Category: News Analysis

News analysis for scholar to understand the issues in a better way.

Why Lawyers Of Calcutta High Court On Five Day Strike?

Let me begin at the very beginning by pointing out that lawyers don’t enjoy going on strike. It is only when they feel that it should be used as a last resort do they finally take the unpalatable decision of going on strike. Why does Centre allow the situation to drift to such an abysmal level that the lawyers are left with just no option but to go on strike?
                                        It merits no reiteration that Kolkata High Court is the oldest High Court in India and commands world wide respect for its members conducting themselves always with elegance which has few parallels! But now Calcutta High Court is in the news for all the wrong reasons. Nearly 10,000 lawyers of three lawyers association at the Calcutta High Court will go on a five-day-long cease work from Monday in protest against the severe shortage of Judges at the court.
                                           Who is responsible for this deadlock? Centre! Whoi is ensuring that Judges vacancies are not filled up in Calcutta High Court? Centre! Who is ensuring that even if lawyers of Calcutta High Court go on strike, it has to be ensured that vacancies don’t get filled up? Again it is none other than the Centre itself!
                                            It is most disconcerting to note that instead of its strength at 72 Judges, the Calcutta High Court has currently has only 29 Judges. Should we all be proud of it? Should Centre feel proud that it has ensured that more than half the vacancies about 43 are just lying vacant? Should all Indians feel excited about it?
                                    Why Centre is not just prepared to create more benches even though the 230th report of Law Commission made nearly 10 years ago in 2009 had strongly recommended the creation of more high court benches all over India? Why since last 4 years when NDA came to power has it ensured that not a single bench of High Court is set up in any hook and corner of India? Should we be proud of it?
                                      Of course, just one bench till now and that too circuit bench has been approved in Kolhapur in Maharashtra for just 6 districts but again for that the credit goes not to Centre but to State CM Devendra Fadnavis who in 2015 itself had assured the lawyers of Bar of Bombay and Goa that two benches would be created at Kolhapur and Pune!
                                  What has Centre done till now of its own initiative? Just nothing! The lawyers of West UP have been on strike on February 15, then again on February 17, then again on February 19, then again on February 20, then again on February 20, then again on February 21, then again on February 22 and shall be on strike on February 23, then again on February 24 and this will continue till February 26! Why is Centre not doing anything to address this long pending issue once and for all? Why Nehru created a high court bench in Lucknow which is so close to Allahabad on July 1 in 1948 but till 2018 not a single bench has been set up in West UP due to which people accounting for half of the UP population are compelled to travel whole night about 700 km all the way to Allahabad?
                                           Why when Atal Bihari Vajpayee who is the tallest leader of the present NDA government in Centre himself demanded in 1986 right inside Parliament that West UP must have its own high court bench still more than 32 years later why Centre has taken no action on it? Why lawyers of West UP had gone on strike for 3 months even in 2014-15 when this NDA government had assured to look into it has nothing been done to address it? Why lawyers of West UP went on strike for 6 months in 2001 from July to December but again Centre did just nothing? Why lawyers of West UP since last more than 36 years from May 1981 till now have been on strike every Saturday and many times even on Wednesday still why no high court bench has been created here? Why UP has highest number of pending cases, highest population, maximum MPs, maximum MLAs etc yet has least benches in India and West UP which accounts for more than half of the pending cases has none even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission had in 1980s recommended a high court bench to be created here? Centre must answer!
                                      Centre will say as it does say that creation of a high court bench is a complex procedure which must involve recommendation of the concerned Chief Justice and then approval from State Government and then Centre can do something! Centre can also cite that Allahabad High Court Bar does not favour more benches but what about appointing more Judges? Why more than half of the seats in Allahabad High Court are lying vacant?
                                         Definitely it is not Allahabad Bar which says that don’t fill up the vacancies! Centre itself does not want to fill these vacancies for reasons known best to it which only contributes to further piling up of the pending cases! This is what is exactly happening even in Calcutta High Court!
                                 Three Judges have retired in Calcutta High Court in February. But Centre is just not keen at all in appointing more Judges here and more than 2 lakh cases are pending before the High Court! What is Centre’s real intention? It must specify! It cannot keep quiet!
                                             Why no news channel ever discusses it? Instead the senseless debates on Karni Sena etc occupy prime time shows! Shameful!
                                             It is with a very heavy heart that Uttam Majumdar who is President of Bar Association of Calcutta High Court lamented that, “We are left with no choice but to go on a five-day long cease work from Monday. The Centre has failed to take any action to fill up the vacancies of Judges at the Calcutta High Court.” Centre is wholly responsible for this deadlock which was certainly avoidable! Centre cannot just keep on waxing eloquent and keep citing one excuse or the other for not appointing Judges in different High Courts all across the country!
                                        Why talk just about Calcutta High Court alone? Things in Odisha High Court are also pretty much the same! Even the lawyers here are also on strike since February 12 in protest against the shortage of Judges! Satyabrata Mohanty who is Secretary of Odisha High Court Bar Association said that, “Along with hunger strike, the ceasework agitation will also continue. Lawyers will boycott court proceedings till February 23.” The Bar Association said that on February 23 a special meeting will be convened in which further course of action will be decided. The Odisha High Court Bar Association has alleged that since 2015, there has been no appointment of Judges in Odisha High Court. There are only 16 Judges as against the sanctioned strength of 27 Judges!
                                   Why is Centre making a mockery of our legal system? Why are Judges not being appointed in all the High Courts where vacancies are pending and lying vacant? Why are lawyers of Calcutta High Court and Odisha High Court compelled to go on strike to ensure that Centre pays some attention on this pivotal issue also?
                                        Why is Centre still so lackadaisical in its approach? Should we be proud of it? Why did Centre allow so many vacancies to be not filled up in time?
                                          Why is Centre not speaking up on such a serious issue? Why Centre is so casual in its approach? Centre has just no option but to act now and make its stand known to the people who are fed up by the Centre’s inaction on such a vital issue involving Judges who decide the fate of millions of litigants but whose posts are not being filled up by Centre!
                                                I am shocked, disgusted and appalled to see how Centre is treating such a sensitive issue with such a complete sense of insensitivity! Centre must act now and address the legitimate grievances of the lawyers of Calcutta High Court and Odisha High Court as also of all those High Courts where vacancies similarly are lying vacant in large numbers! This must be done immediately on a war footing!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Supreme Court Now Finally Settles The Cauvery Dispute

Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me start at the very beginning by first and foremost pointing out that the Supreme Court on February 16, 2018 delivered a much-awaited 465-page landmark judgment in Civil Appeal No 2453 of 2007 The State of Karnataka by its Chief Secretary versus State of Tamil Nadu by its Chief Secretary and Ors with Civil Appeal No. 2454 of 2007 State of Kerala through the Chief Secretary to Government versus State of Tamil Nadu through the Chief Secretary to Government and others Civil Appeal No 2456 of 2007 State of Tamil Nadu through the Secretary Public Works Department versus State of Karnataka by its Chief Secretary Government of India & Ors. It marginally increased the share of Karnataka of Cauvery water. It also ordered a reduction of the allocation share for Tamil Nadu thus dashing their hopes of getting more water from Cauvery. There can be no denying that Karnataka has every reason to feel happy about it. 
While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that a three-Judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said Karnataka will be required to release 177.25 tmcft (thousand million cubic feet) of water from its Billigundlu site to Mettur Dam in Tamil Nadu. This is a huge development with far reaching consequences! All parties must sincerely abide by what the top court has directed so unambiguously.
It is noteworthy that the earlier requirement under a February 2007 award by the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT), was 192tmcft. But now that has been changed. The Apex Court also allocated an additional 4.75 tmcft to Bengaluru to meet the drinking water and domestic requirements of the “global city”. As a consequence, Karnataka will now get 284.75tmcft as against the 270tmcft it gets at present.
Be it noted, the allocation to Tamil Nadu stands at 414.25 tmcft annually, which includes 10tmcft on account of availability of groundwater. The state of Kerala and Puducherry would continue to receive 30tmcft and 7tmcft respectively. The Apex Court also directed the central government to constitute the Cauvery Water Management Boardwithin six weeks to supervise implementation of the order.
For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that the Supreme Court by this landmark judgment sent out a loud and unmistakable message that, “Waters of an inter-state river passing through corridors of the riparian states constitute a national asset and no single state can claim exclusive ownership of its water”. Very rightly said! Who can question this?
Simply put, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court headed by CJI Dipak Misra said that, “The matter deserved to be adjudicated on a bedrock of equal status of states and doctrine of equability.” The Cauvery water dispute is more than 150 years old and has its origins in the 1894 and 1924 agreements for water sharing between then Presidency states of Madras and Mysore. The order stated that these agreements will remain in force despite the fact that the Reorganization Act, 1956 has taken effect. 
To put things in perspective, the top court largely upheld the 2007 tribunal decision and said the water allocation arrangement will exist for 15 years. It added that the tribunal’s order is binding. The allocation of water for Kerala and Puducherry remained unchanged.
Needless to say, this dispute over sharing of Cauvery water has been festering for an inexorably long period since the last 150 years. The 802-km long Cauvery river is also called the “Ganga of the South”. It originates in Kodagu district in Southern Karnataka and flows into Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry. It flows mainly through Karnataka and Tamil Nadu with its basin covering parts of Kerala and Puducherry. Of its total catchment area of 81,155 square kilometers, 34,273 sq. km is in Karnataka, 44,016 square km in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and 2,866 square km in Kerala.
Before proceeding ahead, it would be instructive to go though the history of this complex water dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Only then will we be able to have a better understanding of this entire Cauvery water dispute. It runs as follows: –
1894: Water sharing agreement between the then Presidency states of Madras and Mysore.
1924: The British managed to finalise an agreement which was to function effectively for 50 years. Tamil Nadu and Puducherry would get 75% of the surplus water while Karnataka would get 23%. The remaining would go to Kerala. There were also restrictions imposed on how much land could be irrigated.
1970: The Cauvery Fact Finding Committee found that Tamil Nadu’s irrigated lands had grown from 1,440,000 acres to 2,580,000 acres while Karnataka’s irrigated area stood at 680,000 acres, resulting in an increased need of water for Tamil Nadu. Karnataka opposed this proposal.
2007: The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal holds that the two British era agreements valid but all states filed clarificatory petitions in the Supreme Court.
2013: Tamil Nadu files contempt petition in the Supreme Court against Karnataka. Chief Minister of Karnataka Siddaramaiah refuses to implement the decision to release additional water.
Sept 2016: Supreme Court directs Karnataka to release 15,000 cusecs a day till Sept 15. Protests break out in Karnataka which releases water and files a plea to the Supreme Court order.
July 14, 2017: Karnataka seeks a reduction in the quantum of water it should release to Tamil Nadu.
Sept 20, 2017: The Supreme Court reserved its judgment.
Feb 16, 2018: The Supreme Court reduces Tamil Nadu’s share of Cauvery river water to 177.25 thousand million cubic feet (tmcft), down from 192tmcft allocated by a tribunal in 2007.
To be sure, the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of CJI Dipak Misra, Justices Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar held categorically that, “In totality, we deem it appropriate to award the state of Karnataka an additional 14.75 TMC of water, i.e., 10 TMC (on account of availability of ground water in Tamil Nadu + 4.75 TMC (for drinking and domestic purposes including such need for the whole city of Bengaluru).” This is certainly a shot in the arm for Karnataka! Of course, Tamil Nadu is not very happy with this judgment.
Let me now jog my esteemed readers memory a little back. It was in February 2017 that the CWDT had determined the total availability of water in the Cauvery basin at 740tmcft. In a unanimous award, the tribunal allocated 419tmcft of water for Tamil Nadu, 270tmcft for Karnataka, 30tmcft for Kerala and seventmcft for Puducherry. It reserved 10tmcft for environment protection and fourtmcft for natural outlets into sea.
Truth be told, all the states had challenged the tribunal award before the Supreme Court which had reserved its judgment four months ago. After February 16 verdict, Karnataka has gained an upper hand as its share goes up to 284.75tmcft and Tamil Nadu’s share will now be down at 404.25tmcft. Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah while apparently appearing delighted said that he was happy as the state got “some relief” while Tamil Nadu Chief Minister E Palaniswami appearing quite dejected from this Supreme Court’s judgment lamented that it was unfair to take into account the state’s groundwater levels.
As it turned out, in its landmark verdict, the Supreme Court placed drinking water requirements on a higher pedestal. It set aside the tribunal’s decision to “drastically reduce” Karnataka’s share of water, based on the argument that only a third of Bengaluru fell in the river basin and 50% of drinking water requirement would be met by groundwater. The Apex Court very rightly allocated 4.75tmcft for Bengaluru’s drinking water requirements, keeping in mind the “global status” of the city. Who can deny or dispute this?
It also cannot be lost on us that the tribunal had not taken into account the availability of 20 tmcft of underground water in Tamil Nadu and had rejected it as a conjecture. But the Supreme Court took into account the use of 10tmcft of this groundwater and deducted it from Tamil Nadu’s share of Cauvery water. Very rightly so! In conclusion, all the parties to the dispute must completely adhere to what the Supreme Court which is the highest court of the land has laid down in this landmark judgment! 
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
x

Will Electoral Bonds Usher In Transparency?

