, could at the worst severe their ties with her but cannot threaten, coerce or torture her."
The girl converted to Islam and acquired a Muslim name Mehvesh Anjum to marry Fiaz, a teacher in Ramban district in J&K in December 2007. On coming to know about their daughter's marriage, her parents forcibly brought her back and got her married off to a Hindu. But she escaped and got reunited with Fiaz.
Seething with anger, the parents and the second husband lodged a case of kidnapping against Fiaz. The police harassed the couple, who moved the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to seek stay of the police investigation. The HC passed an order in May 2008 refusing to stay the police probe following which the couple appealed to the Supreme Court.
The SC offered police protection to the couple and stayed their arrest. "We direct nobody will threaten, harass or commit any violence or unlawful act against the petitioner (Fiaz), the girl or the petitioners' family members," the Bench said, though it refused to stay the police probe into the case.
Injuries not necessary for confirmation of rape: SC
An accused can be convicted for rape even if there are no injuries on the private parts of the victim as the same does not amount to consensual sex, the Supreme Court has ruled.
"Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape nor the absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim can be construed as evidence of consent," a bench of Justices V S Sirpurkar and R M Lodha said.
The bench passed the ruling while rejecting the argument of convict Rajender alias Raju who claimed that absence of any injuries on the victims' private parts indicated that she consented to the sex and that the charge of rape was not corroborated by any other evidence except the testimony of the victim.
The apex court said that in rape cases the sole testimony of the witness without any corroboration can be relied on as rarely would a self-respecting Indian woman accuse a man of raping her.
"In the context of Indian culture, a woman victim of sexual aggression would rather suffer silently than to falsely implicate somebody. Any statement of rape is an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit.
"Do not lie to the court" — this advice from the Supreme Court to a junior advocate invited suppressed smirks from a small crowd of lawyers and litigants present before a vacation Bench on Wednesday. For, everyone is aware of the public perception about the legal profession.
What followed from a Bench comprising Justice B Sudershan Reddy and Aftab Alam made a lot of sense as it was an expression of deep anguish over the manner in which lawyers resort to falsehood and suppression of facts causing immense harm to the trust judges once reposed in them.
To deliver speedy justice, much in need given spiraling litigation and huge pendency of cases, judges have to rely on statements made by lawyers about their cases, the Bench said, adding that if judges had to read each and every word in case files, then disposal would take years.
"What will happen if the judges become wary of lawyers' statements made across the Bar.? In the apex court, we trust the advocates for they and the judges are equal partners in administration of justice. How can we carry on with the job if we start distrusting the lawyers," the Bench said.
It made no attempt to hide its deep hurt to find a writ petition filed by a young advocate suppressing the fact that his client's earlier special leave petition against eviction was dismissed by a three-judge Bench of the apex court and his petition seeking review of the dismissal order was pending.
Admonishing the advocate for wasting the court's time, as the judges had to spend considerable time in discovering the hidden facts, Justice Reddy said this type of cases block genuine cases, which get delayed.
Admonition complete, the judges displayed their concern towards the young advocate and invited him to their chamber to guide him on how to conduct himself as a lawyer.
New Delhi, May 14: The Supreme Court on Thursday referred to a Constitution Bench the question whether candidates belonging to reserved categories selected for union civil services on merit should be appointed for reserved posts or under the general quota.
A three-judge bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal said it was referring the matter to a Constitution Bench as certain complicated questions of Constitutional law were involved.
The apex court made the reference while disposing off a batch of petitions filed by the union government and several candidates challenging rule 16(2) of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
Under the existing rule, reserved candidates, if selected on their merit, are to be allocated posts in the general category. But this rule is applicable only in appointments made in the posts held under the state governments as there is no such legislation for central government posts.
Under the rule, UPSC had allotted 64 reserved candidates belonging to OBC and SC candidate, who were selected on their merit without reservation benefits, posts under the reserved category for appointments to "preferential posts."
The move was challenged by certain aggrieved candidates belonging to reserved categories who contended that allotment of posts to the meritorious reserved candidates within the reserved category was violative of the reservation policy.
The Madras High Court struck down the rule as illegal and unconstitutional following which the Centre and several aggrieved candidates filed the special leave petition in the apex court.
The UPSC has made it clear that the results declared by it were provisional and would be subject to the outcome of the appeal pending before the apex court.
The High Court had held as 'null and void' Rule 16 (2) of the Examination Rules of the Government of India for Civil Services Examination saying that it ran counter to the benefit of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC candidates and was not affirmative, progressive and pragmatic in achieving social justice.
In all, 457 candidates were selected for the final list for the years 2006 and 2007. Of this, 31 OBC and one SC candidate made it through the merit list (unreserved) but at the same time availed their postings under the reserved category.
This action by the UPSC, based on Rule 16 (2), deprived equal number of candidates from the said communities of availing the postings, the High Court had held.
"It amounts to reducing the number of posts reserved for the SC/ST/OBC and adding the same number of posts to the unreserved category, thus making a mockery of the entire rule of reservation," the High Court had said.
Instead of helping achieving social justice, the rule was acting against the SC/ST/OBC candidates, the High Court had observed.
Posts
