Day: August 21, 2020

Street Food Around the World

One of the best ways to know about the history and culture of a place is to try out its cuisine. Not only does it provide one with a delicious treat, it also speaks a lot about the place and its people. Local cuisines range from elaborate meals to roadside snacks. But I feel, to get the real taste of a place you need to try out its street food. While trying out various dishes from the streets you get to explore a place in the best way possible. Here are some amazing food items from all around the world!

Aloo Chat – South Asia

It is a dish which is made with boiled potatoes, cut into cubes and mixed with different spices and chutney. It is popular in Pakistan, parts of Northern and Eastern India and Bangladesh. Aloo chat is a snack or side dish and it varies from region to region in terms of spices and taste.

Crepe – France

Crepe is a popular pancake like pastry which is popular in France and Belgium. They are made with all kinds of fillings and flavours. There are two types of Crepe – ones that are sweet that are made with wheat flour and ones that are savory which are made with buckwheat flour. Sweet crepes are eaten with fruits, custards, whipped cream or chocolate and savory crepes are served with eggs, mushrooms, cheese and ratatouille.

Chuan – China

Chuans are a type of meat kabab served with spices like black pepper, cumin seeds, sesame and red pepper flakes. These kababs are roasted over charcoal or deep fried in oil. It originates from the Uighur and other Muslim communities of China.

Gelato – Italy

Often confused with ice cream, Gelato is an Italian dessert made with milk, sugar, cream, nuts, fruits and toppings. It is much low in fat than traditional American ice cream and has more flavors which makes it a rich and delicious dessert. There are a lot of flavors including vanilla, chocolate, hazelnut, pistachio.

Hot Dog – United States of America

It is a classic American street food and you can find it in food trucks and restaurants across cities like New York and Chicago. A grilled sausage is served in between a steamed hot dog bun along with mustard, ketchup, onion, cheese and chilli. There are a lot of varieties which differ in shapes, taste and sizes.

Mango Sticky Rice – Thailand

Mango Sticky Rice, also called Khaoniao Mamuang is a popular Thai dessert. It is also eaten in Cambodia, Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries. A specific form of sticky rice is mixed with coconut milk and is served with Mango slices. The coconut milk is added so that the rice absorbs all the flavour and tastes sweet. It is popular during the peak mango season in Thailand during the summer months of April and May.

Naan – Central Asia & Middle East

Naan is a traditional bread which originated in Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent. It is made with flour, water and ghee. Additional ingredients like milk and yoghurt are also added in different varieties. Made in a tandoor oven, it is a flat bread which is served with other items like curries and fillings. It is served hot brushed with butter and ghee.

Swachh Survekshan 2020

The results of Swachh Survekshan 2020 were announced recently. And for the fourth consecutive year Indore (Madhya Pradesh) came at the first position being the cleanest city in India. Indore was followed by Surat (Gujarat) Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra) Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh) and Mysore (Karnataka) to become the top 5 cleanest cities.

The Swachh Survekshan survey is conducted by the Quality Council of India (QCI) which comes under the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion within Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Swachh Survekshan survey is part of the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan which was launched by PM Narendra Modi on Mahatma Gandhi’s 150th anniversary.

The objective of this service to make more and more people participate in the swachh Bharat abhiyan and also to include cities in a healthy competition to maintain cleanliness. Swachh Survekshan 2020 is the world’s largest cleanliness survey. It included 4,242 cities and the survey was completed within 28 days. This time proper documentation was done buy open local bodies and the images captured were geotagged. 19 crore citizen feedbacks were collected. Not just this time the survey was fully digitalised that is it was a paperless survey. the survey was marked on total of 6000 marks which was divided into Citizen Feedback (1500), Direct Observation (1500), Certification for Garbage and Open Defecation Free (1500) and Service Level Progress (1200), Swachh Survekshan League 2020 (200).

No Big Discounts This Festive Season

Over the past few months from the period of lockdown not a single mall,retail shops were open.Due to which there was no demand and supply of any particular goods.As in the phased manner the malls and retail shop owner were given permission to get back on to their work.But the trend of buying has already come down of the people due to the financial crisis that they have faced.Many have lost jobs or many were sent on unpaid leaves for time being.

In the upcoming festive season that has started from Raksha Bandhan it has been noted that the season end sale was not there as it used to be previously.Malls have just started their operation and many have not given discounts to the customers and even many online selling sites have not put up their discount hoardings.The reason behind not putting discounts for malls and retail outlets is the fear of Covid-19.This is all applied in the case of apparels and electronic items offline.

The company heads are saying that these trend will definitely be followed as the festive season continues.Less discounts are given because either they have limited stock mostly what remained unsold before the lockdown.If we talk about particular categories like television,discounts that have been given are lowest in 5 years.This is due to shortage of production and supplies.Many retailers are witnessing around 30 to 50% of their average pre-pandemic sales,it has been noted that people are buying only particular thing what is needed.

If we talk about Flipkart and Amazon they did not replied to the comments which were seeking discounts.They said that discounts have already came down.The period from Onam to Diwali account more than 40 to 50% of the electronic sale for most of the companies.It is being noted that demand could exceed supply in the coming months.So this festive season and specially on Diwali we will not be able to see the tagline of “Diwali Khushiyonwali”.Lets hope for the best this festive season.

Women Empowerment: Wind Of Change.

Women empowerment implies the ability in women to take descision with regard to their life and work and giving equal rights to them in all spheres like personal, social, economical, political, legal and so on. Women empowerment has become the buzzword today with women working alongside men in all spheres. They profess an independent outlook, I whether they are living inside their home or working outside. They are increasingly gaining control over their lives and taking their own decisions with regard to their education, career, profession and lifestyle.

With steady increase in the number of working women, they have gained financial independence, which has given them confidence to lead their own lives and build their own identity. They are successfully taking up diverse profession to prove that they are second to none in any respect. But while doing so, women also take care to strike a balance between their commitment to their home and family. They are playing multiple roles of a mother, daughter, sister, wife and working professional with remarkable harmony and ease.

While it is true that women, by and large, do not fave discrimination in society today, unfortunately, many of them face exploitation and harassment which can be of diverse types: emotional, physical, mental, and sexual. They are often subject to rape, abuse and other forms of physical and intellectual violence.

The successive government have implementated various constitutional and legal rights to help women lead purposeful and meaningful lives. There is an increasing awareness about women’s rights which is evident know the emergence of several NGOs and self -help groups. At the individual level too, women are now breaking the shackles if suppression and making their voices hard for their rights.

The parliament of India too has passed various legislations to save momen from various forms of injustice and discrimination. Following are some of these laws to empower women: Equal Remuneration Act – 1976, Dowry prohibition Act-1961, Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act-1971, Maternity Benefit Act-1961, Commission of Sati (prevention) Act -1987, Prohibition Of Child Marriage Act-2006.

More recently in the wake of Nirbhaya case involving the rape and brutal murder of para medical student in Delhi, the Government passed the the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children)Bill,2015. This act makes a significant departure from the earlier Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as the Juvenile age inviting punishment for offense now stands reduced from 18 to 16 years.