Let me begin right at the very beginning by first and foremost pointing out very explicitly that secrecy and non-disclosure of names of donors can never usher in transparency no matter how tall claims the government may make repeatedly through its eminent and senior leaders. Why should there be any secrecy at all? Why can’t there be full and fair disclosure of names of all donors who donate to political parties?
                                    Bluntly put: Why political parties are not required to maintain records of the donors? Why the donor is not required to disclose the name of the political party while purchasing the electoral bonds? Why there is no cap on the amount of donations made through such bonds? Why is it ignored deliberately that such relaxation on the amount of donations will open the door for unmonitored funding of political parties by corporate which will have a disastrous impact on our economy as rampant corruption and favouritism will increase immensely?
                                    Let me also be direct in asking: Why this hush-hush secrecy of not disclosing names of donors on one pretext or the other? Why is Centre not making any serious effort to make sure that nothing is hidden by politicians and that everything is disclosed by them relating to payment which they receive from different sources? Why is Centre offering just lame excuses for not disclosing the names of all the donors who donate generously to political parties?    
                                    What is also baffling is this: Why under this electoral bond scheme the donor’s identity won’t be revealed to the beneficiaries? What is there for politicians to hide? Why Centre wants full transparency from people but not from politicians? Why can’t politicians too reveal every money which they get from different sources for fighting elections just like any other common person? Why special exemptions for political parties and politicians? Do they deserve this?      
                                 What is also incomprehensible is this: Why government is trying to project this electoral bond as most viable method on cleaning up poll funding without making the names of donors public? Why on one hand Arun Jaitley claims that the present system ensures unclean money coming from unidentifiable sources and most political groups seem fairly satisfied with the arrangement and would not mind this status-quo to continue but on the other hand makes sure that even under the electoral bonding method the names of donors are not made public? What sort of transparency is this?
                               Why on one hand Arun Jaitley claims that the effort, therefore, is to run down any alternative system which is devised to cleanse up the political funding mechanism but on the other hand throws up another opaque system which protects the identity of the donors from being made public? How can any sane person support another opaque system with just few minor changes? Why can’t there be full transparency with nothing hidden from the public?      
                                   Why the maximum limit of 7.5% has been lifted on the proportion of the profits a company can donate to any political party of its choice? Will this not directly open the floodgates for shell companies being set up to specifically to fund parties? Why political parties have been allowed to take foreign funding by amending the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA)? Will this not increase the clout of foreign powers directly in influencing the functioning of our government? Should we be proud of this?
                                    Agreed that reducing cash contributions from Rs 20,000 to Rs 2000 is a positive step but its overall impact could be deleterious as this will prompt parties to take smaller cash donations and thus not declare their source. Why this secrecy? Why not full transparency? Why is a common man deprived from knowing which corporate has funded which political party? Why even after disclosure of so many scams involving politicians just like the latest one involving several banks primarily the Punjab National Bank has resulted in looting of money worth more than Rs 20,000 crore as per the initial estimation? What purpose the electoral bonds would serve when the name of the donor is not disclosed as was pointed out even by Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge?
                            It is noteworthy that the government on January 2 had notified electoral bonds as a new instrument for donations to political parties. But it was on February 1, 2017 that Jaitley had first announced the idea of electoral funds in his Budget 2017-18 speech to make political fundings more transparent. Jaitley while underlining the basic contours of the electoral bonds scheme announced during the 2017 Budget, including their denominations, validity and eligibility of the purchasers said that, “Electoral bonds would be a bearer instrument in the nature of a promissory note and an interest-free banking instrument.”
                                    Arun Jaitley has himself said that, “The government is willing to consider all suggestions to further strengthen the cleansing of political funding in India. It has to be borne in mind that impractical suggestions will not improve the cash-dominated system.” Who can be better equipped than Arun Jaitley himself who has been a senior lawyer of Supreme Court and also Union Law Minister to understand best that not disclosing the names of donors will only make sure that even those involved in wrong activities too can donate money without their name being made in public? How can this be justified under any circumstances?
                                  Truth be told, under the new system the prospective donors will be required to buy interest-free electoral bonds of designated denominations which they will forward to the parties of their choice. These bonds can be purchased for any value, which are in multiples of Rs 1000, Rs 10,000, Rs 1,00,000, Rs 10,00,000 and Rs 1,00,00,000 from the specified branches of the State Bank of India. The validity of the bonds would be 15 day to ensure that it does not culminate in parallel currency or safe haven for black money!
                                  Truly speaking, the donors’ identity won’t be revealed to beneficiaries. Jaitley says this is needed to discourage cash donations. He does not say why and how. In any case, it’s far from certain why the present system of cash donations will cease with the advent of electoral bonds as the role of cash in the electoral battle will continue to remain as dominant as before if not more! Who can dispute or deny this?
                                       It must also be revealed here that the life of the electoral bond would be only 15 days. Jaitley said that, “Electoral bonds would have a life of only 15 days during which it can be used for making donation only to the political parties registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) and which secured not less than one percent of the votes polled in the last general election to the House of the People or a Legislative Assembly.” He also said that the bonds would bring in substantial and significant electoral funding when there is “nil transparency” as of now. These electoral bonds will be made available for purchase for 10 days each in January, April, July and October. It must also be mentioned here that the Government in a Lok Sabha election year can specify an additional period of 30 days.
                        Interestingly enough, only registered political parties which secured at least 1 percent votes in last election will be eligible for receiving donation through electoral bonds. Any Indian citizen or a body incorporated in India will be eligible to purchase the bond. Though the identity of the donors will not be made public, banks will have his details since the purchaser will have to fulfil the Know Your Customer (KYC) forms. The bonds will not carry interest.
                                   Simply put, a bond can only be encashed in a pre-declared account of a political party. Every political party in its returns will have to disclose the amount of donations it has received through electoral bonds to the Election Commission. The entire transactions would be through banking instruments. Jaitley reveals that as against a total non-transparency in the present system of cash donations where the donor, the done, the quantum of donations and the nature of expenditure are all undisclosed, some element of transparency would be introduced in as much as all donors declare in their accounts the amount of bonds that they have purchased and all parties declare the quantum of bonds that they have received.
                              To be sure, Jaitley also reveals that, “How much each donor has distributed to a political party would be known only to the donor. This is necessary because once this disclosure is made, past experience has shown, donors would not find the scheme attractive and would go back to the less desirable option of donating by cash. In fact the choice has now to be consciously made between the existing system of substantial cash donations which involves total unclean money and is non-transparent and the new scheme which gives the option to the donors to donate through entirely a transparent method of cheque, online transaction or through electoral bonds. While all three methods involve clean money, the first two are totally transparent and the electoral bonds scheme is a substantial improvement in transparency over the present system of no transparency.” Jaitley has a valid point. But even this method is not perfect.   
                                  I have absolutely no hesitation in concluding that a wrong is a wrong whether it is a smaller or a bigger wrong. The present  system of electoral bonds may be definitely a better alternative than the earlier one but even this too has many shortcomings. These shortcomings too needs to be removed and the system of electoral funding must be made totally transparent with no room for secrecy of any kind!
                                       To be sure, Jaitley has rightly said in a Face book post that India has not been able to evolve a transparent political funding system, despite being the largest democracy in the world. But now his government has been in power since the last four years. So he cannot offer any excuses for India not having been able to evolve a transparent political funding system. It is the bounden duty of his government to make sure that the system of poll funding is made totally transparent and there is no room for secrecy of any kind in any form which will only serve to further enhance the reputation of his government in the Centre!
                                 According to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), almost 70 percent of the Rs 113 billion of party funding received over an 11-year period came from unknown sources. What makes matters even more worse is that the Centre in 2016 retrospectively amended the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) to redefine the status of London-headquartered multinational Vedants, which had contributed to the BJP and the Congress party after the Delhi High Court held that both parties – BJP and Congress were guilty of violating FCRA rules. Neither party has been made to penalize for this blatant violation of all rules!
                                      How can this be ever justified? Who can justify the decision to not disclose the names of donors under the electoral bonds scheme which will only serve to promote the dangerous trend of opacity in political funding? How can this be denied that most private donors prefer anonymity for fear of reprisals from political parties and they would still prefer to continue with cash donations under the Rs 2000 slab as is enumerated under Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act as also via electoral trusts as it is here that anonymity is better maintained?   
                                  Why Centre is just aiming to reduce the big role that unaccounted cash has in the electoral process of electing candidates? Why Centre does not care to do more to address the need to have public accountability of sources of political funding? Why Centre has drawn a Lakshman Rekha that this naming of donors can never be done?
                                   Why Centre is not ready to bring in more transparency rather is seen to be eschewing transparency in this new method of electoral bonding? Why all the great legal luminaries in the Cabinet of Centre have failed thoroughly to work out on this in a satisfactory manner? Why is Arun Jaitley expecting the people to do the homework on this score?
                                       He himself is such a great legal luminary! Why can’t he work out himself a fair and transparent system of electoral funding? Why can’t a roadmap be put forward by Centre with clear timelines and with the ultimate aim of ushering in complete transparency in the system of political funding?
                                Why Centre fails to appreciate that just introducing electoral bonds will not usher in transparency in the electoral system unless accompanied by other corollary measures? Why there is no clarity right now on how much a party or a candidate spends in an election and from where all they get funding for fighting  their elections? Why there is no mechanism to monitor the spending of money by parties and candidates during elections?
                                    Why parties are not asked to show their source of funding which are dubious in many cases? Why no strict penalty is imposed against any political party who is found to have acquired huge money from “unexplained sources”? Why political parties are exempted from disclosing the name of donors received from foreign countries? 
                               Unless this is done, all other steps will prove to be “an exercise in futility”! Also, foreign countries by donating lavishly can subjugate our country indirectly and remote control them through their representatives in Delhi! Who can deny this possibility can never happen under any circumstances?
                             Most importantly, what is the harm in displaying total transparency? Why politicians don’t learn even after massive scams are unearthed as we saw involving various banks primarily Punjab National Bank where we saw open loot of more than Rs 20,000 crore and this figure could further rise high and which started in 2011 when previous UPA government was in power and continued till 2018 four years after present NDA government came to power which could never have taken place without the active blessings of senior politicians occupying key posts in the Centre? Why they want to keep secret whatever they do while demanding total transparency from the public? With what face?
                                It is high time and if this nation is to be saved from being doomed, there should be total transparency in all dealings including those pertaining to politicians and those found indulging in corrupt practices must be punished with either death or life term and nothing else! They should never be allowed to flee India as we saw most unfortunately when Vijay Mallya fled and now when Nirav Modi and all close to him have fled without being stopped or detained by anyone! They must be made to pay for their misdeeds instead of first allowing them to flee and then fighting legal cases abroad and wasting huge money in it by hiring expensive lawyers etc and still seeing those fugitives laughing at us and making a complete mockery of our law and legal system! For this to happen, we need honest leaders and they can never come to power if this complete secrecy in unaccounted political funding continues unabated in one form or the other!     
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Delhi HC Upholds Life Term To Seven Policemen

In a strong and stern message to all men in uniform who think that they can get away even after murdering any innocent person, the Delhi High Court on February 6 retained the life imprisonment that was awarded to seven Uttarakhand policemen for killing an innocent MBA student in a fake encounter in Dehradun in 2009. This open fake encounter had generated a lot of furore as the MBA student named Ranbir Singh had a complete impeccable track record with no past criminal record! This had left Ranbir’s parents, his relatives and friends and all those who were acquainted with him completely flabbergasted!
                                            To be sure, the Delhi High Court’s landmark ruling has made it clear: If you are a men in uniform and you kill someone without any valid cause then you are bound to pay the consequences! The Delhi High Court stated explicitly that , “Extra-judicial killing has no place in a system governed by the rule of law.” Absolutely right! Who can deny or dispute this?
                                          Let me add here in the same vein that the Delhi High Court, however, set aside the conviction and life term of 10 other cops who were held guilty for conspiring to kidnap and murder the MBA student. They got the benefit of doubt. These 10 were – constables Satbir Singh, Sunil Saini, Chander Pal, Saurabh Nautiyal, Nagender Rathi, Vikas Chander Baluni, Sanjay Rawat and Manoj Kumar and drivers Mohan Singh Rana and Inderbhan Singh.     
                                            To put things in perspective, the Delhi High Court after taking into account all the facts and circumstances of this high profile case concluded unambiguously that there was lack of evidence against them to sustain the charge. Besides the 17, the last accused Jaspal Singh Gosain who was the then head operator at the city control room who was sentenced to two years jail by the trial court for the offence of public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment was also absolved by the Delhi High Court. His complicity thus in this fake encounter was ruled out!
                                              While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me also inform them that Ranbir Singh who was aged 22 and a resident of Ghaziabad was gunned down by the police on July 3, 2009. The police had alleged that he was involved in an extortion racket. But the police could not back up their serious claims with substantial evidence in the court!   
                                            For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that the investigation was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation and the case was transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court. It was in June 2014 that a CBI court had convicted 18 Uttarakhand policemen in the case after holding them guilty of involvement in the conspiracy to kidnap and kill Ghaziabad resident Ranbir Singh who had gone to Dehradun to take up a job on July 3, 2009. No doubt, such fake encounters deserve no leniency!
                                      Bluntly put, a Bench of Justices S Muralidhar and IS Mehta of Delhi High Court in its 105-page judgment said that, “Fake encounter is manifestation of the impunity with which armed forces, including the police, are prone to act in utter disregard of the rule of law”. The Bench also held that, “It is also symbolic of the cynicism with which the police themselves view the efficacy of the criminal justice system. The police, in this perception, are not just the accusers, but the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner.” Very rightly said!
                                         Going one step ahead, I would further go on to add while speaking for myself that fake encounters must be punished with only the most strictest punishment which means death as long as death penalty exists in our penal laws and at the most life imprisonment. Nothing less than this! Those who indulge in fake encounters are worse than terrorists who not just bring disrepute to themselves but also to the uniform which they wear and denigrate the whole institution of the police or the armed forces or any other organization of which the accused are a member!
                                         Needless to say, terrorists are brainwashed and trained by Pakistani Army, ISI and their handlers to kill and are armed for the same but what about the men in uniform? Who trains them to indulge in fake encounter killings? They indulge in worst kinds of crime not  after going to Pakistan and being brainwashed by their army or ISI but do it all by themselves only for lure of getting out-of-turn promotions or some medal or after getting angry over a small dispute etc which has to be punished with the most strictest punishment so that the right message goes all across that those who indulge in fake killings will meet their just desserts soon!               
                                           As it turned out, the Delhi High Court, which termed the incident a “tragic case” upheld the trial court verdict convicting and sentencing to life Sub-Inspectors Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, Gopal Dutt Bhatt (SHO), Rajesh Bisht, Neeraj Kumar, Nitin Chander Mohan Singh Rawat and constable Ajit Singh. All seven were suspended. Very rightly so!     
                                             Truth be told, the Bench pulled back no punches in lashing out at the growing incidents of fake encounter killings. The Bench of Justice S Muralidharar and Justice IS Mehta of Delhi High Court observed that, “A fake encounter is a form of extra judicial killing which has no place in a legal system governed by the rule of law. It is a manifestation of the impunity with which armed forces, including the police, are prone to act, in utter disregard of the rule of law.” The Bench went on to say that, “For the police, fake encounters symbolise the cynicism with which the police view the efficacy of the criminal justice system. In the court’s view, the police, in this perception, are not just the accusers but the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner.
                                   Simply put, the confirmation of punishment for the seven accused was a result of the lawlessness by the police force which is not a new phenomenon. Noting that a large number of prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the Delhi High Court Bench said this was “yet another case that underscores the urgent need for a robust scheme of protection to witnesses and victims”. It was observed that, “The accused in the present case were all policemen of Uttarakhand. Many of the witnesses were local residents of Dehradun.” The High Court stated that though the Law Commission of India gave its recommendations in that regard more than a decade ago, little had been done for implementation.
                                     It may be recalled here that following a public outcry and the media describing it as a “fake encounter” in addition to the deceased’s family not being satisfied with the progress in the case, the family approached the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand. Consequently, the Uttarakhand government on July 5, 2009 transferred the investigation of the Dehradun police station to the CB-CID. However, as agitations continued, the government handed over the investigation to the CBI on July 8, 2009. On the plea of the deceased’s father Ravinder Pal Singh, the Supreme Court transferred the case from the Dehradun court to a Special CBI court in Delhi.
                                               It is noteworthy that the most important witness in this case was a public servant who claimed to have gone to his house after witnessing a scuffle between two youngsters and a policeman on July 3, 2009. The witness retrieved his licensed revolver from his home and fired two shots in the air to break the scuffle. The firing resulted in a commotion with the youngsters trying to flee and merge in the crowd.
                                   Be it noted, the witness, however, noticed that more policemen reached the spot and they managed to catch hold of one of the youngsters. The Bench observed that, “This is perhaps the most important statement in the entire case.” This is what ultimately led to the conviction of these seven policemen to life imprisonment! Very rightly so!
                                               All said and done, this landmark ruling by the Delhi High Court has sent a very loud and clear warning to all the men in uniform that, “If you think that just because you have the uniform and power which they wield being a public servant does not mean that you can get away by doing anything whatever you want.”  It has sent a very loud and clear message to all the men in uniform that if you indulge in fake encounter killings, you have no option but to pay the price which means that you can be punished with either life or death! In this case they have been punished with life term which means that for the remainder of their life they will have to spend it in prison! It has also sent a loud and clear message 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. 

