Month: November 2017

The Real Face Of Musharraf Stands Exposed Yet Again

I am not at all surprised by what all this Pakistani invader Pervez Musharraf who is also the former Pakistani Army Chief and former President has said while endorsing the dreaded Lashkar-e-Taiba’s Chief Hafiz Saeed that, “I’m Lashkar’s biggest supporter, they like me too”! Nothing new in what he has said! Everyone knows fully well what sort of criminal mentality he nurtures even though many in India deliberately ignored it and tried to search for everything good in him and in fact claimed to have found all good qualities in him! That Musharraf and terror groups are in close cahoots with each other was an open secret and now that also as also the real face of Musharraf stands exposed yet again!
The Real Face Of Musharraf Stands Exposed Yet Again

                                With what face some Indian journalists, politicians, diplomats and intellectuals clinged to the illusion that Manmohan-Musharrraf formula could resolve the complicated J&K issue? With what face they demanded withdrawal of all Indian troops from J&K as demanded by  Musharraf to “make borders irrelevant” which found huge support among many politicians and diplomats among others? With what face they always advocated to trust Musharraf as that alone could bring “peace” in J&K?
                                       With what face they ignored that Musharraf was the one who had masterminded Siachen intrusion in 1984 when Musharraf was Brigadier in which he miserably failed? With what face they ignored that Musharraf was the one who as he himself acknowledged was the one who entered 15-16 km inside Indian territory to boost his soldiers and terrorists to conquer Kargil in 1999 in which he again failed miserably? With what face did they gave him honour knowing fully well that it was Musharraf who was the mastermind of the Kargil war in which we lost more than 600 soldiers as per official figures even though unofficially the figure is much higher?   
                                           With what face did they gave him honour knowing it fully well that it was Musharraf who refused to accept the dead body of his soldiers and terrorists and had it not been for India’s large-heartedness perhaps dogs would have eaten their dead body? With what face did they expect anything from Musharraf and gave him honour knowing it fully well that it was Musharraf who ordered his soldiers to torture mercilessly Captain Saurav Kalia and 5 soldiers of 4 Jat Regiment not for one day or two days or ten days or twenty days but for full twenty days and after pouring hot water on them, gouging out their eyes, ears and nose with hot iron rods, torturing them with cigarettes as body bore signs of cigarette torture, chopping off even fingers, private parts and then putting them in their mouth and then finally shooting them at the head and then handing them back to India and yet our shameless politicians and big media houses shamelessly honoured this Pakistani invader and mass murderer Musharraf just 2 to 3 months after Kargil war as if he had done a big favour on India? Will any self-respecting nation behave like this?  
                                    With what face did they gave him honour knowing it fully well that it was Musharraf who had threatened to slit India by the throat and said that if former PM Nawaz Sharif had not rushed to USA, he would have throttled India and snatched away J&K from India? With what face they gave him honour knowing fully well that it was Musharraf who had threatened to nuke India if its soldiers dared to step even one step inside Pakistan’s territory as he felt strongly that only Pakistani Army who had the birthright to commit aggression and not Indian Army? With what face they gave him honour knowing fully well that he even contemplated to nuke India after terrorists of Jaish-e-Mohammad attacked Parliament and there was tension built up between both the countries?
                                            With what face they gave him honour knowing fully well that he had awarded Rs 1 lakh as cash prize to dreaded Al Qaeda terrorist Iliyas Kashmiri for presenting him a severed head of an Indian soldier Bhausaheb Maruti Talekar on 27 February 2000 and promised to always keep the head of Talekar as a trophy with him as long as he is alive as was reported in all English dailies and Pakistani media proudly published photographs of Kashmiri carrying severed head of Talekar? With what face did they hope that Musharraf would soon reform himself? With what face did they hope that if Musharraf is honoured, he would cease all hostility towards India and would become a peace ambassador?
                                    With what face did they ignore the anger of our former President Pranab Mukherjee who expressed his disgust at Musharraf being honoured in India? With what face did they ignore that Musharraf hailed terrorists like Hafiz Saeed as freedom fighters and terrorism in J&K as “freedom struggle over which Pranab Mukherjee expressed his huge anger and dismay? With what face did they ignore that Musharraf ensured that maximum terror attacks were carried out in his reign?   
                                     With what face did they ignore that Musharraf termed terrorists like Osama and Hafiz as heroes by saying that, “Osama to hero hain ji hero! Hafiz Saeed to bilkul aasli hero hain ji aasli hero! Syed Salaluddin bhi hero hain ji hero! Bharat ke liye yeh aatankwadi hain paar hamare liye to yeh aasli hero hain ji aasli hero. Aajma ke dekh lo Bharat ne to aajma ke dekh rakha hain”? With what face did they ignore that Musharraf had given out of turn promotion to those soldiers who had brutally tortured our soldiers during Kargil war apart from cash and other rewards? With what face did they ignore that Musharraf wanted India to give J&K to Pakistan on a plate and had threatened India with many more Kargils if J&K issue was not resolved as per his wishes?
                                          With what face did they ignore that Musharraf welcomed dreaded terror leaders like Masood Azhar and others by according them red carpet after planning and masterminding their release? With what face they ignore that Musharraf is himself a declared “proclaimed offender” and even his property has been ordered to be attached? With what face they ignore that Musharraf was himself involved in many murders like murder of a Maulvi Abdul Rashid who was Imam of Lal Masjid, Nawab Bukhti of Baluchistan and none other than former Pakistan PM Benazir Bhutto to name a few? With what face they ignore that Musharraf stands charged with treason and faces punishment which could extend even up to death sentence? With what face they ignore that this shameless Musharraf is living a wretched life as an exiler sometimes in Dubai or in other Gulf countries or in UK and now no one cares for him in his own country that is Pakistan?
                                         With what face they honoured him and allowed him to lambast the condition of Indian Muslims? It is a different matter that Maulana Mehmood Madani of Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind lambasted him very hard and advised him not to start politics of Pakistan from India and not to worry about Indian Muslims as 99% of Indian Hindus were solidly behind Muslims and he experienced what a headless chicken witnesses not knowing what to do next! The real face of Musharraf now again stands exposed but there are few journalists, media houses and politicians who will still not like to treat Musharraf as a “closed chapter” and would feel honoured to shamelessly laugh and talk with a shameless person like him who could never defeat India in any war that he undertook as we keep seeing in different news channels even now!
                                       I really pity him and those shameless Indian media houses, journalists and politicians who always look towards him for developing good relations with Pakistan despite knowing fully well his visceral hatred which he nurtures against India! Even now they will refuse to see the clear writing on the wall and still continue invoking him for having peace in J&K! Shame on them! Musharraf batting for Hafiz will make no difference in international arena for the world knows fully well what type of special chemistry is shared between Hafiz and Musharraf! The real face of Musharraf stands exposed yet again!  
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.  

Srikrishna Panel Recommends Setting Up Data Privacy Authority

Let me begin at the very beginning by pointing out that the Justice BN Srikrishna Committee headed by former Supreme Court Judge BN Srikrishna which was set up primarily to draft a data protection and privacy Bill, in a white paper on November 27, 2017 suggested the setting up of a data protection authority, data audit, registration of data collectors, enacting provisions for protecting children’s personal information, defining penalties and compensation in case of a data breach. This setting up of a high powered panel by the government is considered imperative as it comes amid concerns over personal information being compromised with the increasing use of biometric identifier Aadhaar in an array of services which ranges from filing tax returns to availing government doles. This high powered panel comprises of a 10-member committee to recommend a framework that would be for securing personal data in the increasingly digitized economy as also address privacy concerns and build safeguards against data breaches.
Srikrishna Panel Recommends Setting Up Data Privacy Authority

                                     Needless to say, the Srikrishna panel which is a committee of experts draws its members from government, academia and industry. The panel apart from Justice BN Srikrishna as Chairman also includes Aruna Sundararajan who is Secretary in the Department of Telecom; Ajay Bhushan Pandey who is CEO of Unique Identification Authority of India; Ajay Kumar who is Additional Secretary of IT Ministry; Gulshan Rai who is National Cyber Security Coordinator and Rajat Moona who is Director of IIT Raipur. It has studied and identified ways by which there can be better protection of key data and recommend methods to address these so that no key data is lost. It has suggested a draft data protection Bill.
                                    While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that an office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Electronics and IT said: “The government is cognizant of the growing importance of data protection in India. The need to ensure growth of the digital economy while keeping personal data of citizens secure and protected is of utmost importance.” The Srikrishna panel made specific suggestions to the government on principles to be considered for data protection in India. Now the ball is in the court of the government.
                                                For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that the constitution of the panel is significant from many angles given the off-take of digital transactions in the country as also the mounting concerns over the safety and protection of personal data. It is indisputable that there are Information Technology (IT) provisions which deal with cyber crime and data protection, but the spike in cashless transactions in the country post demonetization coupled with an increasing number of business going online have necessitated the dire need for fresh look at the existing laws. What is of paramount concern is that very serious questions have also been raised over data security and privacy safeguards after some websites of the Central and State Governments were found to be wantonly displaying personal details and Aadhaar number of beneficiaries. This should never have happened at the first place because it is a gross violation of the right to privacy of every citizen whose details are made public!  
                            As it turned out, the Justice BN Srikrishna Committee which studied the privacy and data protection laws of many countries, including the US, Singapore, Australia and the European Union, has released an over 200-page document. It has invited comments from the public on various issues pertaining to the definition of personal data and proposed penalties for misuse of data. It is widely anticipated that some valuable suggestions from the public would also be incorporated in the Srikrishna panel report.
                                      Interestingly enough, the comments and feedback from the public have been invited on various issues till December 31 thus sending a clear signal that the government is unlikely to table a data protection Bill in the upcoming winter session of Parliament. It may be recalled here that the Srikrishna Committee was set up on July 31following a government decision to make Aadhaar compulsory for all its services. The government gave the panel three months to suggest a draft Bill.
                                                To put things in perspective, it would be pertinent to discuss the highlights of the  recommendations of an approach paper which was published by Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission that was headed by Justice BN Srikrishna. They are as follows: –
1.  Key regulators like SEBI, IRDA, PFRDA and FMC should be merged.
2.  A unified financial regulatory agency other than banking sector regulator RBI.
3.  FSAT to hear appeals against all financial regulatory services.
4.  Setting up of Financial Redressal Agency (FRA) which addresses consumer complaints across the financial system.
5.  Establishing of an independent debt management office.     
                                 To be sure, the paper read that, “Despite an obligation to adopt adequate security safeguards, no database is 100 percent secure. In light of this, the interplay between any proposed data protection framework and the existing Aadhaar framework will have to be analysed.” It is worth mentioning here that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has issued a 12-digit unique identification number called Aadhaar to over 1 billion people after collecting their personal and biometric data. The Aadhaar number is now used by both the government and private entities for the purpose of authentication and financial transactions.
                                       It is most concerning to note that though the UIDAI has various in-built data protection mechanisms, it is not bound to inform an individual in cases of misuse or theft of his or her data. It was also added in the paper that, “The law may require that individuals be notified of data breaches where there is a likelihood that they will suffer privacy harm as a result of data breaches…fixing too short a time period for individual notifications may be too onerous on smaller organisations and entities. This may prove to be counter-productive as well as an organisation may not have the necessary information about the breach and its likely consequences.”
                                         Be it noted, the Srikrishna Committee, which has met thrice since its formation, is of the opinion that both the government and the private entities be brought under the ambit of the proposed law. Right now, we see that only the private or corporate entities are governed by the Reasonable Security Practices and Sensitive Personal Data or Information Rules under the Information Technology Act. Of course, both government and private must be brought under the ambit of the proposed law.
                                    In hindsight, the Srikrishna Committee appears to be traversing a middle path between the EU privacy law where protection of personal data is equated with protecting the fundamental right to privacy, and the US law which focuses on protecting the individual from excessive state regulation. The Committee has divided the white paper into three substantive parts, including scope and exemptions; grounds for processing, obligation on entities and individual rights; and regulation and enforcement. The Committee is of the view that certain exemptions should be granted by law for collecting information for investigating a crime, apprehension or prosecution of offenders, and maintaining national security and public order. But the paper stated that, “An effective review mechanism must be devised.”
                                      What cannot be missed out is that the panel recommended strict penalties to be imposed on data controllers in cases of violation. The approach paper observed that, “A civil penalty of a specific amount may be imposed on the data controller for each day such violation continues, which may or may not be subject to an upper limit. An upper limit may be a fixed amount or may be linked to a variable parameter, such as a percentage of the annual turnover of the defaulting data controller.”
                                     Before winding up, let me dwell on the views of the Srikrishna Committee on key points. To put it succinctly: Finding a balance between the rights-based model of privacy and protecting the individual from State interference, listing out seven principles of a good data protection law, and setting up of a data protection authority are some of the key findings of a white paper published by a Committee of experts on data protection. The seven key principles mentioned on which such a framework could be based upon in the country include: technology agnostic law; be applicable to the private sector and the government, maybe with different obligations though; informed and meaningful consent; minimal and necessary data processing; data controller must be accountable for any processing; establishing a high-powered statutory authority for enforcement, supported by a decentralized enforcement mechanism; and penalties for wrongful data processing to ensure deterrence. The key points are as follows: –
1.  An individual should first approach the data controller for any data breach, then the authority.
2.  Authority may conduct investigations; collect data; adjudicate disputes; monitor cross-border data transfer.
3.  Foreign entity that offers goods or services in the country may be covered under the law.
4.  Authority may be given the power to impose civil penalties, order defaulter to pay compensation.
5.  Proposed law may not be extended to include data relating to companies and other juristic entities.
6.  Data from which an individual is identified or reasonably identifiable may be considered personal data.
7.  Health, genetic, religious beliefs, financial, sexual orientation be treated as sensitive personal data.
8.  Exemption may be provided for data processed for journalistic/artistic, literary, academic, research purposes.
9.  Law may provide exemptions for data collected for investigation of a crime, and to maintain national security.
10.  A variable age limit can be drawn (not necessarily 18) below which parental consent is to be mandatory.
                                 All said and done, the data protection law is being keenly watched for its implications on both Indian as well as global technology giants. It is heartening to note that this is the first time that India has started meticulous work on a specific data protection law, which is expected to look at aspects such as data sovereignty, data retention and responsibilities of government companies as well as individuals while handling third-party data. Equally important is the fact that the Srikrishna Committee on data protection is close to releasing a white paper which will include a questionnaire for stakeholders on issues such as Aadhaar, data collection by corporate and consent of consumers, according to multiple people in the know. The white paper is likely to be made public in the next few days. The real idea behind the paper is to get comments on a variety of issues before the government starts the process of drafting legislation for data protection. It must be strictly ensured that right to privacy is respected which just recently in KS Puttaswamy case was held by the Supreme Court by a unanimous verdict of 9-0 was held to be a fundamental right and people’s personal information is not leaked to anyone under any circumstances    
                             Taking India’s potential to “lead the world into a digital economy” the white paper suggested that the data protection framework must not stifle innovation. Furthermore, it feels the framework must be considerate of the country’s need for “empowerment based on data-driven access to services and benefits for the common man”. It also envisions three main objectives of a data protection authority: monitor, investigate and enforce the laws; set the standards; and generate awareness in an increasingly digitized society.
                           Truly speaking, the paper traces the judicial and legislative steps towards data protection and privacy in India. It also touches on many domain-specific privacy laws for information, but in the context of data protection it focuses on two laws that provide the current contours for data protection. One hopes that the Srikrishna panel will further improve on its shortcomings by including the invaluable suggestions received from the people byDecember 31 which is the last date for receiving the feedback.   
                           To be fair, Srikrishna panel suggests a Data Protection Authority to draw up guidelines for each organization – like a Whatsapp or a Google – to follow, and a Data protection Officer in each organization whose job is to ensure the guidelines are followed; if, for instance, the Authority says most apps don’t need access to your phone records, it will need to ensure this is being followed. The Authority could also conduct Data Protection Impact studies and assign Trust Scores to each app/organization which would be of great help to users. There could be, perhaps, even be a Consent Dashboard, where users can see where their data is being used … Though it sounds easy to say all data must be protected, as Srikrishna brings out, this is a complex, and constantly evolving task – and no matter how many rules are laid out, decades of legal challenges/suits that follow will also play a key role in deciding how this finally pans out!
                                It merits no reiteration that Srikrishna panel must put a strong check on people’s data being leaked most casually by different companies, etc. Almost every app you download wants access to your phone calls, directories and calendar which should be not allowed unless you are willing to do so. Since data protection is different for each type of data, Srikrishna starts off with the very basic user-content being essential – as Aadhaar is mandated by the law, the consent here applies to allowing government departments to make your details public. A serious check must be imposed on most such apps who, of course, get user consent forms and, in any case, users have no option but to accept them in order to be able to download the app – the  Srikrishna panel very rightly suggests a short and simple form to avoid ‘consent fatigue’. Also when that data is sold to someone, or processed by anyone say, a Google to get consumer insights, consumers must have the right to ask for their data not to be included unless permitted or for them not to be targeted by advertisers/marketers based on this information. Let’s hope that Srikrishna panel after receiving the views of people will incorporate all such suggestions and make sure that people’s privacy is not violated under any circumstances by anyone including the government of the day! Only then will it serve its true purpose for which it as set up!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.  