If we want to bring about women empowerment in the true sense, there is crying need for the elimination of the male superiority and patriarchal mindset. Also, women need to be given equal opportunities for education and employment without any sense of discrimination. Unless there is attitudinal change in arming them with legal and constitutional rights will be simply inadequate.

Registry Is Part And Parcel of The System: SC

In a fresh, welcome and interesting development, the Supreme Court has just recently on July 6, 2020 in a latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment titled Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India & Ors. in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 541 of 2020 has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others. Justice Arun Mishra who authored this notable judgment for himself and Justice S Abdul Nazeer observed that the Registry which is part and parcel of the judicial system, is blamed unnecessarily for no good reasons. Very rightly so!

                                    To start with, the ball is set rolling in para 1 of this noteworthy judgment wherein it is observed that, “The petitioner, who is an Advocate practicing in this Court, has filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against various officers of the Registry of this Court and the Union of India. Prayer has been made to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to give preference to the cases filed by influential lawyers/petitioners, law firms, etc. Prayer has been made to direct the respondents to give equal treatment to the cases filed by ordinary lawyers/petitioners and not to point out unnecessary defects, refund the excess court fee and other charges, and not to tag the cases without order or direction of the Court with other cases. A prayer has also been made to direct the Secretary General of this Court to take action against the erring officers for their involvement in the listing, clearing and bench hunting.”

                                      While mentioning the chief grouse of the petitioner, the Bench notes in para 2 that, “It is averred in the petition that equal treatment has not been given to the ordinary lawyers/litigants. They favour some law firms or Advocates for reasons best known to them.”

                                 While mentioning of the first instance, it is then unfolded in para 3 that, “The petitioner’s first instance is that a Writ Petition (Civil) D. No. 10951 of 2020 was filed by him on 16.4.2020. The Registry pointed out three defects, i.e. (1) Court Fee of Rs 530 was not paid, (2) Documents to be placed as per index, and (3) Details given in index were incomplete and annexures were not filed, matter to be rechecked. The petitioner had clarified vide email dated 18.4.2020 that he had paid the court fee of Rs. 730/- and there was no annexure with the petition. However, the petitioner was forced to pay more court fees to get the matter listed. Despite the letter of urgency, the Registry failed to register and list the writ petition. The petitioner requested the Secretary, Supreme Court Bar Association, about not listing the writ petition. On 27.4.2020, the writ petition was listed before the Court.”

                                         While mentioning of the second instance, it is then narrated in para 4 that, “The second instance given by the petitioner is that a Writ Petition (Civil) D. No. 11236 of 2020 was filed on 12.5.2020, which has not been listed by the Registry till today. He was informed that there were no defects in the writ petition, but a copy of the writ petition was missing. After that, no update was given by the Registry.”

                                                 Now coming to the third instance, it is then mentioned in para 5 that, “The third instance given is about Writ Petition (Civil) No. 522 of 2020 (Diary No. 522 of 2020) filed by the petitioner on 20.05.2020. The Dealing Assistant pointed out defects on 26.5.2020. The defects were pointed out by the Dealing Assistant after six days of filing, though the application for urgency was filed in the petition. The following note was made by the Registry:

            “MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECHECK AS WHOLE INDEX IS BLANK, PETITION, AFFIDAVIT, VAKALATNAMA, MEMO OF APPEARANCE AND APPLICATION ALL ARE UNSIGNED AND DEFICIT COURT FEE ETC.”

       The petitioner clarified that the signed documents were already uploaded. The matter was urgent, and he had uploaded them again along with signed documents on 26.5.2020. Again the defects were pointed out on 29.5.2020 by the Dealing Assistant to the following effect:

             “APPLICATION IS NOT PROPER AS HEADING NOT TALLY WITH INDEX AND BE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE SUBJECT AND PRAYER OF APPLICATION.”

       The petitioner cured the defects on 29.5.2020. After that, the Dealing Assistant did not recheck the matter. On 2.6.2020, the petitioner made a call and requested the Branch Officer concerned to direct the Dealing Assistant to recheck the matter. On 2.6.2020, the matter was rechecked and numbered as Diary No. 11552 of 2020. The case was verified on 6.6.2020 and listed for 6.7.2020 (computer-generated) which would make the case infructuous. The application for urgency was not considered. The petitioner was informed that the case was likely to be listed on 6.7.2020. He sent an email about the urgency. The Registry was not willing to list the Diary No. 11552 of 2020 despite the application for urgency. Hence, the writ petition has been filed.”

                                      Truth be told, para 6 then states that, “It is averred that on 23.4.2020, W.P. Diary No. 11006 of 2020 titled as Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. UOI was filed at 8.07 p.m. without annexure. The Registry had chosen not to point out any defects, and a special supplementary list was uploaded on the same day. The category was not specified in the notification to be heard during a nationwide lockdown. No procedure was followed by the Registry for urgent hearing during the lockdown. The petitioner made a complaint to Secretary-General against illegal activities of the Registry but the same is without response.”

                                            To put things in perspective, it is then illustrated in para 9 stating that, “Although defects were noted, Writ Petition (C) Diary No. 10951 of 2020 was listed, heard and finally decided on 27.4.2020. It was filed on 17.4.2020. 18th and 19th April 2020 were the holidays. There were only five working days, and during the nationwide lockdown, the court functioning was minimal. The case was mentioned in the cause list on 26.4.2020 to be listed on 27.4.2020. Thus, it could not be said that there was delay much less inordinate one by the officials of the Registry in listing the matter mentioned above.”      

                                        While continuing in the same vein, it is then revealed in para 10 that, “Concerning the second instance, i.e., Diary No. 11236 of 2020, which was filed by petitioner on 9.5.2020, the Registry has noted several defects on 14.5.2020. The petitioner is still lying with defects.”

                                      Not stopping here, it is then further revealed in para 11 that, “Concerning the third instance i.e., Writ Petition No. 522 of 2020 (D. No. 11552 of 2020), the same was filed on 20.5.2020. Again, a defective petition and defects were pointed out by the Registry on 26.5.2020 that the whole index was blank. Petition, Affidavit, Vakalatnama, Memo of Appearance, and Application were all unsigned with a deficit court fee, etc. The petitioner removed the defects. However, other defects were caused, such as the application filed was not proper as heading did not tally with the index, and specific subjects and prayers were not mentioned. The defects were re-cured, and the petition was re-filed on 3.6.2020. The matter was processed and listed on 9.6.2020 and was heard and dismissed on 12.6.2020 as other matters on the similar issues were pending as such the matter was not considered to be necessary. The petitioner has not disclosed about listing of the case for 12.6.2020, and its decision and averred that the computer-generated date was 6.7.2020. The Registry did not follow the computer-generated date, and the case was listed for 12.6.2020 on which it was dismissed. The petitioner himself was responsible for 12-13 days of delay in removing the defects.”