SC Restrains J&K Cops From Taking Coercive Steps Against Maj Aditya

Let me begin at the very beginning by expressing my vindication to note that the Supreme Court on February 12 has very rightly stopped the Mehbooba Mufti-led Jammu and Kashmir from initiating any coercive action against Major Aditya Kumar who has been named in the FIR registered by the state police in connection with the death of three youth – Suhail Lone, Javid Bhat and Rayees Ahmed in their 20s in Army firing in Shopian on January 27. The Supreme Court took less than a minute to stop Jammu and Kashmir police from taking any coercive action against Major Aditya Kumar. Prima facie, there seems to be no strong case for initiating action against Major Aditya!
                                             How can it be ignored that these three youth were a part of more than 300 strong mob who without any reason had started brutally attacking an Army convoy and were about to kill a JCO? How can it be ignored that to save the JCO who was brutally attacked by a mob which included these 3 youths and were about to lynch him even though he was talking with them politely and wanted to kill him when he tried to pacify them, the soldiers were compelled to fire as there was no other option to save him from those stone pelters and Maj Aditya Kumar was not even among those who had fired? Then how could FIR be lodged against Maj Aditya Kumar?
                                        How can it be ignored that soldiers are protected under AFSPA? How can it be ignored that soldiers did not fire on peaceful protesters but on a huge crowd who were doing stone pelting and who instead wanted to kill the soldiers? How can it be ignored that these stone pelters were not listening even after being repeatedly warned and did not spare even a JCO who was not armed and who was instead pacifying the stone pelters but still they attacked him and were about to lynch him?
                                        As it turned out, while the police FIR accuses the 10th Garhwal battalion of murder and attempt to murder among others, the Army has stated that it fired in self-defence. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court issued notice to the Jammu and Kashmir government and asked standing counsel M Shoeb Alam to file a response in two weeksto a petition by Major Aditya’s father, Lt Colonel Karamveer Singh, who sought quashing of the Shopian FIR that levels murder charges against his son. The murder charges leveled against Maj Aditya was preposterous!
                                         While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform here that issuing notice to the State and Centre, a three-Judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra ordered that, “As an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken on the basis of the First Information Report No. 26/2018 dated 27.1.2018 registered at P.S. (Police Station) Shopian under Sections 336, 307, 302 of Ranbir Penal Code against Major Aditya Kumar.” This is certainly a big relief for Maj Aditya and a huge setback for Mehbooba state government. This was what was being anticipated also.  
                                            For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that the Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by Maj Aditya Kumar’s father – Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh who had bravely fought Pakistani forces in Kargil 19 years ago. Of course, Lt Colonel Karamveer was seeking the quashing of the FIR filed against his son! Taking a serious note of the plea by an army officer who had fought intruding Pakistani forces in Kargil 19 years ago and who narrated the catch 22 situation in which army personnel operate in Jammu and Kashmir, the Bench of the Supreme Court also sought the assistance of Attorney General KK Venugopal and asked him to “put forth” before the court the Centre’s stand on this incident and the FIR.
                                   To be sure, the Bench of the Supreme Court gave the Jammu and Kashmir state government two weeks time to file its reply. Thus we see that the Jammu and Kashmir State Government has been given enough time to prepare and file its reply in this high profile case! The Bench said that, “Let a copy of this petition be served on Mr Shoeb Alam, standing counsel for the State of Jammu and Kashmir, who shall file a reply within two weeks. A copy of the petition be served on the office of the learned Attorney General who shall represent the Union of India and put forth its stand.”  
                                          To put things in perspective, the Supreme Court also issued a notice on another petition which sought a direction to the Centre to set up a committee of experts for conducting a preliminary inquiry before a case is registered against Army personnel, and direction to the state government not to withdraw cases against stone-pelters. It is a matter of national disgrace that cases against 10,000 stone pelters were withdrawn by Mehbooba government and even in this case no FIR was lodged against stone pelters who were responsible for this entire unsavoury incident which left three stone pelters dead and many injured! Shameful!
                                               Why has Centre allowed this to happen at the first place? What precedent is being set? Will this not encourage others to follow suit?
                                           What impact will it have on soldiers morale who already are repeatedly facing terror attacks and suffering casualties? How can soldiers fight if they are made to fight court cases just for doing their duty? How can the protection to soldiers available under AFSPA be denied to them? How can we ignore that just recently even the children of soldiers have appealed to NHRC to save their fathers from being stone pelted?    
                                      Needless to say, while appearing for Lt Col Karamveer Singh, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said it was a “serious” matter and that “currently an operation was going on”. According to the police, two protesters were killed on the spot during the firing on January 27 and a third person succumbed to injuries later. Singh contended that the Army personnel were forced to fire at “a savage and violent mob engaged in a terrorist activity”, which had hurled stones at an Army convoy and was allegedly about to lynch a Junior Commissioned Officer. What else could the Army personnel do?
                                     Truth be told, the petition filed through advocate Aishwarya Bhati said that, “The petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition for quashing of the FIR in view of the extremely hostile situation on the ground, whereby an FIR has been registered by the local police against the son of the petitioner, who is a service Army officer and was performing his bona fide duties.” How can this lodging of FIR be registered? What is worse is that no FIR lodged against stone pelters! Why were stone pelters given the long rope by the police? At whose behest? Mehbooba or some minister or someone else? This must be divulged! Why should they who protect stone pelters and encourage them from doing it repeatedly not be sacked but also put behind bars for abetting the crime? 
                                       Simply put, the petition which will be mentioned in the court on Friday stated that, “The manner in which the lodging of the FIR has been portrayed and projected by the political leadership and administrative higher-ups of the state reflects the extremely hostile atmosphere in the state.” Why did Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman do nothing to ensure that soldiers are not mired in controversies and FIR is not lodged against them as they were just doing their duty and had to fire to protect the life of a JCO who was on the verge of being set on fire just like earlier a DSP Mohammad Ayyub Pandith was beaten, stripped, bones broken and then burnt to death? Why did Home Minister Rajnath Singh also not intervene?
                                         No doubt, Lt Col Karamveer stated that he was filing the plea on behalf of his son “for protecting the morale of the soldiers of Indian Army, who are facing all odds in performance of their bona fide duties and laying their lives in the line of duty, to uphold the dignity of the Indian flag.” Which right minded person will question what Lt Col Karamveer has said? We are all seeing for ourselves how terrorists are regularly attacking our soldiers, how Pakistani soldiers are attacking our soldiers and worst of all even many locals are attacking our soldiers with stones and other sharp weapons without any provocation whatsoever!
                                        It is noteworthy that the petition said that the FIR relates to an Army convoy on bona fide military duty in an area under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) coming under heavy stone pelting. It also stated that the area was isolated by an unruly and deranged mob who were pelting the said vehicles with stones, causing damage to the military vehicles which are the property of the Government of India, as well as placing the lives of military personnel and military property within the vehicles in grave peril. It also mentioned that although the Army requested the mob to disperse, they did not do so and started hurling stones at the vehicles.
                                   Worst of all, Lt Col Singh said that, “The unruly behaviour of the unlawful assembly reached its peak when they got hold of a junior commissioned officer and was in the process of lynching him. It was at this moment that warning shots were fired at the unlawful assembly which, as per the said terms of engagement, is the last resort to be taken before opening fire. The unlawful assembly again refused to spare the life of the officer and, therefore, fire was lawfully opened with an aim to disperse the violent mob and protect government servants and property.” Is it not the duty of soldiers to protect government servants and property?   
                                    In essence, Lt Col Singh said Major Aditya was not present at the spot and could not have taken part in the action. He said the soldiers opened fire purely in “self-protection” to disburse a stone-pelting mob and save themselves from being lynched. He said that, “The manner in which the lodging of FIR has been portrayed and projected by political leadership and administrative higher-ups of the state reflects the hostile atmosphere in the state.”
                                    All said and done, it is an open and shut case. Police has no business to interfere in the working of the Army. The death of 3 stone pelters was caused due to those stone pelters themselves who came in large numbers and started attacking the Army convoy without any provocation and were on the verge of killing the JCO and to save him the soldiers had to fire! Here too Major Aditya was not the one who fired nor did he do anything that could warrant his arrest by the police! So, the FIR lodged by police was unsustainable and Major Aditya deserved the relief which he has been granted by Supreme Court! Sure enough, the final decision too will see him emerging unscathed because he has done nothing wrong for which he could be incarcerated in jail!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.  

Why Has Stone Pelting Been Legalised In Kashmir?

What is happening in Kashmir? Why are interlocutors being appointed for Kashmir?  Why are interlocutors appeasing the separatists and Hurriyat leaders who are directly funded from Pakistan? Why has stone pelting been legalised in Kashmir? Why stone pelters are freely attacking army vehicles? Why cases against more than 10,000 of them have been withdrawn?
                                      Why has Centre allowed Mehbooba to withdraw stone pelting cases against stone pelters who attack men in uniform? Why has Centre turned a blind eye to the deplorable plight of men in uniform who are expected to brave stones and yet not retaliate? Why has Centre legalised stone pelting in Kashmir?
                                       Why Centre is stooping so low that it does not even have the guts to take strictest possible action against Akbar Lone who is National Conference MLA and who shouted pro-Pakistani slogans right inside Jammu and Kashmir Assembly even when terrorists had killed many of our soldiers in Jammu and the father of one of the soldiers and wounded even women and children? Why is the membership of Akbar Lone not being terminated? Why is Akbar Lone staying in India if he dedicates himself to Pakistan which is a failed state which alone explains that why the likes of Akbar Lone and others never actually shift permanently to Pakistan?
                                         Why Centre is firm that it will not make any law to punish those who live in India yet chant pro-Pakistani slogans? Why Centre is firm that Article 370 of the Constitution which was not originally in the Constitution but inserted later by a ‘Presidential Order’ of 1954 would not be removed under any circumstances? Why Centre led by PM Modi feels proud that stone pelting has become an industry under Modi’s leadership and still he feels that no cases should be registered against stone pelters?      
                                       Why Centre is firm that it will not listen to the prayer of children of soldiers who have appealed to NHRC to save their fathers from being hit by stone pelters as Centre feels that soldiers must tolerate stone pelters quietly who are most important and whose heart can be won only by “healing touch” policy and if they retailiate then defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman herself will give permission to lodge FIR against those soldiers as was done in case of Major Aditya Kumar even though he himself did not fire a shot and his father Lt Colonel Karamveer Singh who is a Kargil war veteran in this old age is compelled to take the trouble of approaching the Supreme Court to refrain the government from lodging FIR against his son who is protected by AFSPA and who did nothing wrong? Why has Centre gone so crazy? Why is Centre concerned only about stone pelters and not about soldiers?
                                               Why is Centre disregarding the soldiers and the families of soldiers who are compelled to approach the NHRC something which I have never heard of earlier not even in AB Vajpayee’s term as PM? Why Centre feels that soldiers must relax when they are pelted with stones by stone pelters and just not panic? Why Centre has reiterated that it stands with stone pelters by not allowing any FIR to be lodged against stone pelters while ensuring that FIR at the behest of Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman is lodged against soldiers?
                                       Why Centre feels that even if Kashmiris attack soldiers they must tolerate it and even if their helmet falls in dustbin or gutter they should tolerate it quietly just like had happened last year with some of them who were attacked by many miscreants yet no action was taken against them? Why Centre feels that what Justice JS Khehar had questioned that one country cannot have two laws, two Constitutions and two flags is right but Kashmiris have to be kept happy under all circumstances and so this provision of two laws, two Constitutions and two flags must continue unabated? Why Centre feels that stone pelters must be hugged and not kicked?
                                           Why Centre supports the line of Mehbooba that stone pelters even if they attack soldiers in huge numbers of 300 or so just like happened in Shopian and if soldiers fire in self defence then cases should be registered against those soldiers who fire as happened actually in Shopian when FIR under Section 302 (murder) and Section 307 (attempt to murder) was lodged against Major Aditya Kumar even though he had himself not fired and he was quite far away from the Army convoy in which soldiers opened fire after stone pelters most ruthlessly attacked soldiers and who then to save the life of a JCO fired in defence due to which 3 stone pelters died? Why is Centre and State Government not taking any strong action against stone pelters? Why no case was registered against stone pelters who without any grave and sudden provocation assembled in huge number and meticulously attacked a peaceful Army convoy?
                                          Why Centre feels that just like the DSP Mohammad Ayyub Pandith was brutally beaten by crowd of Kashmir and then made naked and then his bones broken and then was burnt alive who was deputed for security of Hurriyat leaders who openly rant against India yet nothing was done against those responsible similarly no FIR should be lodged against those who attacked Army convoy without any provocation? Why has Centre under leadership of PM Narendra Modi allowed stone pelting to be legalized on army soldiers and other forces? Why has Centre decided that even FIR should not be lodged against stone pelters as happened with the stone pelters when they stormed an Army convoy at Shopian which was peacefully going from one location to another without attacking anyone?
                                         Why Centre has decided that not only all cases will be withdrawn against stone pelters but in future also they will be given full freedom to do what they want? Why Centre feels that attack on Army soldiers by stone pelters is a very small thing and soldiers should just tolerate it quietly as Kashmiris are our own people? Why Centre feels that this is the only way in which the heart of Kashmiris can be won? Why Centre led by PM Narendra Modi is doing what even the most liberal leader and Modi’s ex-boss –  Atal Bihari Vajpayee had not done – encourage stone pelters by withdrawing all FIRs against stone pelters and not lodging FIR against those pelters who attacked Army convoy in Shopian?
                                      If soldiers are treated in this dastardly manner then Centre which is led by BJP will hundred percent lose elections and never again will any true Indian vote them again to power! They must wake up their ideas! India exists because of their brave soldiers and not because of third rated stone pelters or vested politicians who are only interested in saving their own vote bank! Any party which disregards soldiers will be voted out just like BJP in 2004 and Congress in 2014! What if all soldiers decide to launch their own party? Centre must act fast before it is too late!  
                                          Why so much of undue leniency for stone pelters? Why is Centre not sending extra force to Kashmir to deal with them with an iron hand if they dare to attack soldiers while they are operating to kill terrorists? Why is Centre not taking a clear stand on this?
                                              Why it is only in PM Narendra Modi’s term as PM that stone pelters have started raising their ugly head in the most dangerous manner so freely? Why stone pelters feel that there is Modi as PM to protect them and ensure that no FIR is lodged against them? Why has Modi allowed stone pelting to become a routine in Kashmir?
                                       Why FIR lodged against Army officers like Major Aditya Kumar but not against stone pelters? Why Modi is not thinking about the dangerous and disastrous consequences this all will have on the morale of our soldiers and their family as we saw how some children petitioning to NHRC something which never happened even in Vajpayee’s term as PM? Why Modi is taking all this so lightly?
                                            Why he is not taking any steps to ensure that stone pelters dare not attack Army convoys something never heard of earlier? Why Modi is not taking any steps to ensure that those who burn Indian flags, wave Pakistani flags, attack our soldiers and chant pro-Pakistani slogans be advised to just leave India and why should they not be denied Indian citizenship when they claim to be Pakistanis? Why is he blindly adhering to what Mehbooba is saying?
                                                   Why does he not realize that he is the PM of India and not Mehbooba who is just the CM of Jaqmmu and Kashmir and who is known for her soft approach against anti-India lobby as was witnessed just recently when she withdrew cases against 10,000 stone pelters unconditionally? Why is Mehbooba allowing to have the last laugh? Why has stone pelting been allowed to become the fundamental right of all Kashmiris and that too on soldiers who are quietly moving from one place to another or are fighting terrorists at any place? Why has stone pelting been legalised completely in Kashmir?
                                                    Only and only Modi can answer! But does he have the time? Right now, he is too busy with foreign trips even as Kashmir continues to burn! No country can survive long where soldiers are disregarded! If stone pelting is not checked in time, the consequences can be potentially disastrous for our whole nation and the situation can spiral completely out of control for which the whole responsibility would be of Modi who is our PM and is credited for everything good that happens nowadays in our country!
                                                 I have never in my life till now felt such chilling insult of our soldiers as I am feeling now which is worse than even what I felt during Kargil war but Modi is just not bothered! The stone pelters are doing openly what Gen Musharraf could not do publicly to our soldiers! How can Modi still continue to laugh and pretend as if nothing has happened? How can Modi still feel good under such circumstances which I have never experienced before when our soldiers are being ruthlessly killed by terrorists, Rohingyas welcomed in Jammu to facilitate attack on our soldiers who should never have been allowed to settle in the volatile Jammu and Kashmir and worst of all being ruthlessly attacked by stone pelters just like DSP Mohammad Ayuub was attacked, his clothes torn, his bones broken before being burnt to death? Still MFN status for Pakistan! Still normal diplomatic relations with Pakistan! Still Indus water for Pakistan! Still many Pakistani diplomats in India to fund terrorists as was disclosed also by NIA recently! Still VVIP status for Hurriyat leaders! Still no jail for Hurriyat! Still security for soldiers! I just fail to understand Modi’s mind set! Most perplexing!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.  