Let Censors Decide On Padmavati: SC

Coming straight to the crux of the matter, let me begin by first and foremost pointing out that the Supreme Court on November 20, 2017 dismissed another plea for the second time to stay the release of the controversial movie Padmavati and initiate criminal prosecution against its Director Sanjay Leela Bhansali. It made it amply clear that it wants the Censor Board to come to an independent and considered decision on certifying the movie. This is the right step in the right direction and the Supreme Court’s decision has come at the right time which must be respected as it is the highest court of the land.
Let Censors Decide On Padmavati: SC

                                        It is worth mentioning here that the Delhi High Court also just recently turned down a plea seeking to set up an expert committee to ensure that historic facts were not distorted in Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s period drama film ‘Padmavati’. Noting that the PIL against release of the film was “hopeless” and “misconceived”, the Delhi High Court said that such pleas only encourage people who are agitating against the period drama. The court further said the final call regarding the release of the film will be taken only by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) thus reiterating what the Supreme Court has said and very rightly so.
                                     To put things in perspective, a three-Judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said the Supreme Court cannot stop a statutory body like the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) from doing its statutory duty of certifying a film by “prematurely” ordering a stay on its release. How can anyone dispute this ostensible fact? Certainly there can be no denying it or disputing it!
                                      As it turned out, the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra very rightly asked the petitioner advocate ML Sharma that, “Can the Supreme Court intervene to stop a movie? The CBFC has a statutory duty. Can this court injunct a statutory board from doing its duty.” Referring to the repeated pleas filed before it for stay of the movie even before the CBFC has certified it, he said that, “All this happens because people do not read the Cinematograph Act and rules.” The lesson learnt is that before making repeated pleas for staying any movie, we should first and foremost read the Cinematograph Act and rules. The Cinematograph Act stipulates that a film shall not be certified for public exhibition if it threatens security of the state, public order, decency and morality. These clauses give the CBFC its famous moniker “censor board”. Then what role do self-appointed censors both from government and civil society have? They must just simply mind their own business!
                                      Be it noted, the CJI Dipak Misra further went on to add that, “Five members see a movie. Once they see it, they discuss it among themselves and suggest cuts. Before they do anything, they give the film-makers an opportunity to be heard to convince them not to cut the scenes in question.” He said that in case of any grievance, there is the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal. Very rightly said.
                                It also cannot be lost upon us that the Apex Court, in its order, said the film is yet to be certified by the CBFC and that “our interference will tantamount to pre-judging the matter.” What the Apex Court has said carries a lot of merit. Who can deny this?
             While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that the petitioner advocate ML Sharma began by arguing that the movie indulges in the “character assassination” of the 13th century Queen Padmavati. He submitted before the court that, “The Queen was not a dancer. She was a warrior’s wife and a warrior herself”. He argued that the film makers have released the songs without CBFC certification.
                                    Going forward, he said that, “This is character assassination. The CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification) has yet to see the material. But four songs have been released.” He also contended that the songs were part of the movie and could not have been released without censor board’s clearance. Viacom 18, which produced the film said the CBFC had sought only more information about the movie.
                               For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that ML Sharma contended that the CBFC did not take any action despite the fact that the songs were part of the movie. He claimed that, “I can prove my point. I can produce the songs in court on Tuesday.” He appeared fully confident while putting across his point.
                                 To be sure, while appearing for the film makers, senior advocate Harish Salve, with another senior advocate Shyam Divan argued that the movie is before the examination committee of the CBFC. Salve said that, “This is a continuous process. These things go back and forth”. Salve while strongly defending the film makers said that, “What we have released are promos”. He also rightly argued that audios do not require approval. He also sought to make it clear that, “No promo can be shown without the clearance of the censor board”.
                                It is noteworthy that CJI Dipak Misra took the right stand by refusing to jump into the ship of political controversy on the ground that it was “premature”. He said that, “Let it first go to the censor board and then the tribunal before coming to us. The censor board has a definite role. It will go by the guidelines. We are on an altogether different plane.” He also posed very deeply probing questions like “Can this court pass an injunction against them preventing them from doing their statutory duty? Ask them to stop the movie?” No doubt, this is not the job of the Supreme Court because this is entrusted only to the CBFC and CJI has endorsed this very rightly.  
                                    As things stand, the Apex Court also turned down ML Sharma’s plea to initiate prosecution under Section 499 IPC (criminal defamation) against the film-makers. The court further found some portions of Sharma’s petition offensive and struck them out. CJI Dipak Misra very explicitly and most rightly stated in the order that, “Pleadings in a court are not meant to create any kind of disharmony in a society which believes in the concept of unity in diversity.” He also while rejecting the petitioners plea said that, “Let’s not go hither and thither”.   
                                       In hindsight, this is the second time the court has refused to interfere in the duties of the CBFC on Padmavati. The period drama is based on the 13th century battle between Maharaja Ratan Singh and his army of Mewar and Sultan Alauddin Khilji of Delhi. The petitioners have strongly objected to this film alleging that it has “defamed” the Rajput princess who had sacrificed her life by doing “Jauhar” that is jumping in fire in order to save herself from falling in the hands of  the powerful Delhi Sultanate king Alauddin Khilji.
                                 As if this was not enough, for the third time this month of November, the Supreme Court has once again turned down a request to ban “Padmavati” and said in a strong rebuke to Chief Ministers and others who have spoken out against the film that, “Those holding public offices should not comment on such issues.” The Judges reiterated their earlier stand that it is the prerogative of the national censor board to review the film and make a decision on whether it is suitable for screening.
                                      Needless to say, the Chief Ministers of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh had said that they will not allow the movie to release even if it is cleared by the censor board. Filmmakers and artists have said unitedly that it is a blatant violation of freedom of expression. The film “Padmavati” has been opposed by many politicians who say that the film cannot be allowed to “distort history” and offend the sentiments of Hindu groups.
                                   Not stopping here, even top Union Ministers have gone overboard and have said that Sanjay Leela Bhansali should consult with opponents of the film and historians to arrive at a version that is acceptable to them all. The Judges have minced no words in putting forth that, “When the matter is pending before the consideration of the CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification), how can persons holding public offices comment on whether CBFC should issue certificate or not? That will prejudice the decision of the CBFC.” What the Judges have said is absolutely right and we all must abide by it.
                                        It is high time and now all persons holding public offices should respect what the top court has said in this regard. They cannot disregard what the top court has said! We all must appreciate the basic fact that the Apex Court has stayed away from the extreme step of banning the film as demanded by petitioners time and again because it has not yet received a clearance from the CBFC, on the ground that doing so would amount to “pre-judgment” and very rightly so!  
                                       All said and done, threatening violence if film is not banned immediately, awarding cash rewards for those who kill or injure the film actress Deepika Padukone etc can never be justified under any circumstances in any civilized society and those threatening or indulging in violence or giving calls of cash rewards must be arrested promptly and not let out of the jail very easily. We are living in a democratic society and not in a Talibani society. Eminent film personality Javed Akhtar rightly said that, “The Karni Sena says women from Hindu royal families never danced in public. This is a Talibani objection”.  
                                 When we Indians can go out of the way and invite Pakistani invader Gen Pervez Musharraf giving a red carpet welcome to him who masterminded Kargil war in which we lost more than 600 soldiers as per official figures even though unofficially the figure is quite high and that too just 2 to 3 months after the Kargil war then why can’t we show some tolerance to an Indian Sanjay Leela Bhansali who is an Indian? Why so much of blind love for Gen Musharraf who has been declared a “proclaimed offender” in his own country and who always has a criminal mentality?
                                           Is it hidden from anyone that Gen Musharraf had threatened to nuke India both during Kargil war and after attack on Parliament if Indian soldiers dared to step even one inch inside Pakistani territory as he feels only Pakistan has the birthright to do so? Is it hidden from anyone that he himself crossed the border about 15-16 km inside India just the night before Kargil war begin as he himself boasts to boost his soldiers morale to slaughter Indians as they did actually when Captain Saurav Kalia and 5 soldiers of 4 Jat Regiment were brutally tortured for 22 days, their eyes, ears and nose were punctured with hot iron rods before taking them out and even their private parts were not spared before finally shooting them on head and not just this Gen Musharraf even awarded Rs 1 lakh as cash prize to dreaded Al Qaeda Terror leader Iliyas Kashmiri when he presented him a severed head of an Indian soldier as a trophy in 2000 as was widely reported in all English dailies? Yet I want to ask that why we Indians started crying in joy shamelessly when Gen Musharraf was welcomed most shamelessly to India by all politicians of all leading national parties thus rubbing salt into the wounds of the families of those soldiers who died fighting Kargil war sponsored directly by this Pakistaani invader Gen Musharraf?
                                     Also, then why so much of intolerance all over India for Sanjay Leela Bhansali who is an Indian and not a Pakistani invader like Gen Musharraf who was shamelessly welcomed like a royal emperor by all parties headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee who was the then Prime Minister and even honoured by leading Indian media houses for what? For slaughtering our soldiers? For threatening to nuke us but ultimately not nuking us? For calling terrorists as “freedom fighters and terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir as “freedom struggle” over which even former President Pranab Mukherjee had openly voiced his legitimate anger for giving him so much importance?
                                    Also, let me now wind up by saying: If Supreme Court can wait for CBFC to decide on Padmavati then why are politicians so restless and why can’t Chief Ministers bide their turn? Why can’t we be more tolerant for a film which is not a reality just like we showed tolerant for the mass murderer Gen Musharraf who masterminded kargil war and in whose term India witnessed maximum terror attacks? Why love for Pakistani invader Musharraf but hatred for Bhansali?
                                           Why love for Pakistan by according them Most Favoured Nation status unilaterally in 1996 and continuing with it even more than 20 years later in 2017? Why Indian leaders have time to visit Pakistan and attend wedding ceremony of relatives of former Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif but can’t spare time for visiting the families of those soldiers who are beheaded and most brutally murdered by Pakistani terrorists and Army commandos?  This despite the fact that Pakistan is giving us repeated thousands of deep cuts and we have lost more than one lakh soldiers in proxy war sponsored directly from Pakistan and are daily losing soldiers and civilians from the hands of either Pakistani soldiers or terrorists trained and armed by Pakistan! Why so much of blind love and tolerance for Pakistan?
                                           Not just this we have even lost millions of people in terror acts sponsored directly from Pakistan! Why most of the people in India and politicians are most tolerant for Pakistan but most intolerant for a born Indian like Sanjay Leela Bhansali? Why in UN our politicians call Pakistan as “Terroristan” but on ground continue with MFN status and foolishly invite dreaded ISI again unilaterally to Pathankot where terrorists trained by ISI killed our officers and soldiers most brutally as Pakistan refuses permission to NIA to visit Pakistan and vow to allow huge army of Pakistani diplomats to not just stay in India but also meet Hurriyat leaders and fund them as was disclosed by NIA recently which resulted in arrest of several top Hurriyat leaders?
                                            Why security for Hurriyat leaders who openly voice separatism, are hands-in-gloves with terrorists and speak Pakistani language? Why are we not nuking all relations with Pakistan inspite of braving thousands of terror attacks directly sponsored by Pakistan? Is some external power behind all this?
                                            Why so much of anger for just a fictional film but no anger for Pakistan and Musharraf except during elections for electoral purposes or for lip service? No sovereign country will behave with Pakistan in the manner that we have behaved that inspite of winning 1971 war released more than 93,000 Pakistani soldiers who were taken as prisoners of war after they surrendered even though Pakistan did not release 54 soldiers officially even though the figure here too is much higher and did not take back Pakistan Occupied Kashmir from them!
                                 With what face politicians oppose film like Padmavati? They have just no right to oppose it. They must pay heed to what the highest court of the land has said in this regard and should never forget the famous dictum that, “Be you ever so high, the law is above you”!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.  