                                      While dwelling on the out of turn hearing given to eminent journalist Arnab Goswami, it is then pointed out in para 12 that, “As to case of Arnab Goswami, it was listed urgently in view of order of competent authority. It pertained to liberty and freedom of media.”

                                        Of course, it is then also very rightly pointed out in para 13 that, “In the aforesaid circumstances, considering the ongoing pandemic caused by COVID-19, the Registry of this Court is working with less strength, and because of the facts described above and circumstances, we find that there was no justification for the petitioner to allege discrimination vis-à-vis to him and to favour any particular individual. The defects were there in all the three cases filed by the petitioner.”

                                        Furthermore, it is then envisaged in para 14 that, “The petitioner has filed this writ application in a hurry. When it was listed, he circulated a letter to the effect that, as per procedure, he expected that he would be called for interaction by Registrar of this Court to find out his fitness whether he could argue a case in person. The petitioner ought to know that he is an Advocate of this Court and argues the matter in this Court. As such, it was not necessary to summon him for adjudging his capability as to whether he could argue the case. Be that as it may circulating such a letter was not appropriate at his stance and why he doubted his ability to argue. There was no justification to entertain this kind of apprehension in mind. He ought to have been careful in circulating such a letter seeking a wholly unjustified adjournment.”

                                          As if this was not enough, it is then further stated in para 15 that, “In the letter circulated by him, it was further stated that he wanted to collect the evidence and to file it, and for that purpose, he prayed for six weeks time. The conduct indicates that the petitioner was careless and not serious while he made the allegations. He filed writ application without due inquiries, and without collecting the requisite material. Such conduct was least expected of an officer of this Court. Petitioner ought to have been careful before cast of unnecessary aspersions on the Registry and staff of this Court.”

                                     Making matters worse, it is then also brought out in para 16 that, “The petition as filed could not be said to be maintainable. The petitioner has impleaded the Secretary General, various Registrars, and officers of the Registry, SCBA, and Union of India in his writ application. In contrast, Writ is filed against this Court itself. He ought to have impleaded the Supreme Court of India in the Writ Application through Secretary General. The omission indicates careless conduct on the part of the petitioner. The petition was filed in undue haste.”

                                            More significantly, it is then underscored in para 17 that, “We take judicial notice of the fact that a large number of petitions are filed which are defective; still, the insistence is made to list them and mention is made that they should be listed urgently. It happens in a large number of matters, and unnecessary pressure is put upon the Assistants dealing with the cases. We find due to mistakes/carelessness when petitions with defects are filed, it should not be expected that they should be listed instantly. To err is human and there can be an error on the part of the Dealing Assistants also. This is too much to expect perfection from them, particularly when they are working to their maximum capacity even during the pandemic. The cases are being listed. It could not be said that there was an inordinate delay in listing the matters in view of the defects. The Court functioned during the lockdown, the cases were scanned and listed by the Registry. The staff of this Court is working despite danger to their life and safety caused due to pandemic, and several of the Dealing Staff, as well as Officers, have suffered due to Covid-19. During such a hard time, it was not expected of the petitioner who is an officer of this Court to file such a petition to demoralize the Registry of this Court instead of recognizing the task undertaken by them even during pandemic and lockdown period.”   

                                             Let us discuss now in brief the salient points of para 18 wherein the Bench holds that, “We see, in general, it has become a widespread practice to blame the Registry for no good reasons. To err is human, as many petitions are field with defects, and defects are not cured for years together. A large number of such cases were listed in the recent past before the Court for removal of defects which were pending for years. In such situation, when the pandemic is going on, baseless and reckless allegations are made against the Registry of this Court, which is part and parcel of the judicial system. We take judicial notice of the fact that such evil is also spreading in the various High Courts, and Registry is blamed unnecessarily for no good reasons. It is to be remembered by worthy lawyers that they are the part of the judicial system; they are officers of the Court and are a class apart in the society.” Some relevant case laws discussed in detail in this para about the expectations from lawyers include R. Muthukrishnan v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Writ Petition (C) No. 612 of 2016 and Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 156.

                                           Most significantly, the Bench then minces no words in para 20 to hold that, “We expect members of the noble fraternity to respect themselves first. They are an intellectual class of the society. What may be proper for others may still be improper for them, the expectations from them is to be exemplary to the entire society, then only the dignity of noble profession and judicial system can be protected. The Registry is nothing but an arm of this Court and an extension of its dignity. Bar is equally respected and responsible part of the integral system. Registry is part and parcel of the system, and the system has to work in tandem and mutual reverence. We also expect from the Registry to work efficiently and effectively. At the same time, it is expected of the lawyers also to remove the defects effectively and not to unnecessarily cast aspersions on the system.”

                                 Be it noted, it is then held in para 21 that, “Thus, we find no ground to entertain the petition. We expect the petitioner to be more careful and live up to the dignity of the profession which it enjoys.”

                                             Finally, it is then held in para 22 that, “We dismiss the petition and impose cost of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred only) on the petitioner as a token to remind his responsibility towards noble profession and that he ought not to have preferred such a petition.”

                                         In essence, the long and short of this extremely laudable judgment is that lawyers must appreciate and admit that registry is part and parcel of the system and just like Bar is an arm of the Court. Lawyers must refrain from casting aspersions on Registry at the drop of a hat. For the system to operate smoothly, it is imperative that the Bar and the Registry work in tandem and mutual reverence as very rightly pointed out in para 20 that was discussed earlier! There can be no denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Is Judiciary Not Capable Of Punishing Criminals?

No matter how hard we all who are in the legal profession may try to deny but it is an unpalatable fact that the image of judiciary has taken a severe beating in the eyes of the people in last few decades as the criminals mostly escape either totally unscathed or face very lenient punishment which is just not done. Very rarely do we see them getting the strict punishment which they deserve also! It is high time and judiciary must now come out of its comfort zone and take strong steps to salvage its sagging reputation in the eyes of the people! Laws must be amended now to favour the victim and not the criminal as we see most unfortunately right now much to our chagrin!  

                                               If judiciary had ensured that Vikas Dubey was sentenced promptly to even 14 years in jail without any relief, he probably would not have been able to spread his criminal roots so deep in the society that permeated not just politicians but even the police! Why are murderers accused allowed to come out so easily on bail? Why are history sheeters allowed to not just come out on bail but also contest elections?

                                        Why judiciary allows even dacoits and hard core criminals to contest elections and become MPs and MLAs? Why when for getting even a small job, one has to get police verification done and even a single false case disqualifies one to get the small job but for politicians who rule this country is it that even after facing 1000 criminal cases still they are not rendered ineligible? Why are they allowed to contest even from jails? It is here that judiciary has most miserably failed as it has done nothing to contain it due to which the percentage of politicians with criminal antecedents are increasing very rapidly with every passing election!

                                             Why those who commit brutal crimes are allowed to get away by following the “rarest of rare case” doctrine propounded in Bachan Singh’s case by Supreme Court in 1980 which ensures that rarely ever is a hardened criminal ever hanged? Why it takes several decades before the case is finally decided? Why even after Supreme Court sentences a criminal is he allowed to fritter away time by first filing mercy petition, then filing review petition and then filing curative petition and worst of all no time limit is fixed for deciding mercy petition, review petition and curative petition?