Worst Crisis Engulfs Maldives With Forces All Over

In an unpalatable turn of events, the security forces of the island nation Maldives have stormed their Supreme Court and arrested Maldives Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and another Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed over alleged corruption charges. In another related development to consolidate his power, the embattled President Abdulla Yameen on February 6 forced the Supreme Court to revoke an order to release nine high profile political prisoners. The remaining three Judges of the Supreme Court said in a statement that they were rescinding the order to release the prisoners “in light of the concerns raised by the President”. This clearly implies that the President Abdulla Yameen is imposing his will on the Judges of the Supreme Court and is not allowing them to function as per their own will and conscience!
                                             As things stand, the situation in Maldives is turning from worse to worst! Meanwhile, as a first precautionary step to deal with the crisis in the neighbourhood, New Delhi may make a diplomatic intervention by sending a special envoy to Male to protect its own strategic interest in the region. India has so far decided to remain a mute spectator by keeping itself totally aloof to the alarming development in Male and merely issued a couple of statements even though the Opposition parties in Maldives are making distress calls to New Delhi for diplomatic intervention and military aid!   
                                      Not surprising that Maldives President Abdullah Yameen on 8 February approached three ‘friendly countries’ – China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and announced envoys will be sent to these nations. India does not figure in this list though. This clearly conveys that Abdullah gives no importance to India which alone explains why India is keeping itself aloof! An official announcement from Yameen’s office said that the envoys will visit the friendly nations and provide updates on the current situation.
                        Simply put, this development came soon after China warned against military intervention in the Maldives saying that it would complicate the situation further. The warning was palpably directed against India after former President Mohamed Nasheed appealed to New Delhi to send envoys and the government had the military on standby in case of emergency or requirement. India already  before China’s warning had made it clear that it would not involve itself in the internal quagmire of Maldives and very rightly so!
                      Amid a spiralling political crisis in the island nation, the Maldives government on February 5 declared a state of emergency for 15 days following a Supreme Court order recently to release Opposition leaders from prison. A statement from President Abdulla Yameen’s office said that, “During this time, though certain rights will be restricted, general movements, services and businesses will not be affected. The Government of Maldives also wishes to assure all Maldivians and the international community that the safety of all Maldivians and foreigners living in and visiting the Maldives will be ensured.” No doubt, he has denigrated his international image by behaving so imperiously!
                                 Needless to say, sources revealed that the state of emergency that has been imposed by Abdulla arms the security officials with extra powers to arrest suspects. The development comes five days after the Supreme Court ordered the release of nine Opposition leaders, including the exiled former President Mohamed Nasheed. It also ordered that12 MPs expelled earlier be reinstated.
                            It is noteworthy that Eva Abdulla who is an MP and also a member of the Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party said that, “The declaration of state of emergency is an indication of Mr Yameen’s desperation. It only serves to show an isolated man who no longer has the confidence of the people and independent institutions.” The Opposition lawmakers appealed to international actors to put pressure on his government to comply with the Supreme Court order by releasing nine jailed Opposition leaders and restoring 12 expelled parliamentarians to the body. While adopting a resolution, the Opposition Parliamentarians requested the international community “to do everything in their power” to consider diplomatic, economic, and legal measures “to defend democracy, rule of law and human rights in the Maldives”.
                                   It may be recalled here that when the former Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed was made to step down in 2012 due to a series of political events in the country, he got refuge at the Indian High Commission. The bilateral relations between India and the Maldives have been very friendly since last many years. But in the last four years, the relations have plummetted to a new low due to Yameen’s policies for which he has to blame his ownself!
                             Who does not know that Yameen is known to harbor anti-India sentiments since he first became a minister in early 1990s? But for the sake of public consumption and to remain in India’s good books, Yameen has given credit to the Indian government for various aids and interventions in the islands and in doing so has done no big favour to  India who deserves it because India has always been generous in its dealings with Maldives! Who can deny that India has a naval presence in the Maldives since 2009 on the island state’s request? India-Maldives-Sri Lanka also hold trilateral NSA level dialogue.
                                 It is only now that the ties with Maldives has further deteriorated when Yameen ordered the removal of the Chief Justice, police chiefs and Vice-President to boost his administration. India along with many other countries like US have pulled back no punches in condemning the act calling it undemocratic. It may also be recalled that President Yameen had paid a two day visit to India in 2016 and counter-terrorism cooperation had been discussed by the two leaders.
                                   It needs no rocket scientist to conclude that the major reason for the strained ties between India and Maldives is attributed to Maldives closeness to China under Yameen and special treatment accorded to Beijing and its infra structure projects, including island development which will have serious security implications for India. How can India ignore all this? This is the reason why India has now maintained a safe distance from Maldives. Even though US President Donald Trump just recently after calling PM Modi expressed his utmost concern over the turmoil in Maldives, India too expressed similar sentiments and preferred to not dabble in it!
                                  As it turned out, the turbulent situation in Maldives has prompted some countries, including India, to issue travel advisories to citizens. India has advised nationals to cancel all “non-essential” travels to the Maldives. The Ministry of External Affairs said in the advisory that, “The prevailing political developments in Maldives are a matter of concern for India. Indian nationals are, therefore, advised to defer all non essential travels to Male and other atolls until further notice. Indian expatriates in Maldives are also alerted to the need for heightened security awareness, and urged to exercise due caution in public and avoid public gatherings.” China too has issued travel advisories asking citizens to avoid travelling to Maldives till theongoing tension there subside.    
                              Be it noted, former President Mohammed Nasheed on February 6 sought India’s direct and swift intervention. Nasheed tweeted that, “On behalf of Maldivian people we humbly request: 1) India to send envoy, backed by its military, to release judges and political detainees, including President Gayoom. We request a physical presence.
2) The US to stop all financial transactions with the Maldives regime leaders in US banks.” It is with great expectations that he requested India. But India has its own compulsions.
                                 Truth be told, hours later, India’s Ministry of External Affairs responded by saying that, “We are disturbed by the declaration of a State of Emergency in the Maldives following the refusal of the Government to abide by the unanimous ruling of the full bench of the Supreme Court on 1 February and also by the suspension of Constitutional rights of the people of the Maldives. The arrest of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and political figures are also reasons for concern. The Government continues to carefully monitor the situation.” India has thus made its stand clear. While India wants that the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court be implemented but it will itself refrain from directly dabbling in their internal affairs!   
                              To recapitulate, India has been traditionally the first port of call for any distress situation in the country, be it political, military or humanitarian. India had in 1988 intervened through “Operation Cactus” to save the then President of the Maldives, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, from a coup attempt carried out by Sri Lankan Tamil militants on behalf of the Maldivian businessman Abdulla Luthufi. In 2013 Nasheed took refuge in the Indian High Commission in Male after he was ousted in a coup and Yameen’s police tried to execute an arrest warrant against him in a false case. Nasheed later stepped out of the embassy after an agreement was reached between him and the Yameen Government following intense negotiations involving India. In December 2014, India sent water to the Maldives after its water treatment plant caught fire.     
                          To put things in perspective, while expectations are certainly building up for India’s military action in the archipelago, the Government is hesitant to go for this extreme measure till diplomatic options remain open. India has deep strategic interests both in Indian Ocean and in the Maldives and pressure is building up on the Government to act swiftly before China or any other country seizes the opportunity. It is for Centre to take the final call on this!
                        To be sure, while the Maldives media on February 6 played up unconfirmed reports about Indian Special Forces being kept in readiness for a possible military intervention, officials said certain units of the Army, including Special Forces and Parachute Regiment, the Navy and the Indian Air Force, routinely train for out of area contingencies.  The officials added that certain transport planes, including C-130Js meant for special commando operations, are always deployed along with these units. The Indian Navy routinely patrols the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Maldives besides its P-8I long range reconnaissance aircraft and medium range Dornier aircraft also carry out sorties due to Indian Ocean having strategic importance for India.     
                             Moreover, it also cannot be overlooked that two to three coastal radars were installed by India some years back to help Maldives security forces to monitor maritime activities in its region of interest. These radars are linked with the Indian coastal radar chain. This clearly demonstrates that India has always closely assisted Maldives security forces so that they could be able to better check maritime activities in their region of interest.                
                         To tell the truth, the UN, the US, the UK, Australia and almost all major countries have urged President Abdulla Yameen Gayoom to obey Supreme Court orders and respect democratic institutions. The US openly said that, “The world is watching”. Heather Nauert who is US State Department spokesperson said that, “The US is troubled and disappointed by reports that Maldivian President Yameen has declared a State of Emergency, which gives sweeping powers to security forces to arrest and detain suspects, bans public gatherings, imposes travel restrictions and suspends parts of the Maldivian Constitution…The US calls on President Yameen, the army, and police to comply with the rule of law, implement the Supreme Court’s ruling and the rulings of the Criminal Court, ensure the full and proper functioning of Parliament and restore constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people and institutions of the Maldives.”       
                          Going forward, France also added its voice to the international criticism of Yameen’s actions. In a statement, the French Foreign Ministry said, “France is concerned by the suspension of public freedoms and by the arrests that took place following the declaration of the state of emergency in the Maldives. We call for a swift return to the normal functioning of the institutions and for respect for the rule of law.” The UK where Nasheed has taken political asylum to has urged Yameen to end emergency. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said categorically that, “…The damage being done to democratic institutions in Maldives and the sustained misuse f process in Parliament is deeply worrying. I call on President Yameen and the Government of Maldives to peacefully end the state of emergency, restore all articles of the Constitution, take immediate steps to implement in full the order of the Supreme Court and to permit and support the full, free and proper functioning of Parliament.”
                                Stephane Dujarric who is spokesperson for the UN SG said that, “The SG urges the Government of the Maldives to uphold the constitution and rule of law, lift the state of emergency as soon as possible and take all measures to ensure the safety and security of the people in the country, including members of the judiciary.” China played safe and asked both sides to sort out their differences through a dialogue. Yameen has imposed emergency and placed former President Gayoom under house arrest. Yameen said he declared an emergency to investigate “a coup” against him.
                                  All said and done, all countries including India are most troubled and disappointed to see that Maldives President Yameen has declared a state of emergency! What is worse is that he has completely disregarded to what the Supreme Court has held and wants to impose his own will! What is worst is Yameen has systematically alienated his coalition, jailed or exiled every major opposition political parties figure who disagreed with him since his election in 2013 and has blatantly disregarded even the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court and even got the Chief Justice arrested along with former President Gayoom and other political leaders!
                                 It is high time and Yameen must bow to international pressure and amend his authoritarian and undemocratic ways as soon as possible! This will only serve to enhance his image which has taken the worst beating following the sudden imposition of unwanted emergency and arrest of Maldives Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and another Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed along with others which cannot be justified under any circumstances! Now the choice to act or not to act wisely is entirely his! His actions will decide his ultimate fate!      
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Soldiers Have Every Legal Right To Kill Stone Pelters

Even if all the lawyers and Judges of the Supreme Court, all the lawyers and Judges of all the High Courts and all the lawyers and Judges of all the District Courts were to stand on one side and say that soldiers have no legal right to retaliate and kill stone pelters, I would humbly beg to differ with all of them! Soldiers have every legal right to act in self defence. There can be no denying or disputing it!
                                  No law can be above the nation! India exists because of our soldiers and not because of politicians! It is soldiers who protect our nation and not politicians! So why should soldiers not be protected from being targeted by stone pelters who think they have birth right to pelt stones and then there is Centre led by Modi and State led by Mehbooba to withdraw cases against them?
                                          Politicians only know how to divide India just like they divided us in 1947! This alone explains why Justice Markandey Katju calls politicians as rogues and scoundrels! Justice Katju rightly points out that a father named Jawaharlal Nehru created one fake country called Pakistan and the daughter created another fake country called Bangladesh. He predicts that they both were part of India and shall merge with India in the coming years after 15 or 20 years as they are failed states!
                                               What do our human rights activists expect? Do they expect that soldiers keep on braving stone pelting every now and then without ever retaliating? Do they expect that soldiers keep their head down even as stone pelters slap them and their helmet falls in dustbin as we saw in all news channels last year and yet the soldier did not retaliate?
                                               How long will soldiers keep quiet in Jammu and Kashmir? What message is Centre sending? What message is Jammu and Kashmir State Government led by Chief Minister Mehbooba Sayyid sending?   
                                       Why has an FIR been lodged against a serving Army Officer Lieutenant Colonel Aditya Kumar even though he had no hand in firing and killing stone pelters? Why Centre allowed this to happen at the first place? Why FIR not lodged against those stone pelters who without any reason attacked an Army convoy and had attempted to kill a JCO before the troops opened fire? Are those stone pelters above the law of the land?
                                      What message is Centre and State Government sending? Why Centre has allowed State Government of Mehbooba to bulldoze her way? Why has Centre disregarded our brave soldiers? Should we be proud of it?
                                         Why has Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Rajnath Singh allowed lodging of FIR against Lt Col Aditya Kumar and others even though they are protected by AFSPA? Why was it ignored that they acted in self-defence as stone pelters wanted to kill them without any grave and sudden provocation? Why no FIR allowed to be lodged against stone pelters?
                                               Why has Centre allowed this to happen at the first instance? What message is Centre sending? Why is Centre discouraging youth from joining Army by encouraging stone pelters by not lodging FIR against them and by promptly lodging FIR against soldiers who acted in self defence?  
                                                  Why has Centre allowed withdrawal of FIR and cases against 10,000 stone pelters? Will this not encourage stone pelting industry in Jammu and Kashmir funded fully from Pakistan? Why Rohingyas allowed to illegally settle in Jammu and Kashmir? Why Rohingyas are allowed to become part of stone pelting industry and still be given Indian citizenship?
                                         Why the father of Maj Aditya was compelled to approach Supreme Court for quashing the FIR lodged wrongly against his son? Why Centre and State failed to reprimand the police for lodging FIR against him and other soldiers who were attacked by stone pelters? Why Centre and States allowed the lodging of FIR at the first place?
                                    What message is Centre and State of Jammu and Kashmir sending? That they stand firmly and fully with stone pelters against whom no case is lodged and stand for ensuring that Major Aditya and other soldiers are sent behind bars for the rest of their lives or are hanged? Which true Indian will ever like this and appreciate them for this anti-national act?
                                              The whole nation is watching how Pakistan is again and again killing our soldiers with anti tank missiles and how terrorists are attacking Army camps and Centre and State strongly demanding that stone pelters be dealt with leniently as they are our own people and how interlocutors are being sent to hold talks with separatists and anti-India lobby! Such suicidal move Centre can ill afford considering the stark truth that next year in 2019 the country will face general elections! Who can  save Centre from facing electoral defeat at the hustings if it fails to rectify its approach?   
                                     The soldiers who fired at stone pelters and killed 3 of them had to fire in self defence as the stone pelters without any grave and sudden provocation started attacking Army vehicles! What can soldiers do under such dire circumstances? Should they offer flower or fruit to such stone pelters who are mad in anger wanting to kill each and every soldier knowing fully well that Centre and State stands fully with them and not with soldiers who dare not respond to their attack?
                                       All in all, soldiers have every legal right of private defence just like any other individual! In addition, soldiers are protected by AFSPA which stone pelters fail to appreciate and they think that they will keep on attacking Indian soldiers who won’t respond for fear of FIR being lodged against them! This approach is nothing but bunkum!
                                            Soldiers have every legal right to kill those who pelt stones at them because no ordinary person will ever throw stone at soldiers! With what  face stone pelters talk about human rights and legal rights when they don’t care about the basic legal rights of our soldiers of not to be attacked without provocation? Also, soldiers have every legal right to defend their fellow soldiers from being targeted and burnt in the manner in which Mohammad Ayub was burnt and beaten to death in 2017 after breaking all his bones! While doing so, if the soldiers fire at stone pelters then the stone pelters are themselves responsible for it as also are those responsible who encourage them by withdrawing cases and paying them for indulging in it most lavishly!
                                          Even soldiers have legal rights and not just stone pelters! India is standing as one nation since 1947 because of soldiers and not because of unruly stone pelters! It is because of the supreme sacrifice rendered by soldiers at very young age of just 20 or 21 or 22 or little more that we all are safe from terrorists and Pakistani invaders who want to destroy our nation completely!
                                     How can we ignore this? How can our politicians ignore this? How can State ignore this? How can politicians ignore this? So soldiers must be defended and in this case Centre has utterly failed to do anything to protect the legal right of soldiers and has mollycoddled in front of Mehbooba who has withdrawn more than 10,000 cases against stone pelters and has ensured that no case is lodged against stone pelters who pelted stones at soldiers!
                                            Lt Col Karamveer approaching the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR lodged against his son is a national disgrace and Centre is squarely responsible for it by not doing anything to prevent this from happening! What message is Centre trying to send? Whom is it trying to appease?
                                              Why is it not according top priority to our soldiers who always guard our borders and who even help our stone pelters when they are in crisis like floods etc? Soldiers have fired in self defence as well as defence of fellow soldiers and have exercised maximum restraint by killing only 2 or 3 of the stone pelters and not 200 or 300 of them! How can all this be ignored?
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Shopian Firing: Major’s Dad Moving SC For Quashing FIR