Why Not A Single HC Bench For West UP?

Why when a bench of high court could be created by Jawaharlal Nehru way back in 1948 on July 1 at Lucknow, a high court bench cannot be created in any of the 26 districts of West UP even as 2018 is about to begin? Why this worst case of discrimination between people of East UP and West UP? Why agitations and strikes by lawyers of West UP since last more than 50 years has failed to compel Centre to create a high court bench in West UP?

                                          Why should more than 9 crore people of West UP travel all the way to Allahabad to attend court hearings every now and then even as train runs late many times and litigants have to bear all kinds of problems and waste huge money in it? When a high court bench can be created so close to Allahabad at Lucknow then why can’t it be set up in any of the 26 districts of West UP which are 700-800 km away from Allahabad? Why Bhopal which is capital of Madhya Pradesh, Bhubaneshwar which is capital of Odisha, Thiruvanthapuram which is capital of Kerala, Dehradun which is capital of Uttarakhand has neither high court nor bench but in Uttar Pradesh a single high court bench was set up so close at Lucknow just because it is capital?
                                    Why different parameters for different capital cities? Why no high court or bench for Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Dehradun, Thiruvananthapuram and others? Why have they been singled out? Why UP slammed by former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon as “crime and rape capital” of India has least benches and not maximum?
                                         Why UP has maximum population which is more than 22 crores as Yogi Adityanath keeps boasting every now and then which is more than the population of many countries in the world has least high court benches? Why West UP which owes for more than half of pending cases of UP and which tops in rape, gangrape, riots, murders, etc has not even a single bench of high court? Why Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge Jaswant Singh had strongly recommended 3 benches for West UP at Agra, Nainital and Dehradun as then Uttarakhand too formed part of UP and West UP but Centre did not create even a single bench here even though on its recommendations benches were created at Aurangabad in Maharashtra which already had 2 benches at Nagpur and Goa, Jalpaiguri in West Bengal and Madurai in Tamil Nadu?   
                                         Why maximum MPs, MLAs, PMs are all from UP but still it has least high court benches? Why maximum towns about 915 from UP and more than a lakh villages in UP still least high court benches?  Why 2 more high court benches were created as circuit benches for Karnataka at Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts respectively way back in 2008 which later in 2012 were made permanent benches but not a single bench was approved for West UP even though lawyers of West UP went on strike demanding bench for 6 months in 2001, one month in 2010, three  months in 2014-15 apart from the strike on Wednesdays and Saturdays and many other strike calls for many weeks as we saw just recently and regularly leaders in previous UPA government as well as present NDA government keep assuring the people about creation of a high court bench in West UP? Why such a raw third rated treatment for West UP alone which has more than 9 crore population?
                                        Why a high court for just 88 lakh people could be created for Uttarakhand in 2000 but not a single bench of high court for more than 9 crore people even in 2017-18? Why high court could be created for just 14 lakh, 18 lakh or 20 lakh people at Meghalaya, Tripura and Manipur but not a single bench for 9 crore people of West UP? Why UP has more than 10 lakh pending cases whereas other states like Maharashtra, Karnataka, Assam among others have not even more than one lakh cases pending but still they have got 3 high court benches? Why Andaman and Nicobar islands with 3 lakh population has bench but not West UP with 9 crore population?
                                      Why high court and benches of 8 states and even Lahore high court in Pakistan is nearer to West UP as compared to Allahabad still no bench is being created here? Why West UP inspite of emerging as epicenter of murders, rapes, gangrapes and communal clashes still has no high court bench which only punishes victims especially woman who has been raped or gangraped to travel all the way to Allahabad to get justice? Why even the rape of a 100 year old woman has failed to shake our politicians and jolt them to creating a high court bench in West UP?
                                     Why even the repeated attacks on foreigners as happened with a Swiss couple in Agra just recently has failed to shake our politicians to initiate steps to create a high court bench in West UP? Why 230th report of Law Commission which recommended setting up of more high court benches has been implemented only in Karnataka where 2 more benches were set up even though a bench already existed at Hubli but other big states like UP and Bihar notorious for lawlessness and crime have been left out in the cold to shiver and suffer for themselves by braving themselves all the crime and lawlessness? Why not a single high court bench more for UP other than the one at Lucknow created way back in 1948? Why no high court benches for West UP, Bihar, Rajasthan, Odisha and other big states? Why partial favouritism only for Karnataka by creating 2 more benches for just 4 and 8 districts even though a bench already existed at Hubli?
                                         Why BJP while in Opposition had repeatedly promised that if it comes to power in UP and Centre then it will certainly create a high court bench in West UP but even after more than 3 years in power in Centre and more than 6 months in power in UP has done nothing except giving false assurances time and again? Why Rajnath Singh who is Union Home Minister, Amit Shah who is BJP President, Sanjeev Baliyan who is BJP MP from Muzaffarnagar, Brijesh Pathak who is Law Minister of UP, Dr Satyapal Singh who is former Mumbai Police Commissioner and just recently made Union Minister who advocated creation of 5 high court benches in UP at Meerut, Agra, Varanasi, Gorakhpur and Jhansi but not one bench is being created in the whole of UP except the one that already exists at Lucknow created way back in 1948 by former PM Jawaharlal Nehru? Why many others from BJP also like Gen VK Singh have also time and again assured the setting up of high court bench in West UP with Baliyan even assuring that bench would be created by end of 2016 but now even as 2017 is ending we see no action happening on the ground?
                                           One can understand that Atal Bihari Vajpayee inspite of having raised the demand for setting up a high court bench in West UP as early as 1986 could not do anything because his party did not have the full mandate but what about our Modiji and Yogiji both of whom enjoy brute majority in Centre and UP both and yet till now are doing absolutely nothing!
                               The lawyers of West UP are fighting people’s fight for justice and not a fight for themselves! If a bench is created here it is the litigants of West UP who will be saved from the unnecessary trouble of getting reservation done to Allahabad which many times is not available in which case they have to travel without reservation whole night to Allahabad and many times train are late by many hours which further wastes their time and then they are unable to find many times a lodge to spend a night especially those who are not so rich and then hire expensive lawyers etc!
                                The lawyers of West UP are not asking anything for themselves but are asking for just a high court bench in any of the 26 districts of West UP at either Meerut or Ghaziabad or Noida or Hapur or Greater Noida or Muzaffarnagar or any other district of West UP so that people don’t have to waste so much time in getting reservation done, in travelling so far to Allahabad about 700-800 km away and suffer all other inconveniences but Centre is just refusing to budge at all! Why? It is high time and Centre must have some pity on at least aged women like the 100 year old woman who was raped just recently in Meerut and who would have to now travel 700-800 km all the way to Allahabad to seek justice at such a ripe old age because there is no high court bench in any of the 26 districts of West UP! Is this fair? West UP accounts for more than half of the pending cases in UP which tops the states list and still we see that West UP has not even a single bench of high court!
                                     How can this be justified on any ground? Centre must stop dishing out excuses and act now by promptly creating a high court bench in West UP just like Jawaharlal Nehru created one in Lucknow way back in 1948 and Dr Manmohan Singh created 2 benches for just 4 and 8 districts in Dharwad and Gulbarga respectively! Only then can its reputation be salvaged to a large extent. It has got such a huge absolute majority in UP that has been mentioned even by US President Donald Trump not to just create Ram temples and forbid cow slaughter but also to make sure that justice is accessible to one and all by creating more benches on a war footing that shall benefit equally people from all religions, castes, communities and sexes equally! UP CM Yogi Adityanath had himself demanded a high court bench for Gorakhpur in 1998 right inside Parliament as MP but you see the irony that even after 20 years in 2018 we see no high court bench even though he is now UP CM since March 2017 and in Lucknow a bench exists since 1948 even though it is so close to Allahabad where high court itself is located! This is terrible! West UP, Gorakhpur and Bundelkhand a high court bench is needed and nothing else!   
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

SC: Engineering Degree Through Correspondence Invalid

In a landmark judgment with far reaching consequences, the Supreme Court on November 3 came down heavily on deemed universities and declared invalid thousands of engineering degrees offered by four of them since 2001. It is beyond a straw of doubt that this is a major setback to thousands of students who pursued engineering studies through correspondence studies through correspondence courses offered by deemed universities in the last 16 years. This has certainly put them at grave risk of losing their precious jobs obtained on the basis of the certificates from these deemed universities.  
SC: Engineering Degree Through Correspondence Invalid