                                       Why there is no mandatory death penalty for gang rape and rape cum murder? Why are “discretion bombs” in form of “may” not defused in rape laws so that criminals don’t gain from it? Why judiciary has ensured that just a few rapists-cum-murderers are hanged in last many decades which has only served to further encourage criminals?

                                            Why are witnesses not accorded full protection and why is it not ensured that they are saved from being killed? Why a witness has to depend on himself to ensure his/her protection and reach court safely at his/her own risk in most of the cases due to which many times they are either badly wounded or are even killed? Why are witness protection schemes not fully implemented in all the States and why judiciary does not take any action to ensure that the same is done urgently?  

                                                Why judiciary has miserably failed to ensure that its own landmark recommendations on police reforms as outlined in Prakash Singh case in 2006 have not been implemented even after 14 years in 2020? Why in cases of custodial torture, judiciary does not ensure that those who are guilty of torturing and killing innocent persons are not just sent behind bars but also are sent to the gallows? Why judiciary does not realize that lenient approach to custodial torture only results in police getting emboldened to indulge in more such tortures and many times we see that innocent persons face the most worst brunt?

                                       Why has judiciary not ensured that for cases of corruption involving crores of rupees there is mandatory death penalty? Why instead do we see many times that those involved in corrupt cases are allowed to easily secure bail? Why judiciary has failed to act tough against corrupt people in last so many decades after independence?

                                    Why is it that when a truly dedicated and determined Chief Minister like Yogi Adityanath of UP known all over for his impeccable conduct and firm determination to weed out criminals from each and every hook and corner of the state and decides to “name and shame criminals” who indulge in destroying public and private property, burning buses, vehicles etc do we see that judiciary steps in and speaks vociferously for protecting the “right to privacy’ of criminals just like Allahabad High Court did? Why is it that protesters were allowed by judiciary to block national highway at Shaheen Bagh for more than 100 days and none other than the Supreme Court appointed a high powered Committee  comprising of senior lawyers like Sanjay Hegde which only further emboldens others to similarly indulge in such anti-national acts? Why protesters are allowed to block rail tracks etc as we saw earlier during the Gurjar reservation stir and why judiciary is not prepared to do anything to stop it forthwith?

                                               Why judiciary feels that there is nothing wrong in hanging just one poor Dhananjoy Chatterjee who was the son of a priest and that too on just circumstantial evidence alone in decades and not allowing the son of a former top IPS cop to be hanged even though there was direct evidence and the murder was committed most ruthlessly as we saw in Priyadarshini Mattoo murder case and the accused who was a senior in a Law College is set free after about just 14 years or so in prison? Why judiciary holds its hand very tight to ensure that many rapists cum murderers are able to easily escape death penalty even after committing the most ghastly and most dastardly crime? Why judiciary never does any serious introspection on this that by not hanging rich and powerful rapists cum murderers, they only serve to send a loud and clear message that the rich and powerful can get away by doing anything in their life?    

                                            Why judiciary ensures that those who commit most heinous offences like rape, murder etc are given bail after some time like few months or an year at the most? Why judiciary never cares to see that those very offender who comes out on bail once again resorts to crime and destroy the life of yet another person most easily? Why judiciary allows criminals to contest from jails and get bail very easily even after committing most horrifying crime just by paying money for surety etc which the rich and the powerful don’t find any difficulty in doing so?  

                                                Why judiciary ensures that criminals gain most in hugely populated state like UP which has maximum pending cases all over India by having just one high court bench and that too just about 200 km away from Allahabad high court at Lucknow since 1948 and no bench in remote areas like West UP where more than 9 crore people live and litigants have to travel more than 700 km on an average to travel all the way to Allahabad to get justice due to which victims suffer the most? Why judiciary ensures that peaceful states like Maharashtra which tops in justice index list has 4 high court benches and UP which is in the bottom among all big states has just one? Why judiciary ensures that Centre led by the then Congress government partially implements the landmark recommendations to create more high court benches at Maharashtra in Aurangabad, at Jalpaiguri in West Bengal and Madurai in Tamil Nadu but not a single for UP for which it had recommended 3 high court benches at Agra, Dehradun and Nainital? Why judiciary behaves like a helpless spectator knowing fully well that many former UP CM have supported the demand for more benches in UP and Yogi Adityanath had demanded for Gorakhpur in 1999 while in his capacity as an MP from there?

                                                   Why judiciary knowing fully well that West UP accounts for more than 57% of the total criminal pending cases in UP as was acknowledged even by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission in his report has never ensured that a high court bench is created here? Why can’t judiciary take the lead in this direction instead of passing the buck always on Centre? Why for just 6 crore people of Karnataka there is a high court and 3 benches but for more than 9 crore people of West UP there is not even a bench?

                                     Why UP which has more than 23 crore population has just one high court bench due to which cases are not being decided in time and it is criminals who are having a gala time and still judiciary decides to play safe even though it acknowledges that West UP deserves a high court bench? Why judiciary fails to appreciate that the more than 9 crore people of West UP especially the litigants have to suffer immeasurably due to no bench being created here? Why can’t UP have more high court benches?

                                     Why can’t judiciary ensure that those who are arrested for heinous offences are not able to come out on bail after just few months? Why can’t judiciary be more proactive to ensure just like UP CM Yogi Adityanath to ensure that no one is allowed to block roads, rail tracks under any circumstances? Why instead should judiciary question UP CM instead who has always lead from the front in taking on criminals which only encourages anti-social elements and lumpen elements to take law for granted and indulge in destruction of public and private property, blocking of road, rail etc?

                                  Can our nation afford it? Can our nation afford more Shaheen Bagh? Let me reiterate: Judiciary must now come out of its comfort zone and do some honest introspection on this!

                                       Needless to say, Supreme Court certainly has heavily blundered on Shaheen Bagh by not ordering the prompt removal of protesters from highway and instead forming Committee to talk with them who broke law and caused maximum inconvenience to commuters! Judiciary is certainly capable of punishing criminals only if it stops kowtowing before them on one pretext or the other! Criminal cases should not linger for several decades as we see most unfortunately for which it is judiciary which has to act decisively now!

                                          No doubt, bail should not be given ever for heinous offences like rape, murder etc! Only then can criminals be checked most effectively! Clearly, the ball lies now in the court of the judiciary!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Manu Sharma Finally Prematurely Released From Tihar Jail

We finally see that Manu Sharma aged 43 years who was serving life sentence for the sensational murder of model Jessica Lal in a city restaurant in 1999 is now out of jail after the Lieutenant Governor approved his premature release as well as 18 other convicts. Following the May 28 order of the Delhi government in the name of L-G Anil Baijal, Director General (Prisons) Sandeep Goel said Manu Sharma was released on June 1 after completing all formalities pertaining to prisoners permanently released from the jail. Manu Sharma also known as Siddhartha Vashishtha was numbered 18 on the list.