What is happening in India? Why are cases against more than 10,000 stone pelters being withdrawn? Why are Army officers and soldiers being named in FIR for defending themselves against a murderous crowd and for doing their duty of fighting terrorists? Why Centre is watching everything like a mute spectator?
                                            Why the protection afforded to soldiers under AFSPA is being withdrawn inspite of AFSPA still in force in J&K? Why is Centre firm that Mehbooba has to be kept happy under all circumstances? Why is national interest not placed on first priority and instead party interest is accorded the top priority? What message is being sent by Centre?
                                          Why is political establishment out to demoralize soldiers and boost stone pelting as the biggest industry of Jammu and Kashmir? Should we be proud of it? Should Centre justify it in the name of “healing touch” policy?
                                    Why even as Army soldiers are fighting terrorists, crowd pour in and start pelting stones at Army? Why politicians try to justify it? Why politicians slam Army for not exercising restraint?
                                           Why politicians argue that just like DSP Mohammad Ayub was killed by mob and he did nothing similarly Army should also do nothing?  Why is Army supposed not to fire at crowd and brave all injury quietly and die in the manner DSP Mohammad Ayyub died after his body limbs were broken most brutally by mob before being burnt? Why politicians argue that stonepelters are our own people and Army must have tolerance for them as they too have the right to dissent?
                                             Is this the way to dissent that you try to kill those wearing uniform? Have the stone pelters taken licence from senior politicians to pelt stones at Army vehicles and yet soldiers should not retaliate at all? Why is Centre allowing all this to happen? Why is Centre not listening to even its own party leaders like Subramanium Swamy and taking strong action against stone pelters? What message is Centre sending? Will this not encourage lumpen elements all over the country to pelt stones and then get cases withdrawn against them by a Centre who mollycoddles in front of stone pelters, traitors and anti-national elements?
                                        Not surprising that this is emboldening terrorists and even as I am writing this, news is pouring in that terrorists have attacked an Army camp in Sunjwan in Jammu and killed a soldier, injured a JCO and his daughter even as fight is still continuing! But still leaders like Farooq Abdullah and Mehbooba feel that we must talk with Pakistan who is killing our soldiers regularly and engage with them irrespective of how many of our soldiers are killed! Just recently a Captain Vikram and 4 soldiers were killed by anti-tank missile fired by Pakistani soldiers and even as some were demanding a surgical strike and Centre was busy finalizing PM Modi’s trip to Palestine, we see one more terror attack on Army camp! How many soldiers does Centre want to die before taking a decisive action?  
                                       Has Centre accepted Jammu and Kashmir as part of Pakistan? If not then why so much of leniency in dealing with those who attack men in uniform? Has Centre secretly accorded Kashmiris the fundamental right to attack our soldiers whenever they want and in the manner they want and yet it is soldiers against whom FIR is lodged and cases are withdrawn against stone pelters who are hailed by local leaders as “freedom fighters”? Why ever since this government has come to power do we see stonepelters being so emboldened that now they have started disrupting Army operations to save terrorists and yet Centre is taking no strong stand on it and instead inviting ISI agent to visit Pathankot even though they refuse NIA to come to India!  Centre’s most baffling stand is incomprehensible!
                                         It is most shocking and disgraceful that now Army officers are being dragged to police station and courts for doing what is their duty. The father of Army Major Aditya Kumar booked by the Jammu and Kashmir Police in the firing incident in Shopian under the charge of murder (Section 302 of the IPC) and attempt to murder (Section 307 of the IPC) has been left with no option but to move the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the FIR against his son. This is most unfortunate and reprehensible! Why did PM Narendra Modi, Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and Home Minister Rajnath Singh allow this to happen?
                                         To put things in perspective, Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh said his son who is a Major in the 10 Garhwal Rifles, has been ‘wrongly and arbitrarily’ named in the FIR for the January 27 incident at Shopian in which seven Army personnel were also injured as the incident relates to an Army convoy on bonafide military duty in an area under the AFSPA, which was isolated by an ‘unruly and deranged’ mob pelting stones causing damage to many military vehicles. The plea filed through advocate Aishwarya Bhati said the intention of his son was to save Army personnel and property and the fire was inflicted ‘only to impair and provide a safe escape from a savage and violent mob engaged in terrorist activities’. What wrong did he do?
                                            Is this a crime? If this is a crime God help India! Even God cannot help such thankless nation where soldiers are thrown in prison for doing their jobs and stone pelters are rewarded by withdrawing cases against more than 10,000 of them and Pakistani invaders like Gen Pervez Musharraf who masterminded Kargil war in which we lost more than 600 soldiers officially are accorded a royal treatment within 2 to 3 months!
                                          Anyway, coming back to main subject, the petition by Lt Col Karamveer Singh said that, “The petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition for quashing of FIR, directly before this court in view of the extremely hostile situation on the ground, whereby an FIR has been registered by local police against the son of the petitioner, who is a service army officer and was performing bonafide duties as directed by the Union of India. The manner in which the lodging of the FIR has been portrayed and projected by the political leadership and administrative higher-ups of the State, reflects the extremely hostile atmosphere in the State. In these circumstances, the petitioner is left with no other viable option but to approach this court under Article 32 of the Constitution for protection of Fundamental Rights of his son and himself, enshrined under Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution.” Singh also mentioned about the 2017 incident of a mob lynching of DSP Mohd Ayub Pandith to apprise the top court about the situation in the state and the condition in which Army officials were working to control violent mobs in Kashmir.   
                                               But who is really bothered about our soldiers? Stone pelters are justified on one ground or the other and it is Pakistan which is having the last laugh as Centre is just doing nothing to address this menace except advice Mehbooba to withdraw all cases against them and promptly lodge FIR against soldiers as has been done in this case! I am ashamed to call myself an Indian after seeing all this!
                                       Interestingly, no FIR was registered against the stone-pelters at Shopian for causing injury to Army personnel and property belonging to the Government of India! Who will vote such bunch of leaders in Centre again who are kowtowing in front of traitors and anti-Indian elements  even though they came to power promising dignity and honour for our soldiers? Is this the dignity and honour which they sought to give that most dangerous Sections 302 and 307 punishable with death or life have been slapped against soldiers doing their duty and firing not on peaceful crowd but on mob of stone pelters who were all out to kill these soldiers? Shame on them!
                                      Which self-respecting nation will behave like this? Centre should never forget that it was because of Kargil and honour of Pakistani invader Gen Musharraf that Vajpayee who was the then PM was booted out! Does Modi also  want to go the way his ex-boss had gone? It is for him to decide for himself!
                                          I have not even an iota of doubt that the whole nation stands fully and firmly with Major Aditya and those soldiers who were bravely confronting stone pelters and yet exercising maximum restraint as also with those children of soldiers who have petitioned NHRC to save their parents from hostile stone pelters! BJP will hundred percent lose elections which are just after an year in 2019 if it does not address this national issue most seriously and most swiftly! Even God cannot save BJP from losing if it does not mend its ways and stop appeasing Mehbooba who always speaks the language which no true Indian can ever approve of!
                                                       Our soldiers are regularly getting killed by repeated terror attacks and Mehbooba and Abdullahs still shamelessly talk always about engaging Pakistan and hit out at soldiers for not exercising restraint! Do they want our soldiers to allow Pakistani supporters to kill our Indian soldiers? Why has Most Favoured Nation status shamefully conferred unilaterally on Pakistan by shameless India in 1996 not been withdrawn till now?
                                             Why has it not been declared a terror state till now? Why India just keeps begging other states like US to do so but does nothing itself except shouting at Pakistan in UN meetings and addressing it as “Aatankistan”? Is it meant just for public consumption? Why India has no clear national policy on Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir as the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir – NN Vohra very rightly pointed out? Why Jammu and Kashmir has not been merged fully and finally with India? Why as former CJI JS Khehar rightly pointed out can one country have two laws, two Constitutions and two flags?  
                                              Why this most third rated appeasement policy which Centre vows it will never do but on ground has been doing continuously? Does Centre wants India to get partitioned again?  Why like Kuwait who has ordered all Pakistanis to withdraw from Kuwait does India also not act similarly?
                                                    Why Pakistani diplomats are allowed to fund terrorists as disclosed by an NIA report recently and why are we having diplomatic relations with them? Why are we allowing Pakistan to corner a major share of Indus water when they are not cooperating with us in any manner? Most shameful!
                                                 Why Centre ignored that Maj Aditya was very far away from the place where the attack on Army vehicle happened? Why Centre ignores that soldiers fired to save the life of their fellow soldiers whom the crowd wanted to kill? Are the crowd of Jammu and Kashmir enjoying special privileges to attack and kill our soldiers whenever they want? Centre must clarify!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.     

SC Quashes All The 88 Mining Leases In Goa

In a landmark judgment with far reaching implications, the Supreme Court on February 7 dealt a severe body blow to Goa’s mining magnets by cancelling leases of all 88 mines and ordered that fresh licences be granted through an auction process. Doubtless, the court’s order will cover every one of 88 mines operational in Goa. These licences were given to 88 companies in Goa in 2015. 

                                            While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that the Apex Court directed the Centre and the Goa government to grant fresh environmental clearances to them. It said  the state government was obliged to grant fresh mining leases in accordance  with law in view of its previous judgment and not second renewals to mining lease holders. The Apex Court had said in previous judgments that only fresh leases were to be granted by the Goa government, not second renewals.

                                            For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that a Bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said that mining lease holders who have been granted a second renewal in violation of its previous decisions and directions, are granted time to manage their affairs and may continue mining operations till March 15, 2018. The Bench said in no uncertain terms that, “However, they are directed to stop all mining operations with effect from March 16, 2018 until fresh mining leases (not fresh renewals or other renewals) are granted and fresh environmental clearances are granted.” Thus we see that there is no room for doubt on what the Supreme Court wants.

                                         To put things in perspective, the Supreme Court added that, “The second renewal of the mining leases granted by the State of Goa was unduly hasty, without taking all relevant material into consideration and ignoring available relevant material and therefore not in the interests of mineral development.” The decision, the Bench said, was taken only to augment the revenues of the state, which is outside the purview of Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. This is certainly a clear setback to the Goa state government!

                                        Simply put, the Bench queered the pitch by stating explicitly that, “The second renewal of the mining leases granted by the State of Goa is liable to be set aside and quashed.” It further also directed the setting up of an SIT and a team of chartered accountants to recover the amount from mining companies, which were allowed to extract ore in violation of the law. A clear wrong was thus made out!

                                            It cannot be lightly dismissed that the Bench of Supreme Court of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta also in the same vein added that, “Judiciary must be very cautious and circumspect in diluting or setting aside an economic policy of the government. Courts must intervene against an economic policy of the government only if it was constitutionally unavoidable. Otherwise, good governance could be a casualty.” The court made the observations after quashing the Goa government’s policy to grant a second renewal of 88 mining leases with retrospective effect. Justice Lokur observed that, “Till recently, policy matters, particularly economic policy, were hands off as far as the courts were concerned.” However, recent decisions had seen the court “partially modify this theory and keep the window open to judicially review a policy if it does not serve the common good.” There can be no denying or disputing it!

 

                                        It is noteworthy that the landmark judgment came on a petition filed by an NGO titled Goa Foundation, which had earlier also raised the issue of companies carrying out mining in violation of various statutes. The Goa Foundation, through its lawyer Prashant Bhushan had argued cogently that the state’s policy on renewing leases did not conform to the Supreme Court’s stand on optimum utilization of natural resources. Bhushan contended that the state government ought to have auctioned the mining leases instead of renewing them.

                                     Truly speaking, Bhushan also pointed out that the mines ordinance approved on 12 January 2015 did not spell out a renewal procedure. He said that all renewals were done before the ordinance came into force with 31 leases being renewed on 12 January, 2015. The Goa Foundation petition alleges that miners and government authorities had colluded to circumvent not just the ordinance, but also the Supreme Court’s ruling of April 21, 2014. The renewal was against the court’s precedents laid down for the appropriate and optimum utilization of natural resources.

                                       According to the petition, 56 leases were renewed between 6 and 12 January 2015, shortly before the ordinance was passed. The petition has named 20 miners whose leases have been renewed. Some of these companies had earlier moved the Bombay High Court seeking to direct the Goa government to consider and grant a second renewal of mining leases.

                                           Be it noted, it was on their petition that the Panaji bench of the Bombay High Court had on 13 August 2014 directed the state government of Goa to execute a second renewal of leases in favour of companies that had paid the required stamp duty. In 2017, the Goa Foundation had appealed this decision before the Supreme Court. The appeal had said that the order “disembodies the directions” of the court.  

                                                Of course, Goa Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar said that there was “no need to panic” over the Supreme Court order quashing the second renewal of iron ore mining leases given to 88 companies in the state in 2015. He also submitted that, “According to my information, there is nothing applicable until March 15. I do not want to comment anything unless I go through it.” He also appeared unperturbed and said that, “…That means different possibilities are open. The order does not come into effect from tomorrow so there is no need to panic.”  