                                        While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me also inform them that a two-Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit noted that University Grants Commission (UGC) and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) did not approve distance learning programmes in engineering studies and approval granted by Distance Education Council (DEC) for such courses is illegal. The court found flagrant violations in the way deemed universities offered engineering courses through correspondence. The court ordered a CBI enquiry into the conduct of Government officials involved in granting approvals to these universities. The Bench said in most certain terms that, “In respect of students admitted after the academic sessions of 2001-2005, the degrees in engineering awarded by the concerned deemed to be universities through distance education mode shall stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. Any benefit which a candidate has secured as a result of such degrees in engineering in the nature of promotion or advancement in career shall also stand recalled. However, if any monetary benefit was derived by such candidates that monetary benefit or advantage will not be recovered by the concerned departments or employers”. The Bench also directed the deemed universities to refund the money to the aggrieved students who have suffered the most in this whole unsavoury process! Absolutely right!  
                                                  For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that while upholding the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order invalidating engineering degrees awarded in this manner, the Bench of Apex Court of Justices Goel and Lalit also “restrained all deemed universities from carrying out courses in distance education from the 2018-19 academic session onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific permissions are granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of each of those courses, and unless the off campus centres/study centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the concerned statutory authorities.” The Punjab and Haryana’s High Court order which was upholded by the Supreme Court exposes the extent to which the regulatory system was compromised as the courses were being run for more than a decade and a half without attracting serious scrutiny. Little wonder that this prompted the government to finally crack the whip!
                        As it turned out, the Bench noted grave oversight in the functioning of the University Grants Commission (UGC) and officials in the Ministry of Human Resources Development to permit such an illegality to go on from 2001 till 2005 in granting approvals. Giving benefit to the affected students who studied during this period, the Bench directed AICTE to conduct a fresh examination in all subjects within a month. Students will have to pass the exam in two attempts following which their degrees will be revived and all benefits that accrue based on these degrees will be restored.
                                     It merits no reiteration that the Bench also made it clear that, “It goes without saying that any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree on the basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn. However, any monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them.” It also must be borne in mind that the court also very rightly ordered a CBI inquiry into the conduct of officials involved in the grant of ex post facto approvals in 2006-07 to these institutes to conduct the courses though the UGC policy was against this. Those who are guilty of wrong doing must be punished most strictly because it is their wrong acts that has put in peril the future of thousands of students who graduated from these institutes!
                                     It must be added here that the Bench found that “none of these ‘deemed to be universities’ had taken prior permission from any of the authorities, namely, Universities Grants Commission (UGC), AICTE and Distance Education Council (DEC), nor had they even intimated at any juncture the fact that they were conducting such courses in technology/engineering through distance education mode.” It said that they did not have a “regular engineering college or faculty in technology/engineering at their own campus when they commenced courses in technology/engineering by distance education mode through study centres all over the country.” No doubt, considering all this they never deserved to be recognized at the first instance as deemed universities! It was done in flagrant violation of all norms and regulations!
                                     Truth be told, while stating that “practicals form the backbone” of technical education, the Bench said this was not possible in distance learning. The court pointed out that the AICTE has also “always maintained that courses leading to degrees in engineering cannot be undertaken through distance education mode”. The Bench lamented that the case reflected the “extent of commercialization of education by some of the deemed universities”.
                                    Pulling up the UGC for its nonchalant approach, the Apex Court said it also showed “lack of effective oversight and regulatory mechanism for the ‘deemed to be universities’. It said “the UGC had completely failed to remedy the situation. Serious question has therefore arisen as to the manning of the UGC itself for its effective working.” UGC must reform its functioning approach because it has got a rap from none other than the highest court of India and this has put a serious question mark on its very credibility. I am sure that the think-tanks in UGC would now swing into damage control mode and take appropriate action to further contain the damage so that such an unpalatable situation never arises again!   
                                  As things stand, it has also been provided that those skipping the tests or failing to clear them will forfeit their degrees. The deemed institutions will foot their bill for conducting the test and will even refund the entire fees to the students who fail to clear. They will even return the fees to those students who secured engineering degrees post-2005.
                                    To put things in perspective, while terming the present case to be an instance of how education was “commercialised” by certain deemed universities, Justice UU Lalit, writing for the Bench said that, “Even when they did not have any experience in the concerned field (engineering) and had no regular faculty or college in Engineering, they kept admitting students through distance education mode…the idea was not to achieve excellence in the field but the attempts appeared to be guided by pure commercial angle.” How can this be somehow ever justified? This can never be justified on any ground whatsoever!
                                      To be sure, the four institutions barred explicitly by the court from conducting engineering courses while adjudicating a bunch of petitions on validity of their correspondence course are: JRN Vidyapeeth, Udaipur (Rajasthan), IASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr (Rajasthan), Allahabad Agriculture Research Institute, Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh) and Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation (Tamil Nadu). All these institutes provide engineering education through correspondence since 2001 despite AICTE disapproval. They were clearly at fault.
                                        Be it noted, the Apex Court restrained all deemed universities from offering correspondence courses without approval of the AICTE and directed a CBI probe against officials who permitted the universities to run the programmes from 2001 onwards. The court passed the order after UGC’s counsel and Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh and AICTE advocate Anil Soni informed the court that distance learning courses in engineering was not permitted. Holding the degree issued by universities invalid, the court, however, opened a small window for students who took admission between 2001 and 2005 to revive their degree by undergoing fresh examination to be conducted by AICTE. It said they should be given another chance as they pursued the course under the impression that the course is valid.
                                           To put things in perspective, the Apex Court “suspended” all engineering degrees provided by these institutions between 2001 and 2005 and cancelled all degrees post-2005. The court made this distinction upon learning that for the years 2001-05, the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE and Distance Education Council (DEC) had given approval to conduct the course although it was a totally “flawed” decision. Even the 2004 UGC Guidelines allowed deemed-to-be-universities to apply for ex post facto approval. To its utter surprise and dismay, the court found that the courses were also started without obtaining approval of the apex technical education regulator – All India Council for Technical Education.
                                Needless to say, while ordering to stop all further admission into these courses beginning this academic year, the Bench of Justices Adarsh K Goel and UU Lalit directed the Centre to set up a three-member expert committee to analyse and propose a roadmap to strengthen the regulatory mechanism for the deemed universities and higher education. The Committee will give its recommendations to the Centre by August 2018. The matter will be placed before the court for further hearing on September 11 in 2018.  
                                           Elaborating further, let me also bring out here that the Bench had asked UGC to take appropriate steps to restrain ‘deemed to be universities’ from using the word ‘university’ and ordered the Centre to constitute a “three-member committee comprising eminent persons who have held high positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or law at national level within one month” to “suggest a roadmap for strengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six months.” The court said the “committee may also suggest oversight mechanism to regulate the ‘deemed to be universities’.”
                                         To say the least, the Apex Court was highly critical of the unbecoming conduct of officials in UGC, AICTE, DEC and HRD Ministry. It said, “On one hand, the authorities were proclaiming their policy statements (UGC Regulations 2010 that restrained deemed universities from conducting distance learning courses), and on the other, despite there being complaints, they went about granting permissions.” Terming this as “colourable” exercise of power, the Bench ordered CBI to bring all the guilty officials to book.
                                      While commenting on the lack of oversight and regulatory mechanism to keep deemed universities under check, the Bench minced no words in stating unequivocally that, “Serious question therefore arises as to the manning of UGC itself for its effective working. We have found there was complete and flagrant violation of norms and policies by the Deemed to be Universities as AICTE had been illegally kept out”. The Bench further added that, “This seriously affects credibility of standards in education, eroding the power and essence of knowledge and seriously affecting excellence and merit.” Unquestionably there can be no compromise on the high standards of education under any circumstances whatsoever!
                                   All said and done, this landmark ruling has sent a loud and clear message that professional degree like engineering can never be done by correspondence. It also cracked the whip against all those corrupt officials who ensured that this dirty game of compromise in all standards of education continued unabated right under their very nose! This landmark decision also exposes the extent to which the regulatory system was compromised severely! To conclude, the Bench said this explicitly that, “The commercialisation of education seriously affects creditability of standards in education, eroding power and essence of knowledge and seriously affecting excellence and merit. The present case further displays lack of effective oversight and regulatory mechanism for the deemed to be universities.” This is a wake up call for all the concerned parties who must now seriously abide by what the top court has said so explicitly!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Terrific Win For India In ICJ As Bhandari Gets Re-elected

What a terrific win it was for India! All of a sudden it was India who was grabbing all international headlines in all newspapers and news channels all over the world! It is beyond a straw of doubt that we all Indians felt on top of the world to see how India managed to shine par excellence and even left behind the UK once called Great Britain who ruled over us for centuries!
India In ICJ As Bhandari Gets Re-elected

                                   Yes, I am talking about India’s scoring a major diplomatic victory to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as its nominee Dalveer Bhandari who is a former Judge of the Supreme Court and who is about to complete his 9 year term as an ICJ Judge in his first term which started from 2007 was once again re-elected for another 9 year term with a convincing margin of more than two-third members backing him after the UK decided to withdrew its candidate Christopher Greenwood from the race in the 12th round as it knew that the defeat of its candidate was certain.
                                     In hindsight, Justice Bhandari has always enjoyed an impeccable and unblemished reputation throughout his career as a Judge. While he was the Chief Justice of Mumbai High Court, his tenure was known for his order which led to more allocation of funds for malnourished children in the most deprived regions of Maharashtra. He is a Padma Bhushan recipient himself and hails from a family of legal personalities and has been part of the judiciary of India since the early 1970s.
                                   He was elevated as a senior Judge of the Supreme Court of India on October 28, 2005. His judgments on socio-economic cases distinguished him from the other Judges. His orders in the Supreme Court left a mark on the right to food campaign and led to the release of higher quantity of food grains to the people living below the poverty line. His landmark orders also helped children from the less privileged sections of society gain access to basic infrastructure in the primary and secondary schools.
                                  Let me be candid enough to admit that even India itself was not expecting such a smooth cake walk with its nominee Dalveer Bhandari once again walking back to reoccupy the hallowed portals of Judge of ICJ for another 9 year term from 2018-2027. This is really great and phenomenal. Every Indian must be proud of this great achievement which came despite UK giving a tough fight to India. An elated Bhandari was candid enough to admit that the voting was marked by many tense moments. He very rightly said that, “The election this time was more eventful in the sense that it went on and on. And my re-election is more a victory of all Indians and the country.”  
                                Be it noted, Dalveer Bhandari received 183 of the 193 votes in the General Assembly and secured all the 15 votes in the Security Council after separate and simultaneous elections were held at the UN headquarters in New York. No doubt, India has pulled off a diplomatic coup by winning the much prized ICJ seat. Even UK had wanted its candidate Christopher to win once again but fortunately for India and most unfortunately for UK they could not manage to steal the show and upset India’s huge thumping support that it got from almost all the members in the UN General Assembly.   
                           Many firsts
                            To tell the truth, there are many firsts that are inextricably linked with Bhandari’s excellent performance in ICJ. This is the first time in over seven decades of the United Nations, that the UK will not be represented in the ICJ; and this is the first time that one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council lost out to an ordinary member in a race. This is what makes India’s victory more special and sweeter for which all Indians should feel proud of!
                              No doubt, this is also a big boost for India’s legitimate claim for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Some news channels must be commended for highlighting this on their prime time shows. It is also worth noting here that this is also the first time that one sitting member of the ICJ lost out to another sitting member. India thanked the UN members for supporting re-election of its Judge to the International Court of Justice, saying the election process reflected respect for its constitutional integrity and independent judiciary.
                      Proud moment for India
                       It needs no rocket scientist to conclude that Bhandari coming out with flying colours yet once again in the ICJ is a special proud moment for India as also for Bhandari himself. Commending Bhandari’s re-election, PM Narendra Modi called it a “proud moment” for India. He also tweeted, “Congratulations to EAM @Sushma Swaraj and her entire team at MEA and diplomatic missions for their untiring efforts that have led to India’s reelection to ICJ. Our deep gratitude to all the members of UNGA as well as UNSC for their support and trust in India.” It also must be noted here that the Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement that, “The extraordinary support from the UN membership is reflective of the respect for strong constitutional integrity of the Indian polity and the independence of the judiciary in India.”
                         To be sure,  External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj also tweeted, “Congratulations to Justice Dalveer Bhandari on his reelection as a Judge of the ICJ. Huge efforts by Team MEA. Syed Akbaruddin, our Permanent Representative in the UN deserves a special mention.” No doubt, Sushma Swaraj herself also left no stone unturned to solicit more and more support for Bhandari and she made more than 60 phone calls to her counterparts soliciting support. She also held talks with European countries at various levels and even though some were very stubborn but ultimately they were persuaded to support Bhandari.
                                   It deserves special mention here that it was Syed Akbaruddin who first broke the news on Twitter as soon as the results were announced. Also, Syed Akbaruddin must be applauded for speaking exceptionally well at a reception in honour of Bhandari and which was attended by representatives of over 160 countries on November 16, had sought to highlight the point that “only the candidate who enjoys overwhelming support of the General Assembly membership can be the only legitimate candidate to go through.” He also met Vice Prime Minister from Democratic republic of Congo, Leonard She Okitundu. Akbaruddin explained her about the vote and how the victory of Bhandari would benefit the world community at large. A top official who was privy to the ICJ negotiations said that, “This vote reflected how the world viewed India vis-à-vis the UK. It was a revelation for us as well.”
                                    Not to be left behind, even Matthew Rycroft who is UK’s permanent representative to the UN also congratulated India for such an emphatic win! He remarked that, “If the UK could not win in the run-off, then we are pleased that it is a close friend like India that has done so instead. The UK would continue to cooperate closely with India at the UN globally.” But in the same breath, Rycroft could not hide his true feelings of anguish over Christopher and lamented that, “We’re naturally disappointed, but it was a competitive field with six strong candidates. The UK has concluded that it is wrong to continue to take up the valuable time of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly with further rounds of elections.”
                                     To be sure, even the UK media termed Justice Bhandari’s victory over Britain’s candidate as a “humiliating blow for the UK”! It branded the “acrimonious” vote as a sign of Britain’s eroding stature on the world stage. The British newspaper Guardian reported with concern that, “The UK will not have a Judge on the Bench of the International Court of Justice for the first time in its 71-year history.” But Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson while addressing the House of Commons dismissed the suggestion that the defeat of the UK candidate was a “failure” of British diplomacy. He contended that the withdrawal of Greenwood was linked to the “long-standing objective of UK foreign policy to support India in the United Nations.” However, notwithstanding what Boris Johnson said to soothe the frayed tempers of his country-fellows,  there can be no getting away from the irrefutable and unenviable fact that UK has been badly knocked out by India and that too in a prestigious body like ICJ.   
                                       As things stood, the winning candidate required a majority in both the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council but 11 rounds of voting had ended with India winning in the General Assembly and the UK winning in the Security Council. Interestingly enough, while four candidates were elected smoothly to ICJ, the real fight ensued between Bhandari and Greenwood with Bhandari having an upper hand right from the beginning and ultimately emerging as a victor in the end. Of course, the UK had managed to secure nine of the 15 UN Security Council votes in the previous rounds while India enjoyed an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly.
                                No prizes for guessing that this lead to a stalemate. What is more, UK initially wanted to suspend the voting process and move to a conference mechanism that has never been used in the history of the UN to break the stalemate. But this was bitterly opposed by India and UK thus could not muster adequate support in favour of its candidate.
                          Also, this move needed approval by the UN Security Council in an open voting while the voting for the ICJ is through a secret ballot. It must be revealed here that UK began to realize just before its withdrew its candidate that the UK would not have nine members to support publicly the proposal to suspend further rounds of voting. A UN insider also revealed that, “Some members who voted for Britain’s candidate, told them that they could not vote for the suspension of the voting process”.  
                            In a dramatic turn of events, UK’s Permanent Representative to the UN Matthew Rycroft wrote to the President of the General Assembly and the Security Council shortly before Monday’s 3 pmvoting, informing them that their nominee Greenwood has decided to withdraw from the race. The two Presidents then read out the letter in their respective chambers. The rest as is called is history now!  
                              Needless to say, India thanked the UN members for supporting the re-election of its Judge Dalveer Bhandari to the ICJ. It would be pertinent to note that Justice Dalveer Bhandari featured in some of the interesting cases on issues of global importance such as nuclear disarmament, territorial and maritime resources, and climate change-related disputes, global terrorism and financial regulation. An official also pointed out that Judge Bhandari’s tenure in the ICJ is significant as it coincided with the changing nature of the court itself as it reaffirmed arrival of the new global players like India.
                                    All said and done, the landmark victory of Justice Dalveer Bhandari is not his victory alone. It is the victory of our nation as a whole. The Government in the Centre too has every right to claim credit for it because no one can dispute that Centre really worked hard for ensuring that Justice Dalveer Bhandari once again sits in the ICJ as a Judge and not shiver out in the cold.
                               It is also an indisputable fact that Centre left no opportunity unused and made extra efforts to ensure that support for Bhandari was more forthcoming and this backchannel talk certainly worked in his favour and tipped the scales ultimately in his favour! We all must celebrate this because this is the biggest proof that India’s clout in the international arena in last few years has increased tremendously by leaps and bounds. Diplomats at UN very rightly describe this landslide victory as “a reflection of reality of 21st century”. There can be no denying it!   
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.   