                                           To be sure, the order of Manu Sharma release said that, “In exercise of the power conferred by Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure..the Lt Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to remit the un-expired portion of the sentence of the following 19..life convicts on the recommendations of the Sentence Review Board in its meeting held on May 11, 2020.” The Sentence Review Board (SRB) in its meeting held on May 11, had recommended the release of Sharma and 18 others. Sandeep Goel who is DG (Prisons) said that, “Sharma walked out of jail on Monday. He spent 17 years behind bars. His actual period with remission is 23 years and four months.”

                                     It would be vital to mention here that Manu Sharma who is son of former Union Minister Vinod Sharma was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Delhi High Court in December 2006 for shooting and killing model Jessica Lal after she refused to serve him liquor at the Tamarind Court restaurant owned by socialite Bina Ramani which was an unlicensed bar at Qutub Colonade in South Delhi’s Mehrauli area on the night of April 30, 1999 at a private party. The trial court had initially acquitted him but the Delhi High Court which undertook the case amid nationwide outrage and protests, reversed the trial court decision and sentenced him to a life term. The Supreme Court also in 2010 upheld the life sentence.

                                                It cannot be denied that the women rights activists have called ‘unfortunate’ the decision to prematurely release Manu Sharma saying that it sets a wrong precedent. But it also cannot be overlooked that in 2018, Jessica Lal’s sister Sabrina Lal had written to Tihar jail authorities saying that she has no objections to Sharma’s release. Sabrina Lal also said that, “The past is behind me. Our fight was always for justice. I just hope that he is a reformed man and learned his lesson.” This certainly played a key role in ensuring his release.

                                                   It also cannot be denied that Sunil Gupta who was the prison’s legal officer for 35 years and who knew Sharma inside prison said that, “He helped the jail factory in branding its products and made it famous. It was his idea to open outlets or sell the products on the web. His non-profit also focused on prisoners’ children. Had Sharma not been a “high-profile prisoner he may have been released just after completing 14 years in prison. Also, one must remember that a prison is a reformation centre. It is not a place to lock anyone forever.”      

                                     It must also be pointed out here that Manu Sharma’s lawyer – Amit Sahni said that his client was already out on emergency parole since the first week of April, as part of measures to decongest jails amid the pandemic. He further said that the L-G had accepted the SRB’s recommendations as per which Manu Sharma is entitled for permanent release from jail. Sharma has undergone imprisonment of 16 years, 11 months and 24 days in actual and 23 years, 4 months and 22 days with remission. He had also availed parole 12 times and furlough 24 times.   

                                      It must also be disclosed here that Manu Sharma’s case had come up for review multiple times since 2017, only to be rejected. The Sentence Review Board (SRB)  is chaired by the Delhi Home Minister. Director General (Prisons), Principal Secretary (Home), Principal Secretary (Law), Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), the government’s chief probation officer and a district judge are also part of the Committee. This time too the plea of Manu Sharma was decided solely on merit. His good conduct in jail also played a big role in securing his early release.

                                                  As per sources, the Board also took into consideration the Delhi Police’s response which has not opposed the premature release of the convict in the meeting. The chief probation officer, social welfare department also recommended the same. All this led to his early release.

                                            It would be instructive to note that an application for remission is considered only when a life term convict has spent 14 years in jail. The Board takes into account several factors such as conduct of the prisoner in jail, whether crime was premeditated or a spurt of the moment act, nature and gravity of crime, propensity for committing crime, prospects of post release rehabilitation, etc. Very rightly so!

                                                    Since 2018, Manu was lodged in the open jail of the prison. Open jail prisoners are allowed to step out but have to spend the night inside the complex. The media first reported this development on April 22, 2018, and that it was possibly the penultimate step towards his release. In November 2019, Manu’s advocate approached the Delhi High Court seeking his release. The Delhi High Court then asked the Board to consider Sharma’s case for release in its next meeting on May 11.

                                             It must also be brought out here that initially when the Delhi High Court took up the case, Manu Sharma was represented by none other than the legendary Ram Jethmalani (now deceased) and later in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had held that “presumption of innocence of an accused is a legal presumption and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the process of media trial and that too when the investigation is pending”.

                                      So finally we see that Manu Sharma too is now a free man. His case is a message to all that a fit of anger can destroy our so many years in jail. So it is always advisable to rein in one’s anger as it can save us from getting into deep trouble!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Worrisome Trend Of Litigants To Criminalise Contractual Disputes

In a recent, remarkable and righteous decision, the Orissa High Court on July 13, 2020 in S Ranjan Raju vs. State of Odisha in BLAPL No. 1747 of 2020 in the matter of an application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has explicitly and elegantly called for a procedural reform of conducting mandatory preliminary inquiry before the registration of a FIR in contractual disputes and other civil cases urging that such safeguard can prevent criminalization of disputes that are civil in nature. Very rightly so! Why should a civil dispute be allowed to acquire the colour and complexion of criminal cases?

                                            To start with, the ball is set rolling in para 1 of this notable judgment authored by Justice SK Panigrahi wherein it is observed that, “The petitioner is named as accused in the complaint lodged by one Kallakuri Gola Babu under Sections 341/417/420/406/294/506, I.P.C. which was sent for enquiry under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. by the learned J.M.F.C., Chandikhole in I.C.C. No. 39 of 2020 and a case was registered as Badachana P.S. Case No. 13 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 123 of 2020 in the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Chandikhole, awaiting submission of final form. The petitioner has also approached before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chandikhole vide Bail Application No. 33 of 2020 which was rejected vide order dated 20.02.2020 which was rejected vide order dated 20.02.2020 with a reason that the case diary was not available at the time of hearing.”

                                     While dwelling on the facts of the FIR, it is then stated in para 2 that, “The factual conspectus as set out in the F.I.R. is that the complainant has alleged in his complaint dated 28.01.2020 that the complainant had allegedly owed Rs. 64,00,000/- (rupees sixty four lakhs) from the petitioner. Apparently, the petitioner and the complainant are co-villagers and had business relationship for the last 15 years. The petitioner is the proprietor of “M/s. Kallakuri Entrepreneurs” in Bhubaneswar and the complainant is the Managing Director of the “Kallakuri Foods Pvt. Ltd.” The complainant used to supply Ghee (Surya Chandra Brand) and Banaspati (K.G. Brand) to the petitioner for the last one and half decade. The petitioner and the complainant were in good terms in their business relationship over the years. It is alleged that the complainant had made payment to the petitioner for purchasing one flat at Bhubaneswar in “Smruti Residency” with utmost belief and trust that the said flat would be delivered in future towards the settlement of the outstanding dues pending with the petitioner. It is further alleged that while the complainant requested to the petitioner over telephone to settle his outstanding dues or transfer the flat in his name. Instead, the petitioner is alleged to have abused the complainant and threatened to kill him. The allegation also demonstrates that on 22nd of January, 2020 at about 5.30 P.M, the Petitioner and the Complainant started hotly discussing about the outstanding amount due on the petitioner at a spot near a petrol pump at Chandikhole. As per F.I.R., the petitioner alleged to have scolded the informant with abusive languages and assaulted him by means of iron rod for which he sustained injuries. The petitioner is in custody since 12th of February, 2020 and since then the business transactions between the petitioner and the complainant has also been stopped.”