                                        Needless to say, the Supreme Court on February 7 in its 102-page judgment observed how these leases were hastily renewed by the State in 2014 with retrospective effect from 2007, just before an amended Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act made auction of leases mandatory for mining notified minerals like iron ore. It cannot be missed out here that the judgment by a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Justices Deepak Gupta and Madan B Lokur traced the “rapacious and rampant exploitation” of Goa’s fragile ecology by private mining lease holders, whose sole motive is to make profit for years. This should never have been allowed to take place at the first instance!

                                   As things stand, the Bench said that, “Rapacious and rampant exploitation of our natural resources is the hallmark of our iron ore mining sector – coupled with a total lack of concern for the environment and the health and well-being of the denizens in the vicinity of the mines.” It also added that, “The sole motive of mining lease holders seems to be to make profits (no matter how) and the attitude seems to be that if the rule of law is required to be put on the backburner, so be it.” This landmark judgment came on the petition filed by an NGO, Goa Foundation, challenging the Goa government’s order in 2015 for a second renewal of 88 mining leases. It also set aside the Bombay High Court order allowing the state government to grant a second renewal to mining leases.

 

                                       As it turned out, the Supreme Court said while summing up Goa’s mineral policy that, “The primary beneficiary was, of course, the mining lease holder, a private entity, and the price was paid by the average Goan who had to suffer a polluted environment and witness the damage to the State’s ecology.” The judgment minced no words in narrating the role played by the Goa government in the loot of natural resources. It said the State gave private entrepreneurs mining leases “virtually for a song”. It also held that, “Unfortunately, the state was unable to firmly stop violations of the law and other illegalities, perhaps with a view to maximize revenue, but without appreciating the long term impact of this indifference.”

                                        Truth be told, the Bench led by Justice Madan B Lokur who authored the judgment pulled back no punches in stating unambiguously that, “The State sacrificed maximizing revenue for no apparent positive reason, virtually surrendering itself to the commercial and profit-making motives of private entrepreneurs and ignoring the interests of Goan society in general.” The Bench found that some private miners owed the State “staggering” sums of up to Rs 1500 crore “towards value of ore extracted in excess of the environmental clearance”. It was also held by the Bench categorically that the State government had made no “serious attempts to recover such huge amounts”.

                                               Equally significant is the glaring fact pointed out by the Bench that, “The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests also “played ball” by giving environment clearances to 72 of these mining leases.” The Apex Court quoted from Centre’s own Vishwanath Anand Environment Appraisal Committee set up in 2013 to probe mining illegalities and held that, “There was not a single environment related or mining related law or legal requirement that was not violated by one or the other mining lease holder. Quite clearly, the rule of environmental law in Goa had gone with the wind.” The court found that even groundwater was not spared by the evils of rampant mining.

                                         Let me hasten to add here that the 88 mining leaseholders have now time till March 15 to wrap up their operations. But they have no time beyond March 15. The Apex Court has directed the companies to wind down their operations by March 15.

                                       Let me also hasten to add here that the court also ordered the Centre and the State government to grant fresh mining leases strictly as per the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. It banned any second renewals of mining leases. It also directed to recover money from the companies for indulging in illegal mining.

                                                 Briefly stated, the court said there was no need to grant the fresh mining leases through competitive bidding or auction. The judgment also made it clear that, “The State of Goa was not under any constitutional obligation to grant fresh mining leases through the process of competitive bidding or auction”. However, the Apex Court insisted that the Environment Ministry grant fresh environmental clearances to each new mining lease in the State.

                                           To be sure, the Apex Court ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the team of chartered accountants constituted pursuant to the Goa Grant of Mining Leases Policy in 2014 to submit a report on the illegalities a report on the illegalities that had been committed so far in the State. This is the second time that the Apex Court has intervened to stop illegal mining in Goa. In 2014, in the Goa Foundation case, the Apex Court has found that rampant mining was going on in the State despite all the iron ore and manganese ore leases having expired way back in November 2007.

                                More pertinently, the Supreme Court gave the following important instructions while quashing the mining leases that were renewed by the Goa government –

1.  Fresh Leases: Goa should grant fresh mining leases as per the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

2.  Green Clearance: Ministry of Environment should grant fresh environmental clearances to the new mining leases as soon as possible.

3.  Stop Operation: Mining lease holders illegally given second renewal should stop operations with effect from March 16, 2018.

4.  File Report: A Special Investigation Team and a team of Chartered Accountants will give a report on the illegalities committed so far.

                                   According to the top court Bench, circumvention of mining and environment related laws is a big tragedy in itself. The Bench further said that, “Laxity and sheer apathy to the rule of law gives mining lease holders a “field day” as they are the primary beneficiaries and the state is left with some crumbs in the form of royalty.” This should never be allowed to happen!

                                         On a concluding note, the Supreme Court has taken very seriously the exploitation of resources in the mining sector solely for profit maximization. This alone explains that why it has not hesitated in cancelling the leases of 88 firms in Goa. It has also pulled back no punches in criticizing the State government for allowing this to happen!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

x
x

x

Five Year Jail Term For Lalu In Third Fodder Scam Case

Let me get moving the nib of my pen by first and foremost pointing out that a Special CBI court in Ranchi on January 24 awarded five years of rigorous imprisonment in jail and a fine of Rs 10 lakh to Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief and former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in a third fodder scam case RC 68(A)/96 for fake withdrawal of Rs 33.61 crore from Chaibasa treasury out of the five lodged against him 22 years ago. Earlier, a total of 50 accused persons including Prasad and former Bihar Chief Minister Jagannath Mishra were also convicted in the case while six others were acquitted. They were all convicted in the scam case related to the Chaibasa treasury from which Rs 33.13 crore were fraudulently withdrawn against the annual allotment of Rs 7.10 lakh for the year 1992-93.
                                          While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me also inform them that the Special CBI Court of Judge SS Prasad convicted Lalu Prasad Yadav, Jagannath Mishra and 48 others in the RC 68 (A) / 96 fodder scam case which pertained to the fraudulent withdrawal of Rs 33.67 crore from Chaibasa (now in Jharkhand) district treasury during the period of 1992-93. Altogether 56 persons were facing trial in the case. The Rs 900 crore fodder scam probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), relates to fraudulent withdrawal of public funds from different government treasuries over fictitious expenditure on fodder and other expenses for cattle.
                                           For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that the CBI counsel BMP Singh told journalists in Ranchi that, “Under different Sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, Lalu Prasad has been sentenced.” Prasad who has been cooling his heels here at the Birsa Munda Central Jail since December 23, 2017, after his conviction in another fodder scam case, appeared in person to hear the verdict. He was given a seat in the courtroom’s front row where he waited for at least two-and-a-half hours until the punishment was pronounced at 2 pm.
                                     To be sure, while communicating the sentence, the Special Judge of CBI Court – SS Prasad announced that Lalu Prasad Yadav had to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) of five years for committing offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and another five years for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Judge said that, “Both sentences shall run concurrently”.
                                         Of course, Lalu has the option now of appealing in the High Court and then in the Supreme Court. Let us wait and see whether there he gets convicted or acquitted! We cannot prejudge what will happen in Lalu Prasad’s case finally!
                                       Without getting personal, I very strongly feel that those who indulge in corruption and mint crores of rupees must be punished either with death sentence or at the least life imprisonment! Five years or three years or ten years makes a mockery of our legal system and those who are corrupt are easily able to waste many years fighting legal battles and then just come out of jail in few years time! This should never happen!
                                              To say the least, punishment must be either death or life! Nothing else! Also, the property and bank balance of the corrupt should also be seized completely!
                                      Needless to say, the sword of discretion with the Judges that arms them with the option to award minimum punishment which can be very light must be taken away! Corruption cannot be justified under any circumstances! They must be face to face either life or death!
                                         Only and only then will the corrupt fear indulging in corruption! But we don’t see this happening as there have been no changes made in the Prevention of Corruption Act enacted way back in 1988, 30 years ago! Now we see how they come out within few years with a big smile on their face and no sign of remorse!   
                                 To put things in perspective, out of the total 76 accused in this third case of fodder scam, 14 had died during the trial, three became approvers, two pleaded guilty while one has been absconding. Of the remaining 56 facing trial, 50, including Lalu Prasad yadav and Jagannath Mishra were convicted and sentenced to jail terms and fines. Six of them were politicians, three former IAS officers, six Animal Husbandry Department (AHD) officials, one a treasury official and 40 were suppliers to the AHD.
                                       As it turned out, earlier Lalu Prasad Yadav’s lawyer Chitranjan Sinha passionately pleaded for a lighter punishment citing his client’s multiple health issues as the main reason for it. But the CBI, on the contrary, demanded maximum punishment arguing that the accused deserved no leniency as the offences were grave. The CBI’s argument found favour with the court!
                                        Be it noted, Lalu Prasad is currently lodged in the Birsa Munda Central Jail of Ranchi after being convicted for 3.5 years in the RC 64(A)/96 fodder scam case on December 23, 2017. The case pertained to the Deoghar treasury withdrawal in which the quantum of sentence was pronounced on January 6, 2018 by the CBI Special Judge Shiv Pal Singh. Lalu has appealed in the Ranchi High Court against his conviction in the case. He was first convicted in a fodder scam case, RC 20(A)/96 for fake withdrawal of Rs 37 crore from Chaibasa treasury on September 30, 2013 for five years and was barred from contesting elections for a period of six years. Later, he had got bail in the case. In two other fodder scam cases related to illegal withdrawal of money from Dumka and Doronda district (both in Jharkhand) treasuries, verdicts are likely to be pronounced in the coming months! The pending cases are RC 38(A)/96 for fake withdrawal of Rs 3.31 crore from Dumka treasury and verdict expected in February or March and the other is RC 47(A)/96 for fake withdrawal of Rs 139.39 crore from Doronda treasury in Ranchi. The verdict is expected by end of 2018.
                                     Truth be told, Prasad as told earlier has already been convicted in two fodder scam cases in 2013 and 2017 and got five and 3.5 years of imprisonment respectively. His first conviction, on September 30, 2013, was a major blow to the veteran politician who faced disqualification from Lok Sabha and a ban on contesting elections. Lalu has spent about 398 total days in jail till now!
                                       At the risk of repetition, I would say again that corruption must invite the strictest of punishment which should be either death or life along with attachment of all bank accounts and property! There has to be zero tolerance for corruption. Corruption cases must be decided within two years right from the lower to the highest court! If this is implemented earnestly, I challenge that no one will dare indulge in corruption! Those who still dare will meet their just desserts soon! How many will dare then?
                                         But Centre I have to say with regret is just not prepared to change the law of corruption enacted when Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister way back in 1988 and 30 years later we still see no changes being inserted! This alone explains that why now in every state and every big deal we keep hearing of scams involving crores of rupees and still we hardly see quick punishment coming soon! The firm determination to fight corruption will only be displayed when laws on corruption are amended and those indulging in it are punished most strictly as enunciated above! Will it ever be done? It is Centre which holds all the cards!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.  

SC Seeks Original Records On Judge Loya’s Death

Let me start shaking my pen by first and foremost pointing out that the Supreme Court on January 22 said that the court “can’t rest” its “hands” on the death of CBI Special Judge BH Loya in 2014 in view of the controversy swirling around it since a long time ever since it was first reported in the Caravan magazine. The death of Loya came under the spotlight in November 2017 following a report in Caravan magazine in which Loya’s sister and other close relatives raised questions over the circumstances surrounding the death. The Supreme Court demanded the original records on his death to have a look at the circumstances which led to his death. This it felt imperative to understand the exact reasons which led to his untimely death.
                                        According to official records, Judge Loya, 48, died of a massive heart attack in Nagpur on December 1, 2014 that is a day after he attended the wedding and reception of the daughter of fellow Judge Swapna Joshi who is now a Judge in the Bombay High Court. But there have been media reports pointing at several inconsistencies in the factual scenario surrounding his sudden and untimely demise! This is what many feel need to be probed.
                                        At the time of his death, Loya was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case in which BJP President Amit Shah was one of the accused. Shah was later discharged from the case within a month after Loya died on December 30, 2014. and the trial in the case is expected to begin next week. The CBI is yet to appeal against Shah’s discharge.
                                             Needless to say, the petitioners who are demanding an independent probe into the death of CBI Special Judge BH Loya claimed in the Supreme Court that there were contradictions in the statements of four Judges recorded by Maharashtra police in the matter. A three-Judge Bench led by CJI Dipak Misra on 22 January dubbed the case “serious”. It also said that it would look at all the records.
                                       Truth be told, Justice DY Chandrachud minced no words in making it clear that, “Let it never be on our conscience that we didn’t look at what we should have. We must look at facts. We would like to see everything.” He also said that, “This case involves serious issues. We have to deal with it with a certain degree of objectivity.” Rightly said!
                                      As it turned out, the Bench on 22 January withdrew all the cases pertaining to Judge Loya’s death to itself. The Supreme Court restrained all other courts from dealing with the issue. CJI Dipak Misra waived all procedural technicalities to refuse to issue notice to any party. He said that, “Notice? Why? Who to? The state is here.”
                                    Going forward, the CJI also rejected a plea by Maharashtra to restrain lawyers from sharing any material with the press. He said that, “We will not pass any gag orders. These are now records of the court.” Opening the arguments, Maharashtra counsel and former Solicitor General of India – Harish Salve claimed that after the recent media reports suggesting that it was not a natural death a second discreet inquiry was done with the Bombay High Court Chief Justice’s consent and that inquiry had not thrown up anything. This is a very significant event and cannot be brushed aside lightly!     
                                        Not stopping here, Salve also urged the court to tread cautiously reminding the Bench that the case involved many serving judicial officers, including some elevated to the High Court. Former Supreme Court Bar Association President Dushyant Dave while appearing for the Bombay Lawyers Association which had gone to the Bombay High Court seeking a probe into the death, immediately contested the report. He claimed that “there are very serious contradictions on the face of the record”.
                                              To be sure, Dave alleged that none of the four Judges had accompanied Loya to the hospital the night he died. Dave was baffled to see that not a single Judge accompanied Loya to the hospital inspite of seeing him suffering such a massive heart attack! He also demanded to know why the Judge’s security had been withdrawn in the days preceding his death and contested the entry register of the place he had allegedly last stayed citing RTI replies.
                                            Simply put, Dave said police records show that Dr Prashant Rathi, who claimed to be a relative of Loya, had informed police about the death of the Judge. He asked that, “Why should he have been the informer and why didn’t one of the Judges do this?” There is some merit in what Dave has said!
                                         As if this was not enough, Dave said the Loya matter was initially dealt with by the Sitamarhi police station but subsequent records show the name of Sadar police station. He also questioned why Loya was not taken to reputed hospitals like the Lata Mangeshkar hospital and sought to question the bills raised at Meditrina hospital where Loya was declared “brought dead”. He said that, “The bills were raised under the head of non-invasive lab, neurosurgery, etc., while the police case was that Loya was brought dead to Meditrina.”
                                Truly speaking, Dave said that, “There is sufficient evidence to show Loya never stayed at the guest house. On November 24, 2014, Loya’s security was withdrawn in Mumbai. Why were Loya’s family members not called to the hospital? There are serious contradictions which require a deeper, independent probe. No one has a personal interest in this case.” He also said that, “It is sad that Justice Mohit Shah transferred the first judge in the Sohrabuddin trial. The second judge (Loya) died. The third judge acquitted Amit Shah and others within a month of Loya’s death.” Senior advocates Indira Jaising and Rakesh Khanna too supported the stand taken by Dave.
                                             Elaborating further, Dave asked: “The Sohrabuddin Sheikh case trial is being held in camera. Why?” He demanded to know why there was secrecy over the documents relating to Judge Loya’s death when two High Court Judges had already addressed a press conference claiming it was a natural death. He repeated Amit Shah’s name several times, prompting Harish Salve to protest.
                                                To put things in perspective, Harish Salve said that, “The case is unnecessarily being politicized.” Salve urged the court not to allow any references to Shah. But Dave persisted saying that, “Why should a case not be discussed because it involved someone high?”
                                       Bluntly put, Salve said categorically that, “Let’s not cast aspersions by saying things against a person who holds public office.” Dave retaliated by saying that if cases on Shashi Tharoor and P Chidambaram could be discussed publicly, why not that of Shah? Salve said two district judges had accompanied Loya for the marriage reception in Nagpur and they stayed together in a guest house where in the wee hours of December 1, 2014, Loya suffered a massive heart attack.
                                       Salve also said that, “Loya was taken by the two district judges in a car to a hospital and then to another hospital and then to another. These two judges were later joined by another two district judges. All of them have given statements during the discreet inquiry that they had been with Loya all along during his last hours and that there was no foul play or suspicion about the nature of his death.” “The claim in the media report that Loya was taken to hospital in a three-wheeler was completely baseless as the judges have stated in their statements that Loya was taken in a car to the hospital,” Salve said, adding that the then Bombay High Court Chief Justice Mohit Shah was informed about the developments on a real time basis and the Chief Justice had taken steps for adequate medical help to Loya, who could not be revived. Eventually, the Supreme Court asked the Maharashtra state to produce the complete, original records on Judge Loya’s death.           
                                          It cannot be lightly dismissed that senior advocate Indira Sawhney who has intervened in the case contended that there were several “overwritings” on the records. She said that the court must summon the original documents, including the register of Ravi Bhavan where the Judges stayed the night of his death, to ascertain their veracity.
                                         It is most shocking to learn that Dave even alleged conflict of interest against Salve for having appeared for BJP President Amit Shah who is an accused in the Sohrabuddin case and now representing the BJP-ruled Maharashtra. The CJI-led Bench said that, “We are looking at the circumstances in which Loya died. Let it not be deflected by personal allegations.” Rightly said!
                                     Alleging that the entire “institution” was out to protect Shah, Dave pointed out serious inconsistencies in the records presented by the State and hinted at a larger conspiracy that could possibly be at work to save Shah. The Supreme Court, however, asked Dave not to cast aspersions as on date records suggested that Loya had died a natural death. Unless and until there is substantial evidence against anyone, the lawyers must desist from making sweeping allegations against anyone!  
                                           Of course, hurt by Dave’s diatribe alleging conflict of interest, Harish Salve hit back at the former saying that, “Only some people are concerned about the death while there are some who are using the death of a Judge for other reasons.” As allegations flew thick and fast, the Bench also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud intervened and asked Dave to lower his voice. Dave had heated arguments with Salve.
                                              Let me hasten to add here that Justice Chandrachud assured both sides of a fair hearing. Speaking for the Supreme Court Bench, he said that, “We are looking into the circumstances that led to a district judge’s death which is a serious issue. Let us look at the matter with a sense of objectivity and not allow the real issue to be deflected by arguments of conflict of interest. Each of you is the judge of his own conscience. We like to see every record and won’t restrict our attention to only those records produced by state.” The court asked both the parties to file documents in a sealed cover. The Apex Court rightly said that, “The issue raised is serious. We must look into the documents with some seriousness. We need objective assistance from counsel, including from Dave.”
                                            All said and done, unless the Supreme Court indicts anyone in this case while delivering its judgment, it shall not be fair on our part to pronounce judgment against anyone because we are not the right person to pronounce verdict against or in favour of anyone. Amit Shah is the BJP President and he too has the right to reputation and the right not to be defamed by anyone. We all must keep our fingers crossed until and unless Supreme Court finally pronounces its verdict on this high profile case! I am sure that truth shall ultimately prevail here also!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