SC Dismisses Petition For SIT Probe In Judges Bribery Case

Coming straight to the key point, the Supreme Court on November 14 dismissed the petition filed by advocate Kamini Jaiswal seeking a Special Investigation Team for a probe into the allegation of middlemen-judges nexus in the medical admission scam as an effort to “create ripples”  and snubbed advocate Prashant Bhushan for bringing disrepute to judiciary by making false, scandalous and unsubstantiated allegations against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra. This is really most shocking. It merits no reiteration that Chief Justice of India is the highest post for a Judge in the Supreme Court which is the highest court in the country and is revered and held in highest esteem by the people of India. It is just not in order to level scandalous allegations against CJI without producing any substantial and concrete evidence to prove the complicity of CJI in any scam.
SC Dismisses Petition For SIT Probe In Judges Bribery Case

                                                To put things in perspective, the Supreme Court Bench of Justices RK Agarwal, Arun Mishra and AM Khanwilkar rejected the petition filed by Campaign for Judicial Accountability and reforms (CJAR) that demanded the setting up of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired CJI to take over the probe from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI FIR named former Orissa High Court Judge Justice (Retd) IM Quddusi, a local hawala operator Biswanath Agrawal and the owners of the Prasad Education Trust among others for hatching a conspiracy to fix the case in favour of the medical college in the Supreme Court. The CBI recovered Rs 1 crore that was allegedly paid as a  bribe from an aide of Justice Quddusi.
                                   To recapitulate, the case related to a Lucknow-based Prasad Education Trust (PET) run by BP Yadav and Palash Yadav, who were debarred by the Centre as late as on August 10, 2017 from admitting students to its medical course at Prasad Institute of Medical Sciences for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The college was also on the verge of losing its bank guarantee of Rs 2 crore. According to FIR filed by the CBI at the time when PET’s petition was pending in the Supreme Court, it got in touch with a retired Judge of Orissa High Court Justice (Retd) IM Quddusi who along with one lady Bhawana Pandey and a middleman Sudhir Giri advised the college to withdraw its writ petition from Apex Court. They in turn got in touch with an Odisha-based hawala operator Biswanath Agrawal, who claimed “very close contacts with senior relevant public functionaries” and sought a huge gratification for getting a favourable order from the Supreme Court. The CBI later arrested Agrawal with cash of Rs one crore received for the purpose.  
                            Curiously enough, the CBI which arrested Justice Quddusi and Bhawna Pandey, later found that a conspiracy was hatched to withdraw the petition from Supreme Court and approach the Allahabad High Court. On August 25, the Allahabad High Court reversed the Supreme Court order. The Medical Council of India then appealed on August 29 against this order to Supreme Court where PET submitted it will not take advantage of the High Court order. Two days later, a fresh petition was filed by Prakash Medical Institute before CJI Dipak Misra who passed an order on September 18 to restrain MCI from encashing the bank guarantee. Further, the Court allowed the MCI to conduct fresh inspection of the college to consider permission for admitting students for 2018-19.
                       
                               While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that the CBI made the seizure a day after a Supreme Court Bench headed by the CJI Dipak Misra on September 18 dismissed a petition filed by Prasad Education Trust seeking relief against the Government’s decision to debar them from admitting medical students for the next two years. The Supreme Court Bench deprecated the conduct of advocate Prashant Bhushan in no uncertain terms for unnecessarily dragging the name of the CJI Dipak Misra by casting aspersions on him without any proof. Undoubtedly, no one including myself has any legitimate right to cast aspersions on not just the CJI which is the highest august office but also on any other Judge at the drop of a hat without any substantive proof in hand because it severely tarnishes the reputation of Judges and this has a very adverse impact on the people’s unflinching faith in the judiciary which can never be good for a democratic country like India and it blemishes our country’s impeccable reputation at the international stage which cannot be allowed unless there are very strong and substantial grounds for doing so.       
                               For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that the Apex Court held that the CBI FIR did not name any Judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court for receiving any bribe to fix the case in the Supreme Court. Moreover, the court said when the alleged bribe money was exchanged, the case was not pending with the Supreme Court Bench. Justice Arun Mishra while writing the judgment for the Supreme Court Bench minced absolutely no words in making it crystal clear that, “Any complaint against a Judge and investigation by the CBI if given publicity will have a far reaching effect on the Judge and the litigant public…the petition wrongly presupposes that investigation involves higher judiciary, i.e. this court’s functionaries are under the scanner…rightly FIR has not been registered against any sitting Judge. Otherwise, on unfounded allegations, any honest Judge to the core can be defamed, and reputation can be jeopardised. No Judge can be held responsible for what may, or has happened in the corridors, or for ‘whop purports to sell whom’.”   
                                           Shedding further light on this, Justice Arun Mishra wondered how the order passed by the CJI debarring the medical college in question for this academic year amounted to “favourable order”. By any yardstick, this cannot be termed as a “favourable order”. He said that, “After decision has been rendered on September 18 by this court, an FIR has been lodged and it appears that money was yet to be exchanged…thus it is far-fetched and too tenuous to even assume or allege that the matter was pending in this court for which any bribe was to be delivered to anyone.” 
                                             Not stopping here, the Supreme Court Bench slammed Prashant Bhushan and minced no words to convey most unequivocally that, “An effort (by filing such petitions and the zest with which it is pursued) was made to create ripples in this court; serious and unwanted shadow of doubt has been created for no good reason by filing the petition which was wholly scandalous and ought not to have been filed.” Further, the Supreme Court Bench noted that by seeking recusal of Justice AN Khanwilkar (one of the Judges who passed the September 18 order), the petitioners aggravated the contempt. It needs no rocket scientist to conclude that the Supreme Court was particularly most miffed at the petitioner for directly questioning the integrity of such experienced and senior Judges of the Supreme Court who so far have always enjoyed an unblemished reputation.   
                                           As it turned out, although the Supreme Court three-Judge Bench led by Justice RK Agrawal while noting that the identical petitions filed by Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) and Ms Kamini Jaiswal “seriously jeopardised the independence of the judiciary” termed the conduct of petitioners as “unethical, unwarranted, and amounting to forum hunting”. But at the same time it did not unleash the whip and spared the petitioners from facing contempt proceedings as the petitioner had stated that the petition does not intend to name any individual. Justice Arun Mishra, after reading out excerpts from the judgment, orally informed the courtroom that no contempt action was contemplated against Ms Jaiswal and her friends.       
                                               Be it noted, Justice Arun Mishra while speaking for the Bench of the Supreme Court which also included Justice AM Khanwilkar said that, “Let us unite and work for the welfare of the great institution”. The judgment also exhorted the legal fraternity to let good sense prevail saying that, “Let good sense prevail over the legal fraternity and amends be made as a lot of uncalled for damage has been made to the great institution in which the public repose their faith.” Very rightly said!
                                           Truth be told, after a series of high-voltage hearings, one of them before a Constitution Bench on November 10, Justice Arun Mishra said very rightly that matter should not be aggravated any more. Justice Arun Mishra orally and candidly observed that, “We have observed in the judgment that we are not above the law. However high, we are not above the law. But everything should be as process. We still expect and hope the matter will stop at this.” The court said: “Though it is true that no one is above the law, no person in the higher echelons is above the law, but at the same time, it is the duty of both the Bar and the Bench to protect the dignity of the entire judicial system.”  The court indicated that it was leaning in favour of bringing a quietus to the issue, saying goodwill should prevail.
                                                It is of immense significance to note here that the Bench also re-asserted the recent Constitution Bench decision that the CJI was the master of the roster who alone could decide assigning hearing of a case. The controversy, a three-Judge Bench ruled, also settled the legal position that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) alone had the power to assign a case to a Bench even if there were allegations against him in the matter. Dismissing a plea by advocate Kamini Jaiswal, the Bench of Justices RK Agrawal, Arun Mishra and AM Khanwilkar said that, “There is an averment made in the writ petition that it is against the highest judicial functionaries; that FIR has been recorded. We do not find reflection of any name of the Judges of this court in the FIR.”   
                                       For one, this judgment has sent a loud and clear message to one and all that no litigant can somehow dictate any CJI not to hear a particular case. The judgment said that it was not left to the “whim of the litigant” to tell the CJI not to hear a case. It observed that , “This court has laid down that when imputations are made against the Chief Justice, it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to constitute the Benches and assign judicial business, and it would not hinge on the whim of the litigant.” The judgment further said that, “In fact, an allegation that the Chief Justice cannot constitute Benches, where imputations were made against him, only aggravates the contempt.”
                                       In hindsight, while disaaproving of a judicial order by a 2 Judge Bench that had decided the composition of a Bench for hearing a corruption case, a five-Judge Constitution Bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra on November 10 ruled that it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to decide what matter is heard by which Judge. The ruling effectively nullifies an order passed by a two-Judge Bench a day earlier directing that the case be posted before as Bench comprising the five senior-most Judges. In his order, the CJI sought to remove all misgivings by asserting his role as “the master of the roster” in order to protect the Supreme Court from anarchy. CJI Dipak Misra who was heading the Constitution Bench sought to dispel all wrong notions by asserting that, “There cannot be any kind of command directing the CJI to constitute a Bench. That authority is the CJI’s domain. The CJI is master of the roster and any order passed by any Judge allocating a matter to any Bench will not hold.”    
                                         It was also made clear that Judges are not responsible for “corridor” rumours. Recusal of a Judge cannot be sought in such instances on the ground of conflict of interest. The Bench held that, “No Judge can be held responsible for what may [happen] or has happened in the corridors, or ‘who purports to sell whom’.” It was also held that, “It is entirely the Judge’s prerogative to take cognisance under the Contempt of Court Act and punish a person who is unscrupulously trying to influence the decision-making or indulging in malpractices.”            
                             Truly speaking, the verdict also said that, “The filing of successive petitions by CJAR and Ms Jaiswal and the prayer to keep the CJI from hearing these cases were clear attempt at forum-hunting. In this context, the judgment again referred to a past judgment where contempt was drawn against an advocate for “mudslinging” at the Supreme Court in a “careless manner” through “meaningless and contradictory pleadings, clumsy allegations.” It reasoned that Chief Justice Dipak Misra’s Bench had decided the medical college case in question on September 18 before the FIR was registered on September 19. If so, the case was not pending before the CJI Bench. It referred to an unsuccessful attempt made by Ms Jaiswal’s lawyers that Justice Khanwilkar should recuse from the three-Judge Bench as he was part of the CJI Bench which decided the medical college case on September 18.
                                 It must be brought out here that a three-Judge Bench headed by Justice RK Agrawal while dismissing a plea for SIT probe in an alleged case of bribery in the name of Judges, referred to a 1991 Constitution Bench judgment that held that registration of FIRs against sitting Judges of the higher judiciary was not permissible. Referring to the Constitution Bench verdict of 1991, the top court said it had observed that in order to ensure independence of judiciary, the apprehension that the executive being the largest litigant, it was likely to misuse the power to prosecute the Judges. It said there cannot be registration of FIR against the Judges of higher judiciary without consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and, in case there was allegation against the CJI, the decision has to be taken by the President in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the judgment.
                                     Going forward, the Bench noted that, “There cannot be any FIR even against the civil judge/munsif without permission of the Chief Justice of the concerned court; and rightly, FIR has not been registered against any sitting Judge. Otherwise, on unfounded allegations, any honest Judge to the core can be defamed.” A valid point. There can be no denying it.
                                     As things stand, the Bench also comprising Justices Arun Mishra and AM Khanwilkar said that, “Thus, the instant petitions as filed, are a misconceived venture in as much as the petition wrongly presupposes that investigation involves higher judiciary, that is this court’s functionaries are under the scanner in the aforesaid case; that independence of judiciary cannot be left at the mercy of the CBI or that of the police is a red herring.” The Apex Court said there was no “reflection” of any name of the Judge of Apex Court in the FIR lodged by the CBI in the case in which allegations of bribery were levelled for securing settlement of cases relating to medical colleges. It also noted with concern that, “Any complaint against a Judge and investigation by the CBI if given publicity, will have a far-reaching effect on the Judge and the litigant public.”           
                                    It is most concerning to note that in this particular case we saw how the office bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) accused the petitioner-lawyers Prashant Bhushan, Kamini Jaiswal and Dushyant Dave who are all very senior and experienced lawyers of contempt of court for directly accusing CJI Dipak Misra. The SCBA President and senior advocate RS Suri, Vice President Ajit Sinha, Secretary Gaurav Bhatia and several other senior lawyers like Ashok Bhan and Aman Sinha accused the trio of browbeating the court. RS Suri lashed out saying that, “They file multiple petitions till they get favourable orders. This is forum shopping. This is getting favourable orders by terrorism. Your Lordships should make them for contempt. The dignity of the judicial institution is at stake.” Justice Arun Mishra said that, “No advocate can say that the CJI should not hear a case. Is this not contemptuous? There is no procedure in law to name the CJI in an FIR. Rumours and unsubstantiated allegations cannot be used against Judges. Such practices will cripple the judiciary and is a threat to its existence.”        
                              It may be recalled here that Prashant Bhushan had even made an allegation that the CBI’s FIR “is squarely directed at the Chief Justice of India”. The CJI while addressing Bhushan said that, “You made wild allegations against me. You can afford to lose your temper, but we cannot lose our temper. That is the beauty of this system.” Later Bhushan tweeted: “Extraordinary proceedings in SC today in a case seeking SIT investigation in medical college bribery case involving the CBI! CJI presided over a hand picked bench to override yesterday’s order referring this case to top 5 Judges; This despite having a direct conflict of interest.” The CBI’s FIR alleges that a conspiracy was hatched to bribe Supreme Court Judges to influence the outcome of a medical college case. But what should not be lost sight of is that the CBI’s FIR did not name any particular Judge. If it was an open and shut case then why the Judges were not named?       
                                             All said and done, there can be no gainsaying the irrefutable fact that no person and no lawyer no matter how senior he/she may be has any untrammelled right to point fingers and level charges at CJI or any Judge of Supreme Court or any other Judge unless and until there is solid and substantial proof to substantiate those charges. Also, it must be borne in mind that the CJI is the father figure of the Supreme Court which is the highest court of our country and he/she must be kept above all controversies as the people poses their strongest faith in him/her. How can anyone in what capacity accuse CJI of any wrong act without producing any strong and convincing proof to indict him/her? How can anyone in what capacity direct CJI to hear or not to hear any particular case? It must be left to the CJI to decide whether or not to hear a particular case! It is the bounden duty of the CJI  to always ensure that the supreme interests of the sacred institution will always be first and foremost and nothing will be allowed to be done at any point of time that would dilute or harm its majesty and unrivalled reputation in any manner whatsoever! 
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Insert Adsense Inside Posts: After The First Paragraph

  Want to know which part of your site or blog will bring you more profit? Add AdSense inside posts and then check out the famous Google AdSense heat map. Recent studies, however, showed that placing AdSense after the first paragraph of a site or blog is one of the best AdSense placement. Unfortunately, the default Blogger platform offered by Google doesn’t allow placement of ad after the first paragraph. But because it has become one of the most profitable areas, plenty of webmasters have tried to take advantage of the best AdSense placement. How can you enjoy the same level of profit?