                                          On the one hand, it is pointed out in para 3 that, “Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bibhu Prasad Das submits that the complainant had intentionally lodged a false case against the petitioner, he had never abused or assaulted the complainant and they had very cordial business relationship for such a long period of time. The petitioner was purchasing Ghee and Banaspati from the complainant thereby effecting crores of rupees as turnover. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant had never paid anything to the petitioner for the purpose of purchasing of flat but the petitioner had purchased a flat from his hard earned money where he was residing and the complainant was eyeing over the said flat to get it transferred in his name. When the petitioner did not show his inclination for transferring the said flat, the complainant intentionally entangled the petitioner in this false and fabricated case. The allegation of assault to the informant by means of iron rod is totally false and fabricated. It is nothing but a means to foist a criminal case against the petitioner and to intentionally harass him.”  

                                         On the other hand, it is then pointed out in para 4 that, “Per contra, Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently objected the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s submission of passport and Air ticket cannot be considered to be a valid plea of alibi even if it is assumed that the petitioner was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence at the crime spot. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.”

                                    Truth be told, it is then observed in para 5 that, “Perused the Case Diary and the relevant documents, while scanning through the materials on record, it was found that the petitioner and the complainant had a long-standing business relationship. In the meantime, learned counsel for the complainant handed over some account statements pertaining to “M/s. Kollakuri Entrepreneurs” for perusal of this Court, which reflected some of the financial transactions, E-Waybill and some Tax Invoices which establishes their long-standing business relationship. However, the said documents do not show any evidence regarding payment of money to the petitioner for the purpose of transferring the flat in question. Thus, these documents fail to come to the aid of the complainant, since it does not reflect anything regarding the transfer of money done by the complainant to the petitioner for the purpose of transferring the said flat in question. Even if it is assumed that the complainant had paid the money to the petitioner seeking the transfer of the said flat in his name, he has failed to produce any document or Bank statement or draft or cheque as proof of the alleged transactions.”

                                       More significantly, it is then envisaged in para 6 that, “The instant case, prima facie, seems to be born out of a civil dispute between the parties and it was given a colour of criminal case. Of course, a thorough trial may bring different version of the story. Coming to the charges invoked by the complainant under Section 420, 417, I.P.C. etc. to set the criminal proceedings in motion, it is, at best, falling under a breach of contract but the element of cheating, prima facie, does not come to the fore. The case in hand, prima facie, has the ingredients of a civil dispute having several remedies available outside this Court. Nevertheless, the truth or otherwise of the instant case can be unearthed at the stage of trial. One of the major reasons why litigants opt for a criminal prosecution as opposed to civil proceedings because of a perceived notion that criminal proceedings offer quick relief which often drives the litigants to initiate false and vexatious proceedings. The Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NPEC India Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2780 took note of this issue stating that people prefer a criminal case over civil proceedings because of the prevailing notion that civil law remedies are notoriously time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders and creditors. This tendency is also observed in several family disputes leading to irretrievable break down of marriages. A general notion prevalent in the mind of an average litigant is that if a person could somehow be involved in a criminal prosecution, there are high chances of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle a civil dispute which does not involves any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be discouraged. Apart from the precedents, there are in-built mechanisms in statutes conferring on courts the power to prevent the abuse of the process of the court with respect to a matter which should be dealt by a civil court.”  

                                            Be it noted, it is then observed in para 7 that, “The Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors. 2014 (2) SCC 1 has also held that if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. As per the said decision, an illustrative category of cases in which a preliminary inquiry may be made are: Matrimonial disputes/family disputes, Commercial offences, Medical negligence cases, Corruption cases and Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. Hence, when a criminal case is falsely initiated for disputes that are civil in nature, a remedy is available under Section 211 of the IPC read with Section 182 of the IPC.”

                                             As it turned out, it is then put forth in para 8 that, “The Advisory Council of the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms [Tenth Meeting held on 18.10.2016] noted that out of over 18.6 million criminal cases pending in the subordinate courts of the country only 2.8 million cases pertain to serious crimes. Needless to state, filing of frivolous cases which seek to wreck vengeance by tweaking civil disputes into criminal cases adds to these petty crimes. Such attempts should be stalled so that the focus of attention in the criminal courts remain on serious crimes, which affect the society at large.”

                         Most significantly, it is then very rightly underscored in para 9 that, “There is a growing tendency among litigants to give civil cases the colour and complexion of criminal cases in the likelihood of an imminent settlement. This Court is regularly witnessing a worrisome trend of increasing instances of abuse of the process of law by litigants seeking to settle civil disputes, using the criminal law machinery. It is imperative that in cases of some contractual disputes or other kinds of civil dispute which are sought to be criminalized should follow a procedure of conducting a mandatory preliminary inquiry before resorting to file/registering a FIR. This safeguard of conducting a preliminary enquiry can prevent criminalization of disputes that are civil in nature. The duty to curb such menace, by not forcing a person to go through the rigmarole of criminal prosecution, in purely civil disputes, commences with the police. It is once again reiterated that the case in hand may throw some different perspective after the trial, the entire discussion is based on the prima facie view taken by this court and the general trend prevalent in the criminal litigation.”   

                                     In conclusion, it can well be said that Orissa High Court in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment has very rightly expressed its grave concerns over the worrisome trend that has gathered steam since last many years to wrongly criminalise contractual disputes of civil nature for imminent settlement which is most despicable. It is beyond a straw of doubt that Para 9 very well sums up the essence of this noteworthy judgment. All courts must always pay heed to what the Orissa High Court has held so effectively, elegantly and eloquently in this notable case in similar such cases!

                                          Even the police must pay heed to it as it concerns them also! There can be certainly no denying or disputing it! It will certainly save the parties from being subjected to false, vexatious litigation and will ensure that the civil disputes are settled in the manner in which they deserve to be best settled!   

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

My Family Also Victim Of Judicial Delay: Justice R Banumathi

To start with, it must have been a great honour for all those who could attend the farewell function that was organized in honour of eminent and learned Supreme Court Judge – Justice R Banumathi to bid her farewell as she retires on July 19, 2020. The President and Members of the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association hosted a function to bid farewell to her. Her track record is most distinguished and impeccable with many landmark judgments to her credit!

                                     Be it noted, Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India. It goes without saying that she proved her mettle by her extremely elegantly, effectively and eloquently written landmark judgments and this has been acknowledged even by critics what to talk about others! When she spoke, all used to listen in silence and acknowledged that she had the deepest knowledge of law and everything associated with it! No denying it!

                                              To put things in perspective, Justice R Banumathi’s long and arduous journey in the legal field as a Judge commenced with her direct recruitment as a District Judge vide the Tamil Nadu Higher Judicial Service. Right from the start, she started delivering landmark and laudable judgments! In April 2003, she was elevated as a Judge of the Madras High Court. In November 2013 she was transferred to Jharkhand High Court and was appointed its Chief Justice.