CJI Brings Out A Roster To Allot Cases

Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by pointing out that after an unprecedented press conference by four senior-most Supreme Court Judges on January 12 over “selective” allocation of cases and amid subsequent parleys to resolve the huge rift, the frozen ice and the huge deadlock has now finally been broken. The Chief Justice of India – Dipak Misra on February 1 published a subjectwise roster for allocation of cases to various Benches. These would be implemented from February 5.
                                                In fact, it would not be an exaggeration if it is concluded that this should have been the norm right from the beginning but it is better to be late than never! The publication of such a roster is a first in the history of the Supreme Court. All credit for it must go to those four Judges who took the great risk risking their own career in the process especially Justice Ranjan Gogoi who is due to take over after the present CJI Dipak Misra retires later this year in November. Justice Gogoi has taken the biggest risk of his life and he has an impeccable record throughout his life and one cannot but appreciate his forthright nature in coming out totally in the open without bothering about antagonizing the present CJI as well as the Centre!
                                                To put things in perspective, the move follows a decision of a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra declaring the Chief Justice of India’s dominance as the master of the roster in order to protect the Supreme Court from “anarchy”. The five-Judge Bench, onNovember 10 in 2017, had proclaimed that it was the Chief Justice’s sole prerogative to decide what case has to be heard by which Judge. There can be no denying or disputing this!
                                            To be sure, it had effectively nullified a judicial order passed by the Apex Court’s number two Judge, Justice Jasti Chelameswar to constitute a Bench of the five seniormost Supreme Court Judges to hear a PIL petition for an SIT probe into the Lucknow medical college scam involving an alleged conspiracy to bribe Supreme Court Judges for a favourable order. A Bench led by CJI Dipak Misra had heard the medical college case. A huge controversy had erupted over the composition of the Judges in the roster.
                                                As it turned out, in a sharp departure from past practice where any matter could be allocated to any Bench, Chief Justice of India – Dipak Misra on February 1 had issued a new roster indicating the nature of cases that would be listed before 12 Benches. This latest move is being seen as addressing the grievance of the four seniormost Judges who were not happy with the CJI allotting important cases to any Judge of his own choice even though he/she was much junior as compared to the senior Judges!
                                            Simply put, the new roster shows that the CJI has kept the PIL jurisdiction entirely to the Bench he is presiding over. None of the four seniormost and Collegium Judges – Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph have PILs assigned to their rosters. This again is not correct. Why should four seniormost Judges not hear PILs? But some other positive changes have certainly been made in this roster system!
                                      Truth be told, the Chief Justice’s Bench roster includes PILs, letter petitions, social justice cases, election matters, habeas corpus cases, contempt of court, criminal and all ordinary civil matters, appointments of constitutional functionaries, matters regarding Commissions of Enquiry, disputes on statutory appointments and law officers along with criminal cases. While PILs would be listed only before the Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, there is an overlapping of work assigned to different benches as social justice matters would be listed both before the Bench of CJI and that headed by Justice Madan B Lokur. Besides matters pertaining to social justice, Justice Lokur’s Bench will hear matters involving environment protection and conservation, mines, minerals and mining leases.
                                        It is noteworthy that similarly, matters pertaining to religious and charitable endowments will be listed before six different benches. If Bench headed by Justice Lokur is essentially seen as social justice bench, the Bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman is being viewed as one largely dealing with corporate matters rooted in company law, mercantile law and commercial transactions. Similarly, Justice J Chelameswar who is the second senior most Judge after the CJI will hear petitions relating to 14 category of cases.
                                      It must be recalled here that on January 12, the four seniormost Judges – Justice Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph had in an unprecedented press conference alleged arbitrary conference alleged arbitrary allocation of work by the CJI and demanded transparency. It is purely because of their outspokenness that we see finally the CJI Dipak Misra relenting and agreeing to bring out roster to allot cases. Had they not spoken out in the media, things would have continued to simmer but nothing would have changed on the ground!
                                             It must also be recalled here that after the press conference, there were hectic parleys that involved the Judges of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Bar Council of India to defuse the crisis. The role played by each of them in defusing the unprecedented supreme crisis in the Supreme Court must be lauded. The SCBA headed by its President – Vikas Singh had come out with a resolution that the Apex Court should follow a roster system for the allocation of matters to the Judges as was prevalent in the Delhi High Court. According to sources, some of the Judges had also suggested to the CJI to examine the roster system prevalent in the Bombay High Court. In fact, this roster system must be implemented not just in Supreme Court alone but also in all the High Courts and not just few as we see right now!   
                                                  It cannot be lost on us that there are at present 12 Benches headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and also comprising Justices Chelameswar, Gogoi, Lokur, Joseph, AK Sikri, SA Bobde, RK Agrawal, NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, AK Goel and Nariman. The Bench headed by Justice AK Sikri will exclusively hear appeals against the orders of statutory bodies. It also must be mentioned here that the matters pertaining to employees in top court, High Courts and the subordinate courts, armed forces and paramilitary forces, personnel law, civil and criminal matters, land acquisition and requisition matters, land laws and agricultural tenancies and matter pertaining to educational institutions have been entrusted to various benches.    
                                            As per the roster, the Bench headed by Justice Chelameswar who is the senior-most Judge after the CJI even though he is due to retire soon would deal with matters related to judicial officers, employees of the Supreme Court, High Courts, District Courts and Tribunals for hearings. The Bench will also deal with matters like labour, indirect tax, land acquisition and requisition, compensation, criminal matters, etc.
                                 Going forward, Justice Ranjan Gogoi who is tipped to be the next CJI and who during the press conference had answered in affirmative the concern over the allocation of the PILs pertaining to the late special CBI Judge BH Loya to a Bench headed by a particular Judge has been allocated matters pertaining to labour, indirect tax, company law, MRTP, TRAI, SEBI, RBI, criminal matters, contempt of court, personal law, religious and charitable endowments, mercantile laws, commercial transactions including banking etc. He will also hear matters related to judicial officers, state excise-trading in liquor-privileges, licences and distilleries and breweries.
                              Now coming to Justice Madan B Lokur. He has been allocated matters including service, social justice, personal laws, land acquisition, mines and minerals and consumer protection. He will also hear matters related to ecological imbalance, protection and conservation of forests throughout the country, protection of wild life, ban on felling trees and falling of underground water level. Justice Kurian Joseph’s Bench has been assigned to deal with matters including labour, rent act, family law, contempt of court, personal law etc. He will also hear matters related to religious and charitable endowments and all land laws and agriculture tenancies.
                                 Now coming to Justice Arun Mishra who became the root cause of the controversy as he was given important cases by CJI even though he figured low in the seniority list. The roster has assigned to him matters related to admission and transfer of candidates in engineering and medical colleges which recently saw a sitting High Court Judge – SN Shukla and a retired High Court Judge of Odisha – IM Quddusi caught on the wrong foot. Quddusi was even arrested as part of the probe. Justice Mishra will hear matters related to all admissions/transfers to engineerings and medical colleges, allocation of 15 percent all-India quota in admissions/transfers to medical colleges and establishment and recognition of educational institutions. He will also hear labour, land acquisition, service, criminal, family law and ordinary civil cases. But he has been divested of the PIL matters. He had also recently recused himself from hearing the PILs related to the death of Special CBI Judge BH Loya who was dealing with the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case in which the name of BJP President Amit Shah had cropped up!
                                  Be it noted, the rosters of the four seniormost Judges who had called the joint press conference have been changed to some extent. Now the distribution of matters to different Benches have been made absolutely clear. This is certainly a good thing and a good beginning has been made. This is also clearly an acknowledgement that “something was amiss” in the earlier system and this was certainly a “moral victory” for the stand taken by the four seniormost Judges! Now let us see how this gets implemented in the days ahead!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

How Long Will Politicians Justify MFN Status To Pakistan?

 It is most hurting to see that Pakistani Army is killing our soldiers and those living in border areas which includes children, women old people etc most mercilessly yet our politicians are fully determined that Most Favoured Nation Status (MFN) to Pakistan cannot be revoked under any circumstances which India unilaterally granted in 1996! They say that how can we disregard Farooq Abdullah who is the former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir or how can we disregard Mehbooba who is now the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir! It is their firm demand that even if lakhs and lakhs of soldiers are killed still Most Favoured Nation status for Pakistan must continue and talks with them must continue endlessly!
                                       Just now we saw how Captain Kapil Kundu 22 years old was due to turn 23 on April 10, Rifleman Ramavatar 28, Rifleman Subham Singh 22 and Havilder Roshan Lal, 42, were mercilessly killed after five or six anti-tank guided missiles were fired upon them! Captain Kapil was only son of his mother who just one year back lost her husband but our politicians are firm that they will not go beyond just registering a strong protest with Pakistani High Commission and rendering lip service by saying “Aab bardasht nahin, bharat maange baaadla, ek ke badle daas, daas ke beadle tees etc, Muh tod jaawab denge, surgical strike kaarenge etc”. It is time we move beyond rhetoric and inflict such deep wound on Pakistan that they never again are to attack our soil. But politicians are just not prepared for it under any circumstances for reasons known best to them!
                                     Why can’t India revoke the Indus Water Treay and stop giving all water to Pakistan? Why can’t MFN status to Pakistan be revoked? Why can’t we send suicide squads to Pakistan and blow off their terror training camps as former Army Chief of India – Gen Shankar Roy Choudhary very rightly advocated in a news channel in 2017! Why can’t our politicians expel all the Pakistani diplomats who are indulging in anti India activities and financing terror attacks on India?
                                          How much more shamelessly our politicians will act? How long will our soldiers and people living in border areas along the long border with Pakistan keep getting killed, their houses get destroyed, their schools get burnt, their hospitals also bombed and worst of all even their religious places not spared and still this Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status for Pakistan keep continuing relentlessly which was unilaterally and shamelessly granted to them way back in 1996? How long will politicians ignore everything and keep ranting against Pakistan from every public platform but doing nothing on the ground to substantiate it except returning the cross fire?
                                                    How long will politicians keep insisting that you can change your friends but not your neighbours? How long will soldiers of Indian Army, BSF and other forces keep getting killed on the border regularly after being targeted by Pakistani soldiers, terrorists fully trained and armed to the teeth by Pakistani Army and yet our politicians will continue maintaining cordial relations with Pakistan? How long will our politicians keep going to Pakistan shamelessly without being even invited and keep kowtowing before them like a pet dog?
                                     How long will our Ministers keep threatening of more surgical strikes knowing it fully well that Pakistan cares a damn and keep firing at our soldiers daily on border areas and keep killing them as also the civilians staying near border continuously? How long will politicians shamelessly ignore the repeated demands by leaders cutting across party lines like Shashi Tharoor of Congress, Subramanium Swamy of BJP, Udhav Thackeray of Shiv Sena, Rajeev Chandrashekhar who is independent MP etc of declaring Pakistan a “terror state” and still do nothing on this score? How long will politicians shamelessly call Pakistan as “Aatankistaan” in UN but do nothing to translate it into reality by declaring Pakistan as “Aatankistaan” as Maulana Mehmood Madani who heads Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind very rightly demanded and stop giving it all concessions and nuking all relations with Pakistan?
                                        Why the hell is MFN status for a rogue country like Pakistan who has been waging relentlessly a proxy war against India still continuing till 2018? Should we all Indians be proud of it? Whom are our politicians fooling by openly attacking Pakistan by lip but doing nothing on ground to totally boycott Pakistan?
                                                  Why attack on our temples like Akshardham, Raghunath, etc fail to shake our politicians who still strongly favour MFN status for Pakistan and feel it must continue at any cost come what may? Are we slaves of Pakistan? Then why inspite of facing so many casualties by proxy war sponsored directly by Pakistan are our politicians determined that lives of soldiers and people cannot be above Pakistan and so MFN status for Pakistan must continue unrelenting and unabated?
                                   Why even our national media is so conspicuously silent on it and hardly raises it forcefully? Is there some external power who is behind all this? How can we be so insensitive and nonchalant towards the suffering and brutal killings of people living close to border areas and soldiers?             
                                    Why is India keeping an army of Pakistani diplomats and not sending them off to Pakistan until and unless cross border terrorism stops completely? Why can’t all Pakistanis be expelled from India just like Kuwait expelled all Pakistanis from Kuwait as they are a threat to their national security? Why inspite of NIA disclosing that Pakistani diplomats were funding separatists and terrorists to carry out more terror attacks in India still no strict action is being taken on the ground by expelling them all from India? Why are Pakistani diplomats and ex-diplomats allowed to fish in troubled waters by allowing them access to politicians of India, former Army Chiefs of India etc as we witnessed during the recent Gujarat Assembly polls?      
                                       Why inspite of attack on our Parliament, Red Fort and other places of national importance by terrorists trained and sponsored directly by Pakistan are our politicians very firm that MFN status for Pakistan must continue uninterrupted which cannot be disturbed under any circumstances? Is there some grain of truth in what Vineet Narain alleged way back in 1995-1996 that politicians of India receive unaccounted money from foreign countries by Hawala route as was testified even in Jain diaries but  which was not pursued to the end? Is this is what compels our politicians to look the other way and still keep ensuring that MFN status for Pakistan continues uninterrupted and unabated?   
                                          Why even repeated terror attacks sponsored directly by Pakistan and executed by terrorists trained and armed and paid by Pakistan on our financial capital Mumbai as well as administrative capital Delhi and many other cities all across India are our politicians very firm that MFN status for Pakistan must continue and it cannot be withdrawn under any circumstances? Why politicians are not ready to declare Pakistan a “rogue and a terror sponsor country” even though it keeps pleading in UN and also in talks with other countries to do the same? Is it just because of the old adage that, “When money speaks truth is silent?”
                                            What else is the reason behind politicians not withdrawing MFN status from Pakistan and instead placing it in “rogue country status”? Why can’t politicians really speak out on this? Why don’t they speak out when they have nothing to hide from the people as they time and again make tall claims? Can any politician come out in the open and explain on this?
                                         Why inspite of losing lakhs of soldiers and millions of people to proxy war directly sponsored by Pakistan are we not behaving like a tiny country called Kuwait who has not lost so many lives but still has decided to expel all Pakistanis from Kuwait as there are a direct threat according to them on their security and for them national interests are paramount and has severed all relations with Pakistan? Can anyone again explain this to me? Can any politician explain that why just 2 to 3 months of Kargil war in which we officially lost more than 600 soldiers did our politicians decide to invite Gen Pervez Musharraf who was the then Pakistani Army Chief and who masterminded Kargil war like a royal emperor to India?
                                          What did we get in return? Our plane hijacked and dreaded Pakistani terror leaders like Maulana Masood Azhar, Omar Sheikh and others were released  and they later plotted terror attack on Parliament and have till now killed thousands of people and soldiers and are still at large! Gen Musharraf mocked at India and hailed terror leaders as “heroes” and terrorism as “freedom struggle” still why our politician left no stone unturned to woo him disregarding completely the supreme sacrifices made by our Kargil war heroes like Captain Saurav Kalia who along with 5 soldiers of 4 Jat Regiment were tortured mercilessly for 22 days, eyes, ears and nose pierced with hot iron rods, whole body burnt with cigarette and even their private parts were not spared before finally shooting them on the head and then handing their dead body badly mutilated back to India, Captain Vikram Batra who sacrificed his life fighting enemies to win back Tiger Hills etc ?
                                                As if this was not enough, Gen Musharraf even paid Rs 1 lakh cash prize to dreaded Al Qaeda leader Iliyas Kashmiri for presenting him a severed head of an Indian soldier Bhausaheb Maruti Talekar and vowed to keep it with him as trophy! But how are our politicians concerned for whom inviting Gen Musharraf like an emperor and having lunch and breakfast and dinner were more important than anything else within few months of Kargil war? Is this the real reason why Justice Markandey Katju calls our politicians as “rogue and scoundrels”?
                                                Why can’t all Pakistanis be expelled from India? Why can’t our Ministers stop this stupidity of allowing Pakistanis medical help by citing humanity even as our people living close to border areas are regularly on daily basis facing bullets and becoming blind or suffering other physical disabilities yet we see this not affecting our politicians in any manner who are surrounded by many black cat commandoes and who are totally safe and stay in big houses peacefully? Why can’t they go close to border areas and stay there the ground reality for themselves?
                                             Why MFN status was given to Pakistan at the first instance in 1996 when they had engineered the killings of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits and even those Muslims who had supported them in any manner? Why is it still continuing even 22 years later in 2018? Why is J&K not being fully and finally merged with India even after more than 70 years of independence?
                                             What message are politicians sending by lashing out with their lips in public rallies but doing nothing concrete on ground to substantiate that they mean seriously what they say and that it is not said just for public consumption? MFN status for Pakistan! Most disgraceful and most hurting!
                                              Why can’t politicians nuke all relations with Pakistan? Why can’t Pakistan be boycotted completely until and unless they mend their ways? Are we not encouraging them by maintaining still cordial relations with them as if nothing has happened and even inviting and honouring Pakistani invaders like Gen Musharraf? This alone explains why India has always been taken for granted in the international forum!
                                                It will not be an exaggeration if I conclude my write-up by saying, “Politicians are far, far, far more dangerous than Pakistan and Justice Markandey Katju is right when he calls them as ‘rogues’ and ‘scoundrels’ for whom MFN status to Pakistan is more important and not our people and brave soldiers who are being killed mercilessly by proxy war sponsored directly by Pakistan since last many decades yet our politicians are just not affected at all which alone explains why MFN status for Pakistan is still continuing till now without being revoked even once since last more than two decades”! Can on earth there be anything more shameful than this? Which self-respecting nation will behave like this? Why politicians like Digvijay Singh who is former CM of Madhya Pradesh and not just him but even those who have served as senior diplomats like former Foreign Secretary – Mani Shankar Aiyyar address Hafiz Saeed who masterminded Mumbai terror attack in which about 200 people were killed and many other such terror attacks and who vows to liberate J&K from India in 2018 as “Hafiz Sahab” just like a courtier addresses his king! What message are such leaders sending to people? That they favour global dreaded terror leaders like Hafiz Saeed and care a damn for the feelings of millions of Indians who since independence are facing the wrath of terrorists sponsored directly by Pakistan! How long will politicians fool people and keep mocking at our soldiers by constantly going to Pakistan, not resorting to a massive retaliatory action against Pakistan, not scrapping the Indus water Treaty with Pakistan, not expelling all Pakistanis from India, not increasing the budget of defence which is now lowest since 1962 and not expelling all Pakistani diplomats from India and keep tolerating the waving of Pakistani flags and chanting of anti-India slogans in India under any circumstances? Why should citizenship of those who indulge in anti-India acts not be revoked? Why is Centre just taking no concrete action on this even after completing 4 years in power?  
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

New Consumer Protection Bill 2018 Will Entail More Punishment

Coming straight to the crux of the matter, let me begin first and foremost pointing out that a new Consumer Protection Bill has been tabled in the Lok Sabha on January 5, 2018. This was presented on the last day of the winter session of Parliament. The Union Minister for Consumer Affairs – Ram Vilas Paswan introduced the new Consumer Protection Bill, 2018 in the Lok Sabha.
                   Replacing Old Act By New
                                       Needless to say, if all goes well, the Bill will certainly become an Act sooner than later. It will replace the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Consumer Protection Bill, 2018 is more wider in its ambit as compared to the Act of 1986.
                            Object Of New Bill
                                      This new Consumer Protection Bill, 2018 seeks to enforce stringent provisions in order to protect consumers by regulating online sales, providing for higher manufacturer liabilities, even restricting tall claims, including some made through celebrity brand endorsers. It thus legislates on at least three new areas vis-à-vis the older law. It seeks to set up an authority to safeguard consumer rights in view of current challenges posed by e-commerce, direct selling, tele-marketing and misleading ads, among others.
                         Wider Scope
                                    As it turns out, the new law will apply to all goods and services, including sale/construction of homes/flats and telecom services. It brings within its fold all forms of selling – offline/online sales, teleshopping, direct selling and multi-level marketing. In other words, this new law envisages wider application covering all goods, services and selling.
                                         Truth be told, while the earlier law did cover unfair trade practices, the current one certainly seeks to make it more comprehensive. It adds practices such as failure to issue a bill or a receipt, refusal to accept a good returned or refusal to discontinue service within 30 days (if it is so stipulated and requested by the consumer) and disclosure of personal information given in confidence, to the list of unfair practices. It also defines unfair contracts. Issues such as excessive security deposit requirements, penalty for breach of contract which is disproportionate to the loss incurred and refusal to accept early repayment of debt on payment of applicable penalty will now fall squarely under its ambit.
                        Product Liability
                                  It must be reiterated here that the highlight of the new law is the inclusion of the product liability action. Thus, we see that when any one of us suffer any harm due to a defect in a product made by the manufacturer, serviced by a service provider or sold by a product seller, earlier there was no fixed liability but now we have a right to claim compensation once the 2018 Bill becomes a law. The 2018 Bill further lays down the appropriate circumstances under which the manufacturer, service provider and seller will be held liable.
                        Conditions For Liability
                                      As for instance, we see now that a product manufacturer will be liable to compensate for harm caused to the consumer under any one of the following conditions. Those conditions are as follows: –
1.  The product contains a manufacturing defect;
2.  It is defective in design;
3.  There is a deviation from the manufacturing specifications;
4.  It does not conform to the express warranty; and
5.  It does not contain adequate instructions for correct usage.
                    Regulator On Anvil
                                    It is well known that to promote and protect the consumer rights, the Consumer Protection Councils at the district, state and national levels are prescribed under the current law. But its biggest handicap is that it is only an advisory body and hence does not have powers of enforcement. To overcome this handicap, this new Bill brings in a regulator for consumer affairs, much like the Securities and Exchange Board of India  (SEBI) for the markets or the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) for insurers.
                                      To be called the Consumer Protection Authority, the new regulator will be a central authority with offices at the regional level. The new Consumer Protection Authority will have power to monitor and enforce the new regulatory regime that the Bill seeks to implement. The Bill says very specifically that, “This fills an institutional void in the regulatory regime extant. Currently, the task of prevention of or acting against unfair trade practices is not vested in any authority.”
                                      To be sure, this Authority will have the requisite powers to inquire and investigate into complaints and initiate prosecution. It will also be empowered to issue safety notices/pass orders in relation to matters such as recall of goods, reimbursements of the amount paid by consumers, misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices/contracts. This would ensure that consumer protection law is not blatantly violated with impunity as this Consumer Protection Authority would check this and act as a powerful deterrent.
    Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC)
                                 It must be added here that the CDRCs will be set up at the district, state and national levels. A consumer can file a complaint with CDRCs in relation to:
(i)                         unfair or restrictive trade practices;
(ii)                      defective goods or services;
(iii)                   overcharging or deceptive charging; and
(iv)                   the offering of goods or services for sale which may be hazardous to life and safety.
Complaints against an unfair contract can be filed with only the State and National CDRCs. Appeals from a District CDRC will be heard by the State CDRC. Appeals from the State CDRC will be heard by the National CDRC. The final appeal will lie before the Supreme Court.  
         Jurisdiction Of CDRCs
                           To tell the truth, the District CDRC will entertain complaints where value of goods and services does not exceed Rs one crore. The State CDRC will entertain complaints when the value is more than Rs one crore but does not exceed Rs 10 crore. Finally, the complaints with value of foods and services over Rs 10 crore will be entertained by the National CDRC.
        Punishment For Non-Compliance  
                                        To put things in perspective, the non-compliance of the order issued by the Consumer Protection Authority is punishable with am imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to Rs 20 lakh, or both. The Authority may also impose penalties with regard to the misleading advertisements, food adulteration and spurious goods. A penalty on the endorser of the misleading advertisement is suggested as well, which could put celebrities who endorse products that don’t live up to its claims, in the dock.
Punishment For False Claims In Advertisements  
                                       It must be highlighted here that misleading ads in various media touting exaggerated claims are very common and it is the consumers who have to suffer the most because of all this! Earlier there was a lack of clear legal provisions. But this new Consumer Bill of 2018 seeks to specify what constitutes false and unfulfilled claims.
                                      This proposed new Consumer Protection Bill of 2018 imposes a jail term of up to two years and Rs 10 lakh as fine for manufacturers making false and misleading claims in advertisements. This could go up to five years in jail and Rs 50 lakh fine for repeat offenders. Very rightly so!
                                         It is noteworthy that endorsers making such claims will face a penalty of up to Rs 10 lakh and a ban of a year from making endorsements. The repeated offenders would attract fines of up to Rs 50 lakh and a ban of up to three years. In fact the jail term for such repeated offenders must not be less than 5 years. But what an unbeatable irony that for repeated offenders no jail term is prescribed. This again must be set right!
                                       Not just this, the repeated offenders must be barred permanently from making endorsements but this has not been done till now. It must be done before it becomes a law so that it acts as an adequate deterrent for repeated offenders. It is quite baffling that why this has not been done. 
                 Defence For Endorsers   
                                    According to the Bill, the endorsers who can prove that they applied “due diligence” or appeared in an ad in “normal course of business” without knowledge of fraudulent intentions may use it as a “defence”. They have every right to stand immune from legal proceedings if they can prove that they had no fraudulent intentions of any kind while endorsing. No one can deny or dispute this! However, the Bill in the same vein also states that, “The burden of proof of such defence shall lie on the person raising such defence”.
               Vulnerability Of Consumers
                                 The Bill says that growth in e-commerce, international trade and newer services as well as innovative delivery chains have increased the choice before consumers but also made them vulnerable. So consumers have to be protected from becoming a vulnerable target who are liable to be exploited most easily!      
                                 Truly speaking, the Bill also states that, “The modern market place contains a plethora of products and services. The emergence of global supply chains, rise in international trade and the rapid development of e-commerce have led to new delivery systems for goods and services and have provided new options and opportunities for consumers. Equally, this has rendered the consumer vulnerable to new forms of unfair trade and unethical business practices.”
        Curbing The Misuse Of Limitation
                                          Unfair trade practices often take advantage of limitations in the current law. This must be plugged in the new Bill. If this is not done, the whole purpose of the new Bill will stand defeated. Pradeep Mehta of the CUTS International which is a consumer rights activist group points out that, “In an earlier era, issues like misleading ads and cheating were dealt with under the Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act. But since the Competition Act, 2002, replaced the MRTP Act, it left out effective regulations to deal with unfair trade practices. This new Bill hopefully will address these shortcomings.” The Bill also provides for framing of rules subsequent to passage of the Bill for product recalls and on the responsibility of a firm for both safety and efficacy of its products.
                        Mediation Cells
                          Presently, a Redressal Commission operates at the district, state and national levels to adjudicate consumer disputes. The new law stipulates for an alternative dispute redressal mechanism if there is chance for a settlement agreeable to the parties to the dispute. The new Bill calls for setting up of mediation cells attached to the district, state and national commissions.
                               Conclusion
                                  All said and done, this new Bill is certainly a marked improvement over the previous one. But still many more loopholes can and must be plugged before finally getting it assented to by the President. It certainly merits more deliberation in both Houses of Parliament. Only after a proper debate, discussion and deliberations by both Houses of Parliament should it be passed after going through it in detail so that no loophole is left out. This new Bill directly affects consumers in a huge way and so has to be taken most seriously so that consumers don’t suffer under any circumstances and have enough remedy to pursue when aggrieved which can be possible only if all their genuine concerns are taken into board and simultaneously also addressed before making it into a law by getting it passed in both Houses of Parliament!
 Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.