To solve the problem, we will just move the locations of the ads to be displayed by adding JavaScript and DIVs. With the following script, you can easily choose the paragraph or heading after which you want to inject the ad to. This way, you won’t have to manually change every post.

How to Display AdSense Ads after the First Paragraph in Blogger

1. Log into your Blogger account, select your blog and click “Template” on the left side. Open the Template editor using the “Edit HTML” button.

2. Once the editor has opened, click anywhere inside the code area and press the CTRL + F keys (or Command + F) on your keyboard to open the editor’ search box. Search the following line (press Enter to find it):

Note: You will find multiple occurrences of  but you need to stop at the second one, or if you don’t see any changes, test the last one.

3. Add the below DIVs in red before and after like this:

4. Copy the AdSense code that you want to show and use this tool to convert it into plain text. After conversion, add the following HTML and replace the “ADSENSE CODE HERE” text with the converted ad code just above the line that we just found:


ADSENSE CODE HERE

Align AdSense Left or Right

By default, the Google AdSense ad unit will appear in the middle just after the first paragraph. If you are unhappy with the results and want to wrap text around the ad, you can choose one of the options below:

a) Align AdSense on the left – change 

 with:

After modifying it, the ad will display something like this:

adsense inside posts, adsense placement

b) Align AdSense ad on the right of the content – change 

 with:

5. Finally, right after 

 from step 2, add this script:

function insertAfter(addition,target) {
var parent = target.parentNode;
if (parent.lastChild == target) {
parent.appendChild(addition);
} else {
parent.insertBefore(addition,target.nextSibling);
}
}
var adscont = document.getElementById("adsense-content");
var target = document.getElementById("adsense-target");
var linebreak = target.getElementsByTagName("br");
if (linebreak.length > 0){
insertAfter(adscont,linebreak[0]);
}

Note:
– To insert the ad after the second paragraph, change “0” from the line in red with “2”.
– If you want to put AdSense just below the heading h2 or heading h3 of a post, replace br from "br" with h2 or h3.

6. Click “Save template” to save the changes and you’re done.

With this trick, you can insert AdSense after the first paragraph automatically in Blogger with ease. Now it’s your turn to decide which format works best on your site.

Set Up Special Courts To Try Politicians In Criminal Cases: SC Directs Centre

In a first, the Supreme Court which is the highest court of our country has very clearly directed the Centre to constitute special courts to exclusively try criminal cases involving politicians.
Set Up Special Courts To Try Politicians In Criminal Cases: SC Directs Centre
 A Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha have in their considered opinion held that, “In so far as setting up of Special Courts are concerned, setting up of Special Courts and infrastructure would be dependent on the availability of finances with the States…the problem can be resolved by having a central scheme for setting up of courts exclusively to deal with criminal cases involving political persons on the lines of the Fast Track Courts which were set up by the Central Government for a period of five years and extended further, which scheme has now been discontinued. Scheme to give effect to the above may be laid before the Court on the next date fixed, indicating the amount of funds that can be earmarked for setting up of Special Courts.” Centre must comply with what Supreme Court has said as soon as possible so that politicians with criminal background are shunted out permanently from politics at the earliest.
                                            While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that the Bench which was hearing a petition filed by BJP leader Ashwani Upadhyay seeking life time bans on convicted politicians from contesting elections, accepted Additional Solicitor General Atmaram Nadkarni’s request to give the Centre six weeks to submit details of the scheme. The matter will now come up for hearing on December 13. There is lot of merit and force in what Ashwani is seeking from Supreme Court and there is no valid reason why life time ban should not be imposed on convicted politicians.
                                               It cannot be lightly dismissed nor would it be out of context to mention here that the Election Commission too on November 1 has proposed life ban for MPs/MLAs convicted in criminal cases in view of the rising trend of criminalization in politics. Presently we see how just a six-year ban is imposed on convicted politicians under the Representation of People’s Act. Politics has become a den for criminals and to purge this den from criminals, it is imperative that they are punished with life ban if they are convicted.
                                            What is most perplexing is that on such a contentious and all important issue which can throw out all convicted politicians permanently from politics we see the unpalatable truth before us that Centre has chosen to remain non-committal. Additional Solicitor General Atmaram Nadkarni told the court that the recommendations of both the Election Commission and the Law Commission of India were pending with the Centre. However, it is a matter of some consolation that on the other key issue of fast-tracking trial against tainted politicians we saw a unanimity between the Election Commission and the Centre with both in favour of setting up of Special Courts.
                                       It is noteworthy that by a rough estimate, the Centre said about 1,000 courts would have to be set up. The Bench told the Centre to first frame the scheme and allocate funds following which States could follow suit by setting up the infrastructure required to try criminal cases against MPs and MLAs. The Additional Solicitor General Atmaram Nadkarni agreed to frame the scheme before December 13 which is the next date of hearing.  
                                                         Be it noted, senior advocate Meenakshi Arora while appearing for Election Commission, informed the Bench that the Election Commission was in “support” of a life ban on convicted MPs/MLAs who stand disqualified for 6 years on their conviction in a criminal case punishable with a sentence of two or more years as stipulated under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951. She said that the Election Commission had recommended so to the Centre with a view to curb the growing criminalization of politics. It is because of criminalization of politics that we see that criminals are able to manipulate everything in their own favour as they wield the keys to the corridors of power which is most dangerous and concerning!
                                           Truth be told, during the hearing, the Centre drew the Apex Court’s ire for saying that though it was in favour of special courts trying cases against politicians and their speedy disposal, the constitution of such courts was primarily the responsibility of the states. Justice Ranjan Gogoi spared no punches in hitting out at Centre by saying that, “You say you have no opposition to fast track courts. Same time you say states have to set up… On one hand, you are making a commitment and at the same time, you are washing your hands off.” The Apex Court also referred to a report submitted to it by an NGO associated with electoral reforms named Association of Democratic Rights which disclosed names of 1581 MPs/MLAs facing 13,500 criminal cases in the present Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.    
                                             Be it noted, the Apex Court also asked Centre to inform it about the status of these 1581 criminal cases pending against lawmakers at the time of filing nominations to the 2014 elections. It also must be recalled here that in an order dated March 10, 2014, the Supreme Court had directed that the cases against legislators be expedited and disposed within a year. The Apex Court minced absolutely no words in asking this most categorically that, “How many of 1581 cases involving Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and Members of Parliament (MPs) (as declared at the time of filing of the nomination papers to the 2014 elections) have been disposed of within the time frame of one year as envisaged by this Court  by order dated 10th March, 2014 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 536 of 2011. How many of these cases which have been finally decided have ended in acquittal/conviction of MPs and MLAs, as may be?”
                                                     As it turned out, the Bench also wanted to know if any new criminal case had been lodged against any present or former MP or MLA between 2014 and 2017 and its status. Underlining the dire need for Special Courts, Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred to the workload of trial courts across the country. At any point of time, each court was handling as many as 4200 cases, Gogoi said. He also added that, “But 4200 is much above optimal. Even if the Supreme Court says that the courts should dispose of cases in one year, that will be possible only if these courts were handling cases involving lawmakers and nothing else.”
                                                  Truly speaking, the Judges did not favour the suggestion that the proposed Special Courts be clubbed with other designated courts like CBI courts. It must be made mandatory for all candidates contesting elections that they should declare their assets and list criminal cases against them, if any and the latest position of those criminal cases whether they have been declared guilty or is still just pending. No doubt, it is a matter of grave concern that criminalisation of politics is increasing very rapidly and still they are not barred permanently from contesting elections.
                                          It would be pertinent to note here that the Supreme Court on October 31 sought to know the rate of conviction of politicians in criminal cases and asked whether its direction to complete trial against them within a year was being effectively implemented. The Apex Court said that data about the conviction rate of politicians in criminal cases would open up a “new dimension” and sought to know whether it would act as a “deterrent” if the trial against lawmakers is completed in a year. Very rightly so!
                                       As things stand, a Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha said that, “We would also like to know what is the rate of conviction. That will throw open a new dimension. We will see that criminal cases against politicians, if it does not end in conviction, then why? What are the reasons for it?” The top court made these observations while hearing petitions seeking to declare the provisions of the Representation of People (RP) Act, which bar convicted politician from contesting elections for six years after serving jail term, as ultra vires to the Constitution. Referring to data, the counsel claimed that an estimated 34 percent of Parliamentarians had a criminal record.
                                Interestingly enough, the Bench observed that a direction was earlier passed by the top court that trial against politicians should be completed within a year and wanted to know how effectively was that order being implemented. The court also asked what would happen to a Judge when charges were framed against him or an FIR lodged. To this, the counsel replied that, “The court has laid down such a high and rigorous standards for Judges. If this is the position in the case of Judges, why can’t the same be there in case of politicians.”     
                                   While there can be no denying that the setting up of Special Courts to try criminal cases is a good step but it must be also ensured that adequate Judges are appointed for deciding such cases and they are fast tracked and all necessary infrastructure is provided to achieve the aforesaid purpose! Only then will the setting up of Special Courts will serve the desired purpose. Even Supreme Court itself had said that, “It takes years, probably decades, to complete a trial against a politician. By which time, he would have served as a minister or legislator several times over.” This is what needs to be checked and this is what that is most concerning!
                                   Needless to say, Justice Ranjan Gogoi in his preliminary remarks, observed that all these issues of life-time ban on convicted politicians, implementation of earlier court orders that mandated time bound disposal of such cases and automatic disqualification of convicted lawmakers can be addressed if cases against politicians are dealt by Special Courts exclusively set up for the purpose. He said that, “There are only 17,000 courts in India. Once the Special Courts finish their work, they can continue functioning as normal courts. A thousand courts more are welcome….You have to appoint public prosecutors, provide infrastructure.” Very rightly said! No denying or disputing it!
                                       According to the Department of Justice, more than 6.5 lakh cases are pending in fast track courts in the country. This is quite a whooping figure. It should be reduced to a bare minimum. Out of these cases, there are about 1500 in Delhi alone. Without adequate infrastructure and qualified Judges, these fast track courts are ill equipped to deal with such a huge volume of cases. Therefore, what must be first and foremost addressed is proper infrastructure and adequate qualified Judges. Only then will the fast track courts serve their true purpose and ensure that politicians don’t exploit our snail paced judicial system in their own favour!
                                     Why so much of leniency is shown towards politicians alone? Why when a person is disqualified from becoming a Judge or IAS or IPS or joining Army or any other government service even if someone registers a false case then why are politicians alone exempted from it and are given the long rope to label it as “politically motivated”? Why is it not appreciated that considering the palpable truth that politicians are the basic pillars of governance who exercise control over police, bureaucrats and all other services and people also look on them as their ideal then why should criminals be allowed entry in politics at the first place?
                                          This is the root cause of rapid criminalization of politics and politics becoming the den of criminals! This has a pervasive effect on all other services and on our society as a whole which is always sought to be ignored. We have seen how even dacoits and mafias are easily able to enter politics by power of their money and muscle and then make a complete mockery of our entire democratic system! Should this be allowed to happen at the first place? The unpalatable truth is that we have allowed this right under our nose since the last 70 years! How can those charged with rioting, murder, attempt to murder, rape, gang rape, corruption, forgery and cheating etc be ever loyal in discharging his duties as MP or MLA? But what a pity that they have always been exempted instead of setting the highest bar for them! This under no circumstances can ever be justified! All said and done, there has to be zero tolerance for criminalization of politics. There can be no compromise on this under any circumstances! On a concluding note, it must be said that the Supreme Court has rightly directed Centre to set up Special Courts to try politicians in criminal cases and Centre must do it on a war footing!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh. 