                                           It would be imperative to mention here that the farewell ceremony commenced first and foremost with a “Welcome Address” speech delivered by senior advocate – Kailash Vasdev who is the Vice President of the Supreme Court Bar Association which he did with absolute perfection. The ceremony then progressed ahead with Attorney General KK Venugopal stating that it was a sad day as one of the most beloved Judges of the Supreme Court was leaving. He recounted the multiple great orders rendered with complete perfection by Justice R Banumathi during her time first as a District Judge, then as a High Court Judge and then finally as a Supreme Court Judge.

                                         Going ahead, KK Venugopal also could not restrain himself from saying it straight from his inner heart that, “We are losing a good Judge; a great Judge. So, all I can say is, bon voyage. I know you love your family; you’ve spoken about your grandchild. But, I hope you come back to legal work soon, maybe by way of arbitration.” When such a senior, so experienced and so learned Attorney General like KK Venugopal who in age is even much senior to Justice R Banumathi at 89 says something straight from his heart then everyone sits and takes notice and very rightly so! What greater tribute can be given to her and that too by none other than the eminent jurist and Attorney General of India – KK Venugopal! But she has certainly earned this with her extremely brilliant and bold judgments which no one can ever deny or dispute!    

                                                As if this was not enough, then came another legal giant named Dushyant Dave who is the present President of the Supreme Court Bar Association who was even more candid and said suavely yet simply when his turn came for speaking that, “My Ladyship, I must confess that the Court will have a serious vaccum without you and the Collegium will find it difficult to fill it up. The Bar will miss you, as it is in you we found an independent Judge who was always willing to listen to us.” Who does not know the impeccable credentials of senior advocate named Dushyant Dave who never hesitates in calling a spade a spade? This is the best tribute that any Judge can expect but very few are so lucky to get such a tribute and Justice R Banumathi has earned it by her flawless judgments and impeccable conduct!

                                         Not stopping here, Dushyant Dave also noted that, “Justice Banumathi embodied the cornerstone of the rule of law, which was the bedrock of democracy, by being fiercely independent and giving multiple dissenting opinions”. In fact, this is what made her so special just like we see in the case of another eminent Judge – Justice Dr DY Chandrachud who never fights shy to even overrule some of the judgments of his legendary father – late Justice YV Chandrachud who served as Chief Justice of India for the longest term ever till now of more than seven years as we saw in case of adultery and 1976 verdict in the famous ADM Jabalpur case!  

                             Going forward, Dushyant Dave also listed her achievements and contributions by not only being the President of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, but also by authoring various handbooks and books on the various aspects of law. He further did not fight shy in highlighting her kind and encouraging disposition towards members of the Bar. He said elegantly and effectively that, “The Bar is really grateful about the way you treated members of the Bar; the affection that you showered on us, even while being firm with us with your decision-making. Specially the younger members of the Bar, whom you treated with utmost respect and kindness.” This is exactly what endeared her to young lawyers so much for which she deserves full credit also!   

                            As it turned out, Dave then after speaking on some other key topics then concluded his address saying that, “In you, the Bar found someone who was really a friend. Today, when you are leaving us, we are feeling quite sad. Fortunately, you are not leaving Delhi and I hope you will join us, maybe by way of arbitration.” Dushyant Dave certainly too deserves praise for having communicated his true feelings so simply and suavely!

                             Simply put, Justice R Banumathi then commenced her farewell address by thanking everyone for joining her on a Friday evening to share good words and also good thoughts about her. While speaking straight from her heart, she could not restrain herself while recounting her childhood days and her journey to the top court from saying that, “I was born in a very small village, in a backward district in Tamil Nadu. I lost my father in a bus accident, when I was 2 years. In those days, we had to file a suit for compensation. My mother filed a claim and the court passed a decree. But, we couldn’t get the amount due to complicated procedures and lack of assistance. Myself, my widowed mother and my two sisters, we are victims of court delay and its procedural lags. We did not get the compensation till the last day.”

                             Having said this, she further also observed that, “Despite comments on pendency of cases, various positive initiatives had been taken by the Central Government, State Governments and the judiciary to aid in the accessibility to justice and to ensure more efficiency of the system.”

                                    Furthermore, she also added that, “With more citizen-centric services such as availability of judgments/orders online, easier accessibility to cause lists, e-payments, e-summons, mobile apps etc., these are all arms meant to increase transparency of the system.”

                                              What is the best tribute that Centre can give to Justice R Banumathi and the likes of her? Centre must take all such good measures which can ensure that pending cases are expedited swiftly and smoothly so that people get justice in time and not suffer endlessly as we saw in case of Justice R Banumathi herself in her childhood days! As for instance, creating more High Court Benches as was also strongly recommended by the 230th report of Law Commission of India especially in big states like Uttar Pradesh which is the most populated state in India, has maximum pending cases in India and still has least benches just one bench and that too at Lucknow which is just 200 km away from Allahabad where High Court itself is situated leaving the remote areas like West UP where people numbering more than 9 crore have to travel more than 700 km all the way to Allahabad to get justice as the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission’s landmark recommendations to create a high court bench in West UP was not implemented even though benches were created in other places like Aurangabad in Maharashtra, Jalpaiguri in West Bengal and Madurai in Tamil Nadu!

                                  None other than the former CJI – Ranjan Gogoi while in his capacity as CJI had in a case brought by a lady lawyer named KL Chitra had accepted the dire need for a Bench of High Court in West UP but put the ball of decision making in the court of Centre! What is Centre waiting for? 74 years have already lapsed yet not a single more Bench created in UP which figures in bottom index in state list while Maharashtra which tops the index has 4 Benches! Is Centre waiting for 75 years or for 100 years? It is for Centre to answer!

                                      It is most shameful and most disgraceful that Allahabad High Court has the dubious distinction of accounting for 14,207, or 98% of a total of 14,484 appeals that are pending adjudication for more than 30 years as was noted by a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Justices LN Rao and S Ravindra Bhat and yet no Prime Minister starting from Jawaharlal Nehru to present Narendra Modi has ever dared to create one more Bench apart from the one at Lucknow!

                                  To be sure, Justices Rao and Bhat also noted that over 33,000 appeals were pending in these 10 High Courts for a period between 20 to 30 years, and again Allahabad HC had the lion’s share accounting for nearly 20,000 of them. The appeals waiting their turn to be heard for the last 10 to 20 years numbered at 2,35,914 of which 88,732 were in Allahabad high Court! Apart from this, it cannot be denied that Allahabad High Court is biggest court in whole of Asia and has 160 Judges which is maximum in India and yet has just one Bench only!

                                     What a pity that an anguished Supreme Court said that, “These facts pose a challenge to the judicial system, inasmuch as the right to speedy trial would also include the right to speedy disposal of appeals of those convicted. If such appeals are not taken up for hearing within a reasonable time, the right of appeal itself would be illusory, inasmuch as incarcerated convicts (who are denied bail) would have undergone a major part, if not whole of the period, of their sentences!” Why should all such steps not be taken to put our judicial system back on rails and not allow it to be in ventilator as most unfortunately we have allowed in last 74 years!