LG Has Primacy But Can’t Sit On Files: SC

Let me start running my pen by first and foremost pointing out that the Supreme Court on November 2, 2017 commenced a crucial hearing to determine whether the elected government or the Lieutenant Governor enjoys supremacy in administration of the Union Territory of Delhi, observing that the constitutional scheme was prima facie tilted in favour of the LG. 
LG Has Primacy But Can’t Sit On Files: SC
Add caption
The Supreme Court said that the Constitution “prima facie” gives primacy to the Lieutenant Governor in the affairs of Delhi, but observed that the LG cannot sit on files sent for approval by an elected government. No doubt, if an LG just sits on the file, he is doing nothing but making an open mockery of the elected mandate which the Chief Minister secured in the elections and this can never be good for the health of a vibrant democratic country like India!
                                       While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that a five-Judge Constitution Bench is hearing a clutch of petitions by the Delhi government against a Delhi High Court decision that declared the LG, who reports to the Centre as the administrative head of the national capital. The Apex Court too seemed to agree with this view and said that “land, police and public order” are not under the purview of the Delhi government. But what cannot be allowed to go unnoticed is that the Bench of Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said that, “The LG cannot stultify an executive decision by sitting over a file. He must exercise his power in a reasonable time.”
                                  For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that the Bench also made it clear that in case of differences with the ministers, he should refer the matter to the President and must spell out the reasons. He cannot just straightaway refuse to give reasons in any matter. It must be revealed here that these observations have given a glimmer of hope to the Arvind Kejriwal Government which had approached the Apex Court to determine the powers of the LG under Article 239AA(4) according to which in case of “difference of opinion” between the LG and the elected Government, the former has power to refer the matter to President, or in the event of urgency pass necessary orders for immediate action.     
                                     Before proceeding ahead, let me now mention some flashpoints which showed how unenviable the tussle has been going on between the LG and the Delhi CM since quite a long time.  Here are some government orders that were either struck down or delayed by LG. They are as follows: –
Mohalla clinics: AAP MLAs staged sit-in at LG’s office on August 30. AAP MLAs alleged that LG was sitting on the file for months. Soon after on September 4, LG gave clearance.
Teachers recruitment: Delhi government alleged files were not shown to Education Minister Manish Sisodia. LG Blamed his department for not following procedure.
Slum rehabilitation: Cleared by Cabinet on June 20. File with LG after being sent on July 10.
App-based premium buses: LG struck down proposal. Alleged that it was intended to benefit a certain company.
Mohalla sabhas: Cabinet cleared project in June. Files await LG’s nod. Rs 350 crore funds unutilized.
Regularisation of guest teachers. Manish Sisodia who is Deputy Chief Minister and Education Minister has written to the LG Anil Baijal reminding him about the pending Bill on regularization of guest teachers that was passed by the Delhi State Assembly in early October. Sisodia alleged that he had sought an appointment with LG along with guest teachers but he refused to meet all and only agreed to meet Sisodia alone.
Increase of stamp duty and circle rate of agricultural land.
Setting up of inquiry commission to probe CNG fitness scam, irregularities in Delhi District Cricket Association (DDCA).
                                    Be it noted, the Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan said they will examine the scope of Article 239AA, which clearly stipulates the L-G’s “primacy” over decisions taken with regard to Delhi. The Apex Court urged the Delhi Government to propose a middle path that can allow both the LG and the elected Government to coexist “harmoniously”. Very rightly so!
                                       Needless to say, Justice DY Chandrachud orally observed that, “The Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi cannot stultify proposals or schemes forwarded by the Council of Ministers to him by simply sitting on it.” He also added that, “He [the LG] is bound to pass the difference of opinion [between the LG and the Council of Ministers] to the President for early resolution.” Justice Chandrachud’s observations came on the first day of a five-Judge Constitution Bench hearing of a batch of nine appeals filed by the Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP government against an August 4, 2016 verdict of the Delhi High Court.
                                         To put things in perspective, while appearing for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Government in Delhi, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium told the Bench that such was the state of affairs in the Capital that appointment to fill up nearly one lakh vacant posts at all levels, from peons to higher posts, is stuck as the files have remained pending with the LG office. Subramanium also minced no words to point out that the LG calls meeting with Secretaries bypassing Ministers who are the departmental heads. This certainly is not a healthy precedent.
                                      Truth be told, Gopal Subramanium also made it a point to ask categorically that, “Why is there an elected Government in the first place? This matter is not about supremacy, but to make a democratic experiment provided by Parliament a success. It can’t be that the LG has to disagree with you on anything and everything and block governance.” Kejriwal also was at pains to point out that, “My government is so powerless that I can’t even get my peon appointed.” He has also complained to the Supreme Court that the Centre through the Lieutenant Governor who acted as a “super governor”, had completely paralysed the elected AAP government by stalling its every welfare scheme.      
                                    As things stand, Gopal Subramanium said that, “The LG has been exercising powers in such a manner to completely block Delhi government and negate the intent and object of Article 239AA which gave a democratically elected government to Delhi.” He also rightly pointed out that, “The purpose of Article 239AA was to provide some kind of voice to the people. We are not contesting parliamentary supremacy. But there must be an elbow room for the Legislative Assembly…Everything we do does not require the concurrence of the LG.”
                                             He also submitted that, “The Delhi High Court actually said this LG has special powers greater than the President, greater than the Governors of States.”  It cannot be lost on us that since the formation of the AAP government in 2015 in Delhi, it has been locked in a fierce turf war with the LG over whose writ should run in Delhi. This is what is most unfortunate!
                                                   To be sure, Article 239AA was inserted in the Constitution by the 69th Constitutional Amendment Act to give Delhi an Assembly and an elected government with a Council of Ministers headed by a Chief Minister but without the power to legislate or control land, law and order and police. This is what has become the bone of contention between the LG and the Chief Minister of Delhi. The Kejriwal government approached the Supreme Court to demarcate the powers between the Centre and the Delhi government for smooth exercise of executive functions by the elected government.     
                                             Truly speaking, when the Bench said a proviso in Article 239AA prima facie appeared to suggest that the LG had primacy in governance of Delhi, Gopal Subramanium said that, “Is it the intent of the constitutional provision to make civil servants openly defy the elected government? Is it the mandate of the constitutional provision that the LG must stall every scheme of the Delhi government – extending the functioning of mohalla clinics for one year, regularising posts of teachers in municipal schools, and filling up of nearly one lakh sanctioned posts at various levels through a transparent process? Now, the ministers as departmental heads have to fall at the feet of the bureaucrats to implement public welfare schemes.”
                                                   Not stopping here, it was further submitted that, “Bureaucrats pay no heed to others from ministers and openly say that they will await nod from the LG’s office. Is this what is contemplated in Article 239AA, which makes the chief minister accountable to the people? The LG keeps sitting on files which are required to be cleared to allow day to day functioning of the Delhi government. Delhi government cannot appoint lawyers of its own choice. If everything is going to be stultified by the LG, why have an elected government at all in Delhi?” He also however admitted in the same breath that, “In egregious situations where there is palpable abuse of authority, the LG can indeed intervene as a delegate of the President.” He also described the LG as a watchdog.   
                                       It would be pertinent to mention here that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra orally observed that, “The Lieutenant Governor (LG) cannot differ with each and any administrative decision of the Delhi government. Though having every authority to differ, his disagreement with the Delhi government should not be trivial or contrived, but substantive. Aid and advice (of the Delhi government) should be accepted and respected unless there is an abuse of authority.”
                                     It would be equally pertinent to mention here that the CJI Dipak Misra also went on to add that, “The intervention [of the LG] does not mean he will have confrontation. It should be fact and issue-oriented on objective parameters. The LG should conduct his constitutional duties, keeping in mind factors like he is an august head, keeping in mind the special status of Delhi as the National Capital, what was intended by Parliament in the 69th Constitutional Amendment, not act in a way to defeat the intent of the constitutional provision of Article 239AA of harmonious governance and, most importantly, citizenry’s trust.” Justice DY Chandrachud observed that, “He [LG] cannot supplant the administration”.
                                   While making the picture further clear, Justice Ashok Bhushan remarked that it was not constitutionally contemplated that one man’s concurrence would be required for each and everything that an entire ministry does. CJI Dipak Misra said the LG need not concur with everything. Referring to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act of 1991, the Chief Justice said the Delhi government is bound to intimate the LG on taking a policy decision. He also made it clear to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal that, “You are bound to intimate the LG, but you cannot say that the LG has to concur.”
                                         All said and done, both Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal must adhere to what the top court has said and to what CJI Dipak Misra has advised. No doubt, Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal deserves primacy in all the affairs of Delhi but the LG cannot just sit on files and decisions cannot just keep hanging in fire indefinitely. The interests of the people of Delhi must be always supreme under all circumstances and both the LG and the Delhi CM must always bear it in mind always while working in their offices!
                                           It is high time and now they must both understand and fully appreciate the basic undeniable truth that the more they work harmoniously in tandem with each other, the more the wheels of governance will run smoother and better and the more the people of Delhi will stand to gain in the longer run! There can be no denying or disputing this! This is exactly what the Supreme Court too wants as is explicit by what it has said so far!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Lathicharge On Lawyers Of West UP Staging Peaceful Protest In Meerut Is Disgusting And Shocking

It is both disgusting and shocking to note that the lawyers of 22 districts of West UP who had all gathered in Meerut on October 14 to oppose the visit of Kesarinath Tripathi to a function in Chaudhary Charan Singh University which was just a symbolic protest march were brutally lathicharged in which many lawyers sustained injuries. What is most disgusting and shocking is that even seniormost and most reputed lawyers like Chaudhary Narendrapal Singh, MP Sharma, OP Sharma who lost his single son Tarun Sharma 3 years back in 2014 after being shot at just outside his house and Anil Jangala among others were also not spared! Is this the way lawyers are treated in this country? Even woman lawyers were not spared and they too were lathicharged.
Lathicharge On Lawyers Of West UP Staging Peaceful Protest In Meerut Is Disgusting And Shocking

                                          I am still to come to terms with the irrefutable fact that so many senior lawyers were lathicharged and many sustained injuries also and had to be hospitalized! Rohitashawa Kumar Aggarwal who is President of Meerut Bar Association himself said most painfully that, “Senior advocate Narendrapal Singh who has been the former President of Meerut Bar and who has led padyatras demanding high court bench in West UP so many times and the most famous of all being the one from Mussorie to Delhi when memorandum was submitted to the then President Giani Zail Singh for aa bench of high court in West UP in 1980s was also lathicharged by police. Until and unless police officials are not transferred or suspended the strike would continue.” From 14 to 24 October the strike has continued uninterrupted and can even extend further.
                                           The lawyers of West UP have opposed Kesarinath Tripathi’s visit to Meerut because they feel that he was instrumental in pressurizing the government to not create a high court bench in West UP even though the Mayawati government had decided to create one way back in 1995-96. He had reportedly said that bench could be created only over his dead body. This alone explains why lawyers of West UP don’t want him to ever come to West UP!
                                         Vinod Rana who is also a senior and eminent lawyer and also has been always in the forefront in leading the agitation for a high court bench in West UP too was badly wounded in both arms and police manhandled him and misbehaved with him in the most ugly manner that can shame even the criminals! I feel ashamed to even say what all happened with him! How can police act in such a rowdy and unprofessional manner thus exhibiting open hooliganism?     
                                          It is heartening to note that various social organizations have openly come out in support of lawyers of West UP who have been staging peaceful protests and demanding bench of high court here since last many decades! Even lawyers of Agra who have been separately waging agitation for a high court bench have expressed their solidarity with the lawyers of Meerut and other districts who got injured on October 14. Their delegation came and expressed their solidarity with lawyers of Meerut and other districts and vowed to unitedly struggle till a bench is created here!  My more than hundred articles have been published in various journals, magazines and newspapers in last ten years in which I have said pinpointedly that when a bench of high court could be created by Jawaharlal Nehru way back in 1948 on July 1 at Lucknow then why after 70 years a high court bench cannot be created in any of the 26 districts of West UP even as 2018 is about to begin?
                                          Why should more than 9 crore people of West UP travel all the way to Allahabad to attend court hearings every now and then even as train runs late many times and litigants have to bear all kinds of problems and waste huge money in it? When a high court bench can be created so close to Allahabad at Lucknow then why can’t it be set up in any of the 26 districts of West UP which are 700-800 km away from Allahabad? Why Bhopal which is capital of Madhya Pradesh, Bhubaneshwar which is capital of Odisha, Thiruvanthapuram which is capital of Kerala, Dehradun which is capital of Uttarakhand has neither high court nor bench but in Uttar Pradesh a single high court bench was set up so close at Lucknow just because it is capital?
                                    Why different parameters for different capital cities? Why no high court or bench for Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Dehradun, Thiruvananthapuram and others? Why have they been singled out? Why UP slammed by former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon as “crime and rape capital” of India has least benches and not maximum?
                                         Why UP has maximum population which is more than 22 crores as Yogi Adityanath keeps boasting every now and then which is more than the population of many countries in the world has least high court benches? Why West UP which owes for more than half of pending cases of UP and which tops in rape, gangrape, riots, murders, etc has not even a single bench of high court? Why Justice Jaswant Singh Commission had recommended 3 benches for West UP at Agra, Nainital and Dehradun as then Uttarakhand too formed part of UP and West UP but Centre did not create even a single even though on its recommendations benches were created at Aurangabad in Maharashtra, Jalpaiguri in West Bengal and Madurai in Tamil Nadu?   
                                         Why maximum MPs, MLAs, PMs are all from UP but still it has least high court benches? Why 2 more high court benches were created as circuit benches for Karnataka at Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts respectively way back in 2008 which later in 2012 were made permanent benches but not a single bench for West UP even though lawyers of West UP went on strike demanding bench for 6 months in 2001, one month in 2010, three  months in 2014-15 apart from the strike on Wednesdays and Saturdays and many other strike calls for many weeks as we saw just recently? Why such a raw third rated treatment for West UP alone which has more than 9 crore population?
                                        Why a high court for just 88 lakh people could be created for Uttarakhand in 2000 but not a single bench of high court for more than 9 crore people even in 2017-18? Why high court could be created for just 14 lakh, 18 lakh or 20 lakh people at Meghalaya, Tripura and Manipur but not a single bench for 9 crore people of West UP? Why UP has more than 10 lakh pending cases whereas other states like Maharashtra, Karnataka, Assam among others have not even more than one lakh cases pending but still they have got 3 high court benches? Why Andaman and Nicobar islands with 3 lakh population has bench but not West UP with 9 crore population?
                                      Why high court and benches of 8 states and even Lahore high court in Pakistan is nearer to West UP as compared to Allahabad still no bench is being created here? Why West UP inspite of emerging as epicenter of murders, rapes, gangrapes and communal clashes still has no high court bench which only punishes victims especially woman who has been raped or gangraped to travel all the way to Allahabad to get justice? Why even the rape of a 100 year old woman has failed to shake our politicians and jolt them to creating a high court bench in West UP? Why even the repeated attacks on foreigners as happened with a Swiss couple in Agra just recently has failed to shake our politicians to initiate steps to create a high court bench in West UP? Why 230th report of Law Commission which recommended setting up of more high court benches has been implemented only in Karnataka where 2 more benches were set up even though a bench already existed at Hubli but other big states like UP and Bihar notorious for lawlessness and crime have been left out in the cold to shiver and suffer for themselves by braving themselves all the crime and lawlessness?
                                         Why BJP while in Opposition had repeatedly promised that if it comes to power in UP and Centre then it will certainly create a high court bench in West UP but even after more than 3 years in power in Centre and more than 6 months in power in UP has done nothing except giving false assurances time and again? Why Rajnath Singh who is Union Home Minister, Amit Shah who is BJP President, Sanjeev Baliyan who is BJP MP from Muzaffarnagar, Brijesh Pathak who is Law Minister of UP, Dr Satyapal Singh who is former Mumbai Police Commissioner and just recently made Union Minister who advocated creation of 5 high court benches in UP at Meerut, Agra, Varanasi, Gorakhpur and Jhansi but not one bench is being created in the whole of UP except the one that already exists at Lucknow created way back in 1948 by former PM Jawaharlal Nehru? Why many others from BJP also like Gen VK Singh have also time and again assured the setting up of high court bench in West UP with Baliyan even assuring that bench would be created by end of 2016 but now even as 2017 is ending we see no action happening on the ground?
                                           One can understand that Atal Bihari Vajpayee inspite of having raised the demand for setting up a high court bench in West UP as early as 1986 could not do anything because his party did not have the full mandate but what about our Modiji and Yogiji both of whom enjoy brute majority in Centre and UP both and yet till now are doing absolutely nothing! Yogiji is promising to spend hundreds of crores of rupees in enacting an idol of Lord Ram so that Hindu devotees can benefit which is a good thing as I am also a Hindu but what about people from other religions and other communities who are all unitedly with Hindus demanding a high court bench to be set up in West UP by which more than 9 crore people will benefit cutting across religious or community or gender lines or any other lines? Why no initiative is being taken in this regard?
                                           In my entire life till now I have never seen Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and people of all religions unitedly demanding the setting up of a high court bench in West UP and it will benefit all of them equally but even all this is failing to convince Centre to act now finally? UP needs more high court benches and not more temples or idols or anti-Romeo squads or anything else! Why is Centre refusing to see the writing on the wall?
                                Yogi Adityanath had himself demanded bench for Gorakhpur while he was MP in 1998 but now he has conveniently chosen to forget everything! Why Satyapal Singh who has been made recently a Union Minister demanded the setting up of 5 high court benches at Meerut, Agra, Jhansi, Varanasi and Gorakhpur right inside Parliament but till now not even a single bench is being allowed to be set up anywhere in UP leave alone West UP? Is this is what BJP promised to be a “party with a difference”? Most hurting and shocking!
                                     This is treachery and nothing but open treachery with more than 22 crore people of UP and more than 9 crore people of West UP who gave them vote with lots of hope and aspirations that they will create more benches in the whole of UP! Not a single bench created! How much time did Nehru took to create a high court bench in Lucknow way back in 1948? How much time Dr Manmohan Singh took to create 2 more benches at Karnataka even though it already had a bench at Hubli and the number of pending cases in whole of Karnataka is just nothing when compared to UP or even West UP alone? But BJP is not ready for a single bench more in whole of UP even in 2018! Why has BJP changed its stand so suddenly?
                             I very politely and humbly disagree with what Sangeet Som who is the BJP MP had said about Taj Mahal that it is a blot of India. Taj Mahal is the pride of India for which we all should feel pride of and which has attracted tourists from all across the world! The real blot is UP state itself for whom Bana ki Moon who is former UN Secretary General had said that it is “crime and rape capital of India” yet no effort is being made to create  any more benches here other than the one already at Lucknow! Here too it is West UP that is witnessing maximum crime and maximum killings and maximum riots still no high court bench is being created here even after more than 70 years of independence? Is this fair?
                               The lawyers of West UP are fighting people’s fight for justice and not a fight for themselves! If a bench is created here it is the litigants of West UP who will be saved from the unnecessary trouble of getting reservation done to Allahabad which many times is not available in which case they have to travel without reservation whole night to Allahabad and many times train are late by many hours which further wastes their time and then they are unable to find many times a lodge to spend a night especially those who are not so rich and then hire expensive lawyers etc! This alone explains why lawyers of West UP keep agitating here but see how they are lathicharged even when they are peacefully protesting and worst of all, most senior and esteemed lawyers as also woman lawyers are beaten black and blue even when they did not do anything that could be said to be provoking! Nothing can be more shameful and disgusting! They are not asking anything for themselves but are asking for just a high court bench in any of the 26 districts of West UP at either Meerut or Ghaziabad or Noida or Hapur or Greater Noida or Muzaffarnagar or any other district of West UP so that people don’t have to waste so much time in getting reservation done, in travelling so far to Allahabad about 700-800 km away and suffer all other inconveniences but Centre is just refusing to budge at all! Why? It is high time and Centre must have some pity on at least aged women like the 100 year old woman who was raped just recently in Meerut and who would have to travel 700-800 km all the way to Allahabad to seek justice! Centre must act now!   
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

What is Insurance: Definition, Benefits, and Types

  Insurance is a legal agreement between two parties – the insurer and the insured, also known as insurance coverage or insurance policy. The insurer provides financial coverage for the losses of the insured that s/he may bear under certain circumstances. Let’s discuss in detail what is insurance and how it works, the insurance benefits, and types.

Insurance – Definition and Meaning

Insurance coverage can be defined as a contract in the form of a financial protection policy. This policy covers the monetary risks of an individual due to unpredictable contingencies. The insured is the policyholder whereas the insurer is the insurance-providing company/the insurance carrier/the underwriter. The insurers provide financial coverage or reimbursement in many cases to the policyholder.

The policyholder pays a certain amount called ‘premium’ to the insurance company against which the latter provides insurance cover. The insurer assures that it shall cover the policyholder’s losses subject to certain terms and conditions. Premium payment decides the assured sum for insurance coverage or ‘policy limit’.

What is Deductible? Why Pay Deductible if Premium is Paid?

Sometimes when you make an insurance claim, the premium amount is less than what it should be. So, in that case, you first have to pay the remaining amount and then claim the insurance money. The extra amount to be paid under such circumstances is called ‘deductible’. You can pay lesser premiums and higher deductibles in an agreement with the insurer.

Features of Insurance Coverage

Insurance coverage has the below mentioned salient features:

  • It is a kind of risk management plan to use an insurance policy as a hedge against an uncertain loss
  • Insurance coverage does not mitigate the magnitude of loss one may face. It only assures that the loss is shared and distributed among multiple people
  • Various clients of an insurance company pool in their risks. Hence, they pay the premiums together. So when one or a few incur a financial loss, the claimed money is given out of this accumulated fund. This makes each client bear a nominal fee
  • Insurance coverage can be provided for medical expenses, vehicle damage, property loss/damage, etc. depending on the type of insurance
  • Premium, policy limit, and deductible are the main components of an insurance coverage policy. The policy buyer should check them thoroughly while buying an insurance policy

Benefits of Insurance Coverage

An insurance policy performs various functions and comes with multiple benefits. Below are some of its most fundamental advantages, along with some of the secondary and the rest are additional ones. The basic functions of insurance coverage are:

1. Provides Protection

Insurance coverage does reduce the impact of loss that one bears in perilous situations. It provides monetary reimbursement during financial crises. It not only protects the insured from financial woes but also helps in checking mental stress arising out of it.

2. Provides Certainty

Insurance coverage provides a feeling of assurance to the policyholders. The insured pays a small portion of the income for this certainty that will help in the future. So, there is a certainty of handsome financial aid against the premium. It will protect the policy buyer when met with accidents, hazards, or any vulnerabilities.

3. Risk Sharing

The very manner in which insurance policy functions makes it a cooperative scheme. An insurer would be unable to pay from one’s capital. An insurance company pools in collective risks and premiums because it covers a large number of risk-exposed people. The payout to the one who claims insurance coverage is out of this fund. Thereby, all policyholders share the risk of the one who actually suffered the loss.

4. Value of Risk

Insurance policy assesses the volume of risk and also anticipates the various causes of it. It evaluates the amount for insurance coverage and the premium payment amounts on a risk value basis. It safeguards against unforeseen events and consequential loss.

Above were the primary benefits of an insurance coverage policy. Apart from the above, it also has some additional benefits and secondary functions that it performs such as the ones mentioned below:

1. Capital Generation

The fund generated from the various premiums acts as a pooled investment for the insurance company. The insurers invest this lump sum into money market instruments. For instance, in stocks, mutual funds, and other productive channels. This helps in generating income and profit for the business. It guards against the loss of capital for the company.

2. Economic Growth

Insurance policies mobilize domestic savings into providing financial stability. It also directs towards loss mitigation due to damage or destruction for the insured community. It not only equivalently spreads the risks but also promotes trade and commerce by utilizing the fund.

3. Saving Habits

Insurance policies help inculcate saving habits among individuals. They keep a portion of income to pay premiums that will act as a guard for unknown future predicaments. Many insurance plans come as insurance-cum-savings or insurance-cum-investment schemes. This further encourages people to save and invest.

Types of Insurance Coverage

Insurance policies can cover up medical expenses, vehicle damage, loss in business or accidents while traveling, etc. Life Insurance and General Insurance are the two major types of insurance coverage. General Insurance can further be classified into sub-categories that clubs in various types of policies. These are:

1. Life Insurance

One can avail the life insurance in order to protect the family due to premature death or death during the tenure of the policy. It provides the family with a lump sum when the insured person meets with an untimely death. This helps the grieving family to battle with financial struggles that may occur in absence of a breadwinner.

Is Term Insurance the same as Life Insurance?

Term Insurance is the most common form of life insurance where you pay the premium for the pre-decided term. If you pass away within the term period, the money you are insured of is given to the family. But it remains with the insurance company if you survive through the term policy’s tenure. Unlike term plans, whole life insurance or endowment plans pay upon maturity as well if you outlive the term. Some Pension Plans, or post-retirement plans also carry insurance coverage. One is to pay the premium up to a certain time. You receive the promised amount upon maturity. The family gets the money upon the untimely death of the insured.

Hence, Term Insurance is one among many types of Life Insurance plans.

What is Unit Linked Insurance Plan?

Unit Linked Insurance Plan is an investment-cum-insurance plan. The premiums provide coverage as well as they are for the purchase of units of market-linked equity, debt, and other instruments. This has the potential to provide an opportunity for wealth creation apart from the life cover provision.

Life Insurance Coverage Plans also come with tax benefits under Section 80C.

2. General Insurance

Non-life insurance policies count as general insurance policies that include insurance coverages for home, auto, education, etc. as mentioned below:

1. Health Insurance

You can buy health insurance for yourself or for your family that may include your spouse, parents, siblings, and children. Some insurance companies have tie-ups with hospitals. So here you can use your policy number to avail of cashless services in-network hospitals. In other cases, you can claim reimbursement for hospitalization and treatments. Do check the coverage of the type of disease/illness/health issue. Also, verify what type of costs are covered.

2. Education Insurance

Education insurance can also serve as an investment scheme. You pay premiums by the time your child is 18 years of age or attains a certain age as decided by the insurance policy. You can have a lump sum with imposed regulations that you can use for a child’s educational purposes and not any other. Use an education calculator to estimate the amount you may need when the child grows up. Such calculators are often provided by insurance companies or insurance offering sites. The parent/ foster parent/legal guardian is the owner of the policy.

3. Home/Property Insurance

If man-made or natural calamities damage your valuable property then this policy can cover the financial loss and provide monetary aid. Losses due to theft, floods, or any other mishaps can be alleviated.

4. Motor/Auto/Vehicle Insurance

This is one of the mandatory policies in current times. First of all, it protects your valuable asset against road accidents or any other damage and covers the losses. Secondly, the traffic rules suggest you carry insurance papers while driving.

5. Travel Insurance

You may have seen that you get an option to buy insurance for minimal costs when booking a rail or air ticket. Alternatively, you can buy travel insurance if you are a frequent flyer and especially if you travel internationally. You can claim for baggage loss, trip cancellation, or delay in flight.

Apart from the types of insurances discussed above, there are miscellaneous insurance coverage policies for furniture, goods, machines, etc. There are other types of insurance such as Fire Insurance (damage due to fire), Marine Insurance (for cargo ships), Tenant Insurance, Landlord’s Insurance, and so on. Group Medical Insurance Policies often cover the employees of an organization if the latter has any.

Wrapping it up:

The benefit of having insurance is that it prevents burning a hole into your pocket in unprecedented times. It gives you financial assistance for your losses and damage. The basic function of all types of insurance coverages is to provide damage control to the insured by bringing in a lot of people who pay to cover their risks. The fund is further used for capital formation through investment in the markets. This helps the insurance companies to keep running and settle/adjust the claims of the insured people. It also boosts the economy.