                                    Apart from creating more Benches, more Judges must also be appointed so that the cases are decided more quickly! Out-of-court settlements must also be encouraged through mediation and other mechanisms! Judgments must not be too long so that other cases also get time to be decided! Appropriate use must be made of information technology such as digitization of appeal records/paper books, feasibility of creation of a dedicated pool of amicus curiae who would assist the court in such old matters; feasibility to creation of dedicated special benches for hearing and disposal of old cases as was pointed out by none other than Apex Court itself just recently! Adjournments especially in lower courts on one pretext or the other must be checked and only then can we expect that our moribund judicial system will come back to shape as it ideally should also be! All such steps must be taken like creating a definite time limit for deciding mercy petition, review petition, curative petition, appeal for Presidential pardon etc so that cases don’t just keep lingering endlessly!         

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera

Victim Under SC/ST Act Includes Parents & Family Members Of Persons

In a recent, remarkable and righteous decision delivered just recently on July 21, 2020, the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Marenna @ Mareppa v. State in Crl. Petition No. 200315/2020 has very rightly held that a victim under the SC/ST Atrocities Act includes not only the person who sustains injuries arising out of the crime but also his parents and family members. It is a very significant observation and ensures that the rights of the parents and family members are adequately protected. The case pertained to a deadly attack carried out on a 14-year-old boy whose head was allegedly hit by an axe by the petitioners-accused. They were also accused of abusing the boy in filthy language by mentioning the name of his caste.

                                                 To start with, Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar who delivered this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment through ‘Virtual Court’ sets the ball rolling by first and foremost pointing out that, “Crl. P. No. 200315/2020 is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C and Crl.P. No. 200318/2020 is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge them on bail.” This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of CrPC, 1973 praying to release the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 72/2020 of Shahapur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, 1989 pending on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Yadagiri. These petitions have been heard and reserved for orders on July 14, 2020. It is then pointed in para 2 that, “Since both the petitions arising out of same Crime i.e., in Crime No. 72/2020 of Shahapur P.S., they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common order.”

                                         While dwelling on the definition of victim, it is envisaged in para 16 that, “Therefore, the definition “victim” as enumerated in the Act is wide enough, which include any individuals who falls within the definition of the SC/ST Act who has suffered or experienced physically, mentally, psychologically, emotionally or monetary harm or suffered harm to his or her property. If a person sustains injuries arising out of crime then, he himself, his parents, family members are also to be considered as victim as per the above definition. It is not only stipulated a physical harm is to be caused but if there is a harm mentally, psychologically, emotionally or monetarily or if there is any harm in respect of the property then such person is also coming within the definition of the victim.”

                                                While continuing in the same vein, it is then further added in para 17 that, “In the present case, the first informant is the mother of the injured person. Therefore, definitely the first informant is victim in the present case. It is not only the mother alone is becoming the victim but father and other blood relative are also coming within the definition of victim to consider the present case. The first informant is the mother of the minor boy, the minor boy who had sustained injuries due to the assault  stated to have been committed by the petitioners and other accused. Therefore, certain rights are conferred to the victim and witnesses under the SC/ST Act.”  

                                           It would be instructive to now have a cursory glance at what para 18 states that, “Sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act guarantees a right to a victim or dependents to participate in any proceedings thus right of ‘Audi Alteram Partem’ is conferred. For ready reference, Sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act is extracted as under:

         “A victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any proceeding under this Act in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission on conviction, acquittal or sentencing.””

                                       More significantly, it is then very rightly stated in simple and straight language in para 19 that, “Therefore, when a right of Audi Alteram Partem is conferred on the victim or his dependents, then the court has to give an opportunity/right of audience to the victim or his/her dependent to hear them as to enable them to participate in the proceedings including bail proceedings also. Therefore, a victim or dependent has a right to be heard by the Court enabling the victim or dependents to participate in any proceedings in respect of not only bail proceedings but also in the proceedings of discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission or conviction, acquittal or sentencing of a case. The court is able to hear the victim or respondent in respect of a proceedings as enumerated in Sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act only when the victim or dependent are made as parties in the proceedings, otherwise it cannot be possible for the court to hear the victim/dependents and to receive any written submission as stated in the said provision. The victim or dependent may participate either personally or through an Advocate or through Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor or appear himself/herself. As per Section 15 of the SC/ST Act, the Special Public Prosecutor are assigned the duties to represent the State in genre but in specie on behalf of the victim or dependent/complainant/first informant to prosecute the case. But the Parliament in its wisdom by inserting Chapter IV-A and Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act confers right of victims and witnesses and more expressly provided the victim or dependent to participate in any proceedings. Therefore, Sub-section (3) of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act only enumerates giving such information to the victim or dependents through Special Public Prosecutor or State Government about any proceedings pending in the court. But Sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act confers a right on the victim or dependents to make them to participate in a proceedings and to hear their submissions and also to file written submissions in this regard in the proceedings pending before the court. Therefore, unless the victim or dependent as enumerated in Section 2(ec) of the SC/ST Act is made a party in the proceedings in the case pending before any court, it is not possible for the court to hear whatever submission to be put forth by the victim or dependents in the proceedings before the court. Therefore, under these circumstances, making the victim or dependent as party in the proceedings pending before any court is necessary and mandatory.”   

                                                Most significantly, it is then finally held in para 27 that, “Therefore, under these circumstances, the following guidelines are issued:

i)                 A right is conferred on the victim or his/her dependents to participate in the proceedings initiated under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as enumerated in Section 15-A as discussed above. Therefore, the first informant/complainant/victim or dependents shall be made as a party in the proceedings and issue necessary notice to the victim or dependents/first informant/complainant/victim or dependents and to hear them in any proceedings as envisaged under Sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act.

ii)              The Special Courts trying with the offence/s under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 shall direct the District Legal Services Authority to provide an advocate on behalf of the victim or his/her dependents/first informant/complainant from the Panel Advocates of District Legal Services Authority.  

                 The Registrar General is hereby requested to circulate this order to all the concerned Special Courts trying/dealing the offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and to the Member Secretary, Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), who in turn shall inform all the District Legal Services Authority and Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee (HCLSC) to provide legal services to the victim or dependents in any proceedings pending before the Special Court or High Court, as the case may be, as stated above.”

                                   In a nutshell, the long and short of this notable judgment is that the victim under SC/ST Act includes not just the victim who suffered injuries of the crime but also includes the parents and family members of the person suffering injuries of the crime! There can be no denying or disputing it! It would be pertinent in this regard to recollect here what para 15 states that, “Section 2 (ec) of the SC/ST Act defines ‘victim’, as under:

“ “victim” means any individual who falls within the definition of the “Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes” under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2, and who has suffered or experienced physical, mental, psychological, emotional or monetary harm or harm to his property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act and includes his relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs.””

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh