Tag: current affairs

Srikrishna Panel Recommends Setting Up Data Privacy Authority

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

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

Let Censors Decide On Padmavati: SC

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

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

Why Not A Single HC Bench For West UP?

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

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

SC: Engineering Degree Through Correspondence Invalid

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

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

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

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

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

SC Dismisses Petition For SIT Probe In Judges Bribery Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEBI Panel Pushes For Corporate Governance Overhaul

Coming straight to the key point, a high-profile Committee of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on October 5 recommended a slew of measures, including increasing the number of directors on boards of listed companies, the appointment of at least one woman independent director, and a higher frequency of board meetings to enhance corporate governance standards at India Inc. It is widely anticipated that this panel will usher in the much needed corporate governance overhaul. But right now it would be premature to guess how effective it will be in ushering corporate governance overhaul. Uday Kotak who is the head of SEBI’s panel on corporate governance presented the report to SEBI Chairman Ajay Tyagi on October 5.
SEBI Panel Pushes For Corporate Governance Overhaul

                                           While craving for my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me inform them that the 25-member panel on corporate governance, headed by Uday Kotak who is Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Kotak Mahindra Bank has also called for separating the roles of chairman and managing director and creating a formal framework for sharing sensitive information between the board and entities not part of the board. Pushing strongly for greater transparency, the panel said that sound corporate governance helped companies generate “significantly greater returns”, compared to companies, which exhibited poor corporate governance standards. It further said that well-governed companies could command a premium between 10 and 40 percent over not-so-well-governed companies.
                                          For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that the panel headed by eminent banker Uday Kotak also suggested the government assess an “independent holding structure” for public sector undertakings (PSUs). The panel in its 178-page report submitted to SEBI said that, “The government should consider consolidating its ownership and monitoring PSUs into independent holding entity structures by April 1, 2020.” I am sure that the government will seriously consider this recommendation as well as other recommendations.
                                         Let me hasten to add here that the move, the panel said, would help remove conflicts between the government and the regulator. The panel also said that an autonomous environment would enhance the shareholder value and act in the best interests of all stakeholders noting several public sector undertakings (PSUs) were trading at a sharp discount to their private peers. It is thus incumbent that an autonomous environment should be created soon so that it can help in more ways than one.
                                               To put things in perspective, while suggesting a major overhaul of corporate governance norms for listed companies, the Kotak panel rightly recommended limiting chairmanship to only non-executive directors and appointing at least one woman as independent directors. Presently, we see that 637 companies (38.1%) don’t have a single independent woman director. This is certainly most concerning!
                                           It also must be added here that the panel has recommended that the requirement to have at least one woman director should exclude promoter’s relative to be truly independent. M Damodaran who is former Chairman of SEBI says that, “My view has always been that there should be at least two women directors on the board, with at least one being independent… There is nothing wrong with a promoter’s relative being one of the women directors since no such question is raised when the promoter’s son or nephew is appointed to the board.” While the proposal for only non-executive director being allowed to be made chairman would eventually lead to a split in the posts of chairman and managing director, the panel also suggested increasing the minimum board strength to six members and the number of board meetings to five in a year. Earlier the minimum number of board members were three and minimum number of board meetings were four.
                                           As things stand, the current rules require that there must be one woman on board, irrespective of her being on board, irrespective of her being an independent or executive director. They also call for having at least half of board members as independent directors, up from one-third currently. The suggestions assume immense significance when considered in the backdrop of alleged corporate governance-related issues at Tata Group and Infosys and the ugly slugfest that broke out between those persons who are in the helm now and those who were earlier in the helm which even saw many heads rolling!
                                          Simply put, the panel also suggested a minimum remuneration of Rs 5 lakh per annum for independent directors and a sitting fee of Rs 20,000 – 50,000 for each board meet. It also sought to make it mandatory to seek public shareholders approval for annual remuneration of executive directors from promoter family if the amount exceeds Rs 5 crore or 2.5 percent of the company’s net profit. No doubt, this would check arbitrary actions and act as a safeguard against misuse of money.
                                          Briefly stated, in case of more than one such director, the same condition would apply for aggregate annual remuneration exceeding 5 percent of the net profit. The approval of shareholders will be required every year in which the annual remuneration payable to a single non-executive director exceeds 50 percent of the total annual remuneration payable to all non-executive directors. The companies would be required to disclose the list of competencies/expertise that its board members actually possess. This will ensure increased accountability and compliance with rules which will undoubtedly be good for the system. Besides, public shareholders nod would be mandatory for non-executive directors over 75 years of age. 972 non-executive directorship positions occupied by directors who are more than 75 years of age.  
                                      As it turned out, the capital markets regulator SEBI has sought public comments till November 4 on the panel’s recommendations which runs into 178 pages and covers a plethora of issues. The panel has suggested at least half of board members to be independent directors at listed companies, while all directors must attend at least half of board meets. Presently, a board needs to have at least a third of its directors as independent.
                                           What is of immense significance is that the panel also called for a better compensation for independent directors in order to balance the “risk-reward” and make it attractive for “competent people” to become independent directors. It also called for exclusive meetings of independent directors. It suggested for new disclosure norms, where listed entities would have to give detailed reasons for resignation of an independent director. This without doubt would strengthen the position of independent director.
                                      As of now, according to the figures obtained by Prime Database, till date 851 independent directors would resign from various companies. Going ahead, many companies may even find it hard to find independent directors. In the last two years, many independent directors have been resigning from companies they feel could land them in trouble.
                    It is laudable that the panel recommended to disclose detailed reasons for resignation of independent directors while earlier there were no such specific rules. This will ensure that independent directors before quitting would lay bare the stark truth of all what was going wrong due to which he/she had to resign! So no one can take them for granted. We all know fully well how in the aftermath of Cyrus Mistry’s ouster as Chairman of Tata sons, Nusli Wadia – an independent director on the boards of three listed Tata companies had asked SEBI to inquire into unpublished material and price sensitive information shared by the companies with Tata trustees and Tata sons. Wadia showed how an independent director can assert himself and work without getting influenced by anyone!
                           Also, interestingly enough,  where chairperson is not independent, the panel recommended that independent director should be the lead while earlier there was no such provision. Now, independent directors could face more scrutiny which will ensure that they work more transparently and sincerely. It is also laudable that the panel has proposed a minimum remuneration in the case of independent directors depending on the size of the economy.
                              It has also proposed more powers to independent directors. The chairperson of a listed company will be a non-executive director to ensure that s/he is independent of the management. An independent director cannot be in more than eight listed companies and a managing director can hold the post of an independent director in only three listed firms. The minimum sitting fees of independent directors has been halved from the current Rs 1 lakh per meeting stipulated by Companies Act, 2013 to Rs 50,000 for the top 100 companies by market capitalization. Detailed reasons would need to be furnished when an independent director resigns. This is to ensure that they remain independent of the company management.
                                       More importantly, every board meeting would require the presence of an independent director. The committee has recommended that the number of independent directors on a company board be increased from 33% to 50%. This would ensure that undue patronage and arbitrary actions are checked firmly.
                                      Most importantly, the panel has proposed that directors attend at least half the total board meetings held in a financial year. If they failed to do so, they would require shareholder’s nod for continuing. This would certainly compel them to be on their toes and not take things for granted.
                                No less important is the recommendation to increase the number of meetings to five a year. The fifth meeting would discuss among other things, whether the company has a succession plan in place. This issue cropped up most recently after the recent boardroom battles at the Tata group and Infosys Ltd. Other issues that would be discussed in the proposed fifth meeting include adherence to governance standards, board evaluation and strategies for the company.         
                                         Truth be told, the panel which submitted so many of its landmark recommendations was set up by SEBI in June 2017 with a view to enhancing the standards of corporate governance of listed entities in India. The committee consisted of officials from the government, industry, professional bodies, stock exchanges, academicians, lawyers and proxy advisors. The panel was asked to submit its reportwithin four months which it did on October 5.
                                        Truly speaking, the terms of reference of the committee were to make recommendations to SEBI on various issues including ensuring independence in spirit of independent directors and their active participation in functioning of the company. Besides, the suggestions are aimed at improving safeguards and disclosures pertaining to related party transactions. They also cover issues in accounting and auditing practices by listed companies and seek to improve effectiveness of board evaluation practices. The report also seeks to address issues faced by investors on voting and participation in general meetings, and disclosure and transparency related issues. 
                          Needless to say, the panel also suggested that all listed entities which have public shareholding of 40 percent or  more at the beginning of a fiscal year should ensure that the chairperson should be a non-executive director from April 1, 2020, while chairperson should be a non-executive director for all the listed companies from April 1, 2022. It is commendable that it also recommended that the top 100 companies by market capitalisation should webcast their shareholder meeting. It also suggested that the minimum number of audit committee meetings be increased to five every year from the present four.
                            Be it noted, the panel also recommended the adoption of a transparent framework for exchanging unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) with promoters or any significant entity not part of the board. It called for the creation of special agreements enabling the management to share any UPSI with designated persons. Under the current framework, such information can be shared with members only if they are part of the decision-making process.  
                                    It is a no-brainer that this issue had assumed immense significance during the no-holds-barred tussle at Tata sons between their erstwhile chairman Ratan Tata and Cyrus Mistry and the latter had to quit under unrelenting pressure exerted  on him by the former. Panel member Keki Mistry who is Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer HDFC said that, “These measures would bring clarity and create a pathway where promoters can access sensitive information, subject to certain restrictions.”   
                                         It must be brought out here that addressing the issue of high royalty payments by domestically listed multi-national companies (MNCs) to their parents, the panel recommended that payments amounting to over 5 percent of the revenues would require the approval of public shareholders. It also recommended high frequent disclosures of related party transactions (RPTs), often a bone of contention between public shareholders and promoters. 
                              Of course, it called for the presence of at least one independent director at every board meeting. Also, it sought disclosure of the expertise of the directors being appointed and capping the maximum number of directorships to seven by April 2020. It further suggested the separation of the roles of the chairperson and the CEO and managing director for listed entities, with public shareholding over more than 40 percent by April 2020 and extend it to all companies by April 2022. The move could impact companies like Reliance Industries where Mukesh Ambani holds the post of both Chairman and MD. Same is the case with Pawan Munjal at India’s largest motorcycle maker Hero MotorCorp and RD Shroff at the country’s largest agrochemicals producer United Phosphorus. Of the 50 companies on the benchmark Nifty, at least 12, including Reliance Industries, ONGC and Wipro, have the same person occupying both posts.     
                                             To be sure, the Kotak panel also made several proposals for effective functioning of board committees which includes audit, remuneration and stakeholder relationship committee. It also advised setting up of information technology committee to focus on digital and technological developments. It also recommended that SEBI should have clear powers to act against auditors under securities law. For government companies, the panel has recommended that the company law board has final say on the appointment of independent directors and not the nodal ministry.
                                           In a bid to improve transparency among group entities, the panel suggested revising the definition of a “material subsidiary”. It said an entity will be termed as a material subsidiary if its income or net worth exceeds 10 percent, up from the current 20 percent, of the consolidated income or networth respectively of the listed entity. This also apply to unlisted foreign subsidiaries.
                                          Going forward, the panel stipulates that the maximum number of directorships held by a person will be capped at 8 by April 1, 2019 and 7 by April 1, 2020. It also stipulates that the auditor shall have the right to independently obtain external opinions from experts. It recommended that for listed entities in India, the auditor of the holding company should be made responsible for the audit opinion of all material unlisted subsidiaries.  
                                     Let me bring out here that the panel has recommended that chartered accountants apex body ICAI (Institute of Chartered Accountants of India) should have powers to punish audit firms and impose a fine of up to Rs 1 crore on erring auditors. This would go a long way in deterring them from erring intentionally.  Presently, the ICAI can only impose a maximum of Rs 5 lakh fine on its members for violations.
                                               Let me also bring out here that it also stated categorically that, “On the audit firm – punishment or impose penalties of up to Rs 5 crore in case of repeated violations (that is where the number of violations exceed three). Besides, it has suggested that the institute should make increased disclosure about actions taken against members which would ensure more transparency and act as a deterrent. Another suggestion is for the institute to have a separate team for enforcement pertaining to listed entities in order to reduce the turnaround time for disciplinary proceedings.
                                       It cannot be lost on us that the panel proposed stricter rules and disclosures for related-party transactions. It stated that, “All material related-party transactions shall require approval of the shareholders through resolution and no related parties shall vote to approve such resolutions whether the entity is a related party to the particular transaction or not.” It also said that, “All entities falling under the definition of related parties shall not vote to approve the relevant transaction irrespective of whether the entity is a party to the particular transaction or not.”  
                                     It also has to be borne in mind that the panel suggested companies should disclose in the annual report key financial ratios or sector-specific equivalent ratios. It also proposed the release of consolidated results every quarter and cash-flow statements every six months.
                                        It is noteworthy that the panel proposes to put in place a common stewardship code that might compel Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) and top mutual funds (MFs) to play a more active role in this regard. Sai Venkateshwaran who is partner and head of accounting advisory services at consultancy KPMG India says that, “The (proposed) code will make it a formal mandate for institutional investors to play a stewardship role, rather than remain silent spectators with respect to the affairs of their investee companies”. Several countries such as the UK, Japan and Malaysia have prescribed detailed Stewardship Codes to be followed by institutional investors voluntarily. These include principles which require that institutional investors have comprehensive policies on –
1.  Discharge of their stewardship responsibilities;
2.  Management of conflicts of interest in fulfilling stewardship responsibilities;
3.  Monitoring of investee companies;
4.  Intervention in investee companies;
5.  Collaboration with other institutional investors;
6.  Voting and disclosure of voting activity;
7.  Periodical reporting on their stewardship activities.
                                    It is also noteworthy that the panel has also recommended that the market regulator, SEBI, will have the right to pull up auditors for any lapse in corporate governance norms and penalize them. In the past, we saw how some of India’s top auditors, including some from the Big Four firms, were found clearing annual reports despite companies being accused of corporate governance violations as the case of United Spirits. This recommendation would undoubtedly make sure that auditors, who are seldom taken to task by their self-regulated body, do a thorough job while certifying accounts as not doing so would land them in a deep trouble.
                             Be it noted, the panel has proposed a formal framework for listed companies to share unpublished price sensitive information with promoters and large shareholders as this issue hit the headlines with the recent boardroom battles at Tata Group and Infosys. The Infosys Board had criticized its founder Narayana Murthy of inappropriate interference. The panel now entails that a listed entity may enter into the agreement in relation to providing access to material information, including unpublished price sensitive information, to the promoter or someone with more than 25% shares.
                                     It also makes it clear that is the duty of the promoters and large shareholders to maintain strict confidentiality of all material information, under the terms of agreement. Safeguards to be put in place in respect of procedures of communication and procurement of information. The promoters and large shareholders will have to provide an undertaking that it will use the information received in accordance to the securities laws and access of information does not undermine the independence and autonomy of the board of directors of the listed entity in any manner.
                               It must be noted here that the listed entity shall have the right to unilaterally terminate the agreement with the consent of majority of directors of the listed entity representing three-fourths in number, provided that the counterparty on the board of directors of the listed entity shall abstain from such voting. The panel also said that the business reality in India is that a majority of the listed entities are controlled by a single promoter where the lines of control, influence and information flow do not necessarily follow the formal and distinct corporate structure. The listed entity shall have the right to withhold communication and access to material information in case the board of directors determines that it is not in the interests of the listed entity or there is a conflict of interest in it sharing the material information with the promoter or there has been a breach of the agreement by the promoter.
                                   It is quite troubling to see that even though currently there are no provisions to grant leniency by SEBI but the panel has proposed to provide powers to the Central Government based on recommendations by SEBI to grant immunity both from prosecution and imposition of penalty under the SEBI Act and the SCRA for the alleged violation subject to certain conditions. One only hopes that this is reviewed and even if not changed is not misused to favour wrongdoers.
                                  It is also proposed that the top 100 companies by market cap would hold annual general meetings (AGMs) within five months and the same may be extended to other entities in a phased manner. Over time, this timeline would be reduced to four months. Presently, companies hold AGM within six months from the end of the financial year.
                                    Strictly speaking, the panel also recommended that enhanced disclosure requirements related to abrupt resignation of independent directors and auditors should be put in place. It stated that, “The audit committee should also review the utilisation of funds of the listed entity infused into unlisted subsidiaries, including foreign subsidiaries”. It added that, “The requirement be applicable in instances where the total amount of loans/advances/investment from the holding company to the subsidiary exceeds Rs 100 crore or 10% of the asset size of the subsidiary, whichever is lower.” The recommendation assume significance in the wake of SEBI’s January order barring Vijay Mallya and six other entities from the securities market after a probe found that funds were diverted from United Spirits to group companies, including Kingfisher Airlines. It rightly proposed that audit committees must monitor flows to unlisted units.
                                              All said and done, it needs no rocket scientist or Einstein to conclude that the panel led by Uday Kotak has really submitted laudable recommendations. We have discussed here just few of them. There may be a few shortcomings but overall it seems to be a very good and carefully drafted report in which about 25 experts have tried to bring in the best. So it would not be proper to just dismiss it as yet another report! It still remains to be seen how many recommendations are finally accepted by the SEBI. But it is certainly a watershed moment which promises many changes for the better in corporate governance if they are finally accepted!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh. 

What Lawyers Of West UP Do Every Saturday?

At the very outset, let me begin by first and foremost pointing out that it is strictly ensured in all the 26 districts of West UP every Saturday that no lawyer does any work in protest against Centre not setting up even a single bench of high court in any of the 26 districts of West UP even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge Jaswant Singh and appointed by former PM late Mrs Indira Gandhi had recommended the setting up of 3 benches at Dehradun, Nainital and Agra. More intriguingly, on its recommendations benches were set up at Aurangabad on its recommendations as also at Jalpaiguri in West Bengal and Madurai in Tamil Nadu! To protest this third rated treatment meted out to West UP, it was decided to observe strike every Saturday henceforth!

     Needless to say, this has been happening regularly since May 1981. It has been more than 36 years and even now it is very strictly ensured by the office bearers of every Bar in West UP that no lawyer undertakes any work on this day! Interestingly enough, most of the lawyers themselves voluntarily join the protest strikes and keep shouting slogans demanding high court bench in West UP! It is most shocking that West UP with more than 9 crore population and so many districts numbering about 26 have not been considered fit enough to be given a bench and even Justice Jaswant Commission recommendations on it have been disregarded.
                                          Let me hasten to add here that the lawyers of West UP are fully determined that this shall continue uninterrupted till a high court bench is set up in West UP! Not just this, many times in last few years it has been noticed that lawyers even announce strike on Wednesday even though it is not as strictly as the one on Saturday and it happens on few occasions when it is decided by the Central Action Committee constituted to pursue the sacred demand for setting up a high court bench in West UP!
                                       To put things in perspective, it was way back in 2001 that the lawyers of West UP went on strike demanding high court bench not for one month or for two months or for three months or for four months or for five months or for six months but for more than six months and finally broke the strike after getting assurances from Centre of looking seriously into it. Yet nothing happened. Only the striking lawyers of West UP know for themselves that how they stayed hungry with no work agitating wholeheartedly for a high court bench yet got nothing! Former UP CM Dr Sampoornanand had recommended a high court bench at Meerut in 1955 but Centre refused! Another former UP CM Mayawati had even recommended West UP to be created as a separate state to be named ‘Harit Pradesh’ but again nothing happened! Former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee had himself raised the demand of setting up a high court bench in West UP right inside Parliament way back in 1986 but as PM could not do much because he was not in full majority!
                            But what about the present PM Narendra Modi? He currently enjoys majority in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. BJP President Amit Shah had himself assured lawyers of West UP more than a year back that a high court bench would be soon set up in West UP. Even Rajnath Singh who is Union home Minister had given similar categorical assurances but to no avail! Just recently Dr Satyapal Singh who has been made Union Minister too vocally said recently that high court benches must be set up at Meerut, Agra and Gorakhpur. Apart from him there are many other Union Ministers who have all time and again raised their voice in support of the age old demand for a high court bench in West UP!
                          Let me be direct in asking: Why Allahabad High Court which last year completed 150 years of existence and which is Asia’s biggest court has just one high court bench and that too just 150-200 km away from Allahabad at Lucknow created way back in 1948 and why even as 2018 is about to start do we have no bench either in West UP or in Bundelkhand or at Gorakhpur from where UP CM Yogi Adityanath hails and who himself demanded a bench as MP way back in 1998? Why many other capitals like Bhopal which is capital of MP, Bhubaneshwar which is capital of Odisha, Thiruvananthapuram which is capital of Kerala, Dehradun which is capital of Odisha and many others have neither high court nor bench but Lucknow was chosen for bench and the deserving areas like the hilly areas which now for Uttarakhand and from where people had to travel more than 1000 km had no bench and same is the case with 26 districts of West UP as also with Bundelkhand and Gorakhpur? Why states like Karnataka, Maharashtra, Assam etc which stand nowhere in terms of number of pending cases and crime as compared to UP and West UP have 3 high court benches apart from high court itself? 
                   Simply put, it is West UP where maximum riots, maximum killings, maximum crime take place yet it has no bench as both high court at Allahabad and a single bench at Lucknow created way back in 1948 are both in Eastern UP and that too just about 150-200 km away from each other!  Misbauddin Siddiqui who is the President of the Meerut District Bar Association lamented, “The problem is that the Allahabad High Court has the highest number of pending cases. The pressure is huge. Allahabad is very far from Western UP. It is around 800 km from Saharanpur. Eight other high courts are closer to Western UP, and interestingly Lahore High Court in Pakistan is closer than Allahabad High Court. The cost of travelling to Allahabad, and then staying there is huge for poor people. That is why we have been demanding a high court bench. Successive governments have denied us this.”  
                                   Briefly stated, in 2014-15 the lawyers of West UP went on strike for 3-4 months demanding high court bench in West UP and even boycotted Lok Adalats and demonstrated outside courts throughout the night! For how long? Why can’t a high court bench be set up in West UP? Why this raw discrimination? Why people of West UP are compelled to travel so far about 700-800 km away all the way to Allahabad to attend court hearings and waste so much of time and money for no valid reason! It is to protest this that lawyers of West UP keep holding meetings, demonstrations, protests, padyatras but still Centre is not budging!
                                    Can anyone tell me: Why for just 4 and 8 districts of Karnataka at Dharwad and Gulbarga 2 more high court benches were straightaway approved in 2012 with one being already at Hubli but for West UP for 26 districts which is more than double the number for which 2 more benches were approved in Karnataka not even a single bench was approved even though the senior lawyers of West UP were repeatedly assured by all PM ranging from late Mrs Indira Gandhi, late Rajiv Gandhi among others? Karnataka has not more than 2 lakh pending cases and has just about more than 1 lakh pending cases yet 3 high court benches but for UP which has not 1 lakh or 2 lakh or 3 lakh or 4 lakh or 5 lakh or 6 lakh or 7 lakh or 8 lakh or 9 lakh or 10 lakh but more than 10 lakh cases pending and here too more than half the cases are from West UP still no high court bench! Why?
                                       As if this is not enough, even former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon had slammed UP as “rape and crime capital of India” still why UP has least high court benches and West UP has none? Why Allahabad High Court is oldest high court in whole of Asia completing 150 years last year and also the biggest court yet it has just one high court bench very near to Allahabad in Lucknow? Why when a high court bench could be set up so near to Allahabad in Lucknow way back in 1948 can no high court bench be set up in West UP for more than 9 crore people staying here 70 years later in 2018?
                                Truth be told, the population of West UP is more than all States except UP itself of which it is a part, Maharashtra and Bihar and here too areawise West UP with 98,000 square km is more than Bihar’s 94,000 square km! Still why it has no bench leave alone making it a separate state and giving it a high court itself as happened with Uttaranchal which at time of creation had just 88 lakh population and about 12 to 13 districts? Why our policymakers, PM and others in Centre are maintaining a deafening silence on it? They must come clear on it and spell out their stand! Deafening silence will just not do! No way!
                                  Let me also be direct in asking: How long will lawyers of West UP keep striking every Saturday? How long will lawyers of West UP keep holding meetings, calling for West UP Bandh, holding protests on national highways, blocking rail route, roads etc just to highlight their age old demand of setting up a high court bench in West UP? How long will it take for the Law Minister of UP Brijesh Pathak to fulfil his 3 month old assurance to lawyers in Meerut that a high court bench in West UP will be created soon?
                                    Let me bring out here that I have been keenly noticing that the lawyers of West UP time and again, month after month, year after year keep holding meetings under the banner of Central Action Committee formed to pursue the legitimate struggle for creating a high court bench in West UP and vowing to take extreme steps like going on strike for months as they did for six months in 2001, for many weeks as they did in 2009-10, for 3-4 months in 2014-15 and ended only after getting firm assurances but ultimately only got nothing. They keep meeting CM, PM and others but all this till now has led to nowhere! They have even resorted to blocking national highways, stopping trains but again no result!
                                     How long will woman keep getting gangraped as happened just recently in Muzaffarnagar in West UP and keep going so far to Allahabad to get justice as there is no bench of high court in West UP which is a much bigger punishment for them? Just for how long? Why can’t our Prime Minister be more sensitive? Bench can do for West UP what even bullet train cannot do and at a very less cost still why no initiative is being taken in this regard?
                                     How long will women be subjected to rape, gangrape, face acid throwing incidents etc yet travel so far to Allahabad to get justice which is a double punishment for them? West UP and in fact whole of UP needs more high court benches and not more temples or anti-Romeo squads or anything else in which UP CM Yogi Adityanath seems more interested! He himself as MP had vociferously demanded a high court bench for Gorakhpur in 1998 raising it inside Parliament but now he has power and Centre too belongs to his own party BJP thus removing all glitches then still why no action since last more than 6 months?
                         In hindsight, people of all religions are united in West UP in demanding a high court bench here and unitedly they agitate which is an eye-opener for our leaders who always keep raking irrelevant issues which makes no difference to people’s lives and it makes me most happy to see the unity cutting across religious lines or community lines or gender lines or any other lines! But what comes as a biggest dampener is no action by Centre who earlier had vouched that if its party came to power in UP and Centre both then a high court bench will definitely be created in West UP! Nothing on earth can be more shocking!
                                Truly speaking, even eminent jurist Soli J Sorabjee had said that Centre can create a high court bench on its own in West UP without any recommendation either from the Chief Justice or State Government in this behalf still we see that Centre is taking no action! BN Krishnamani who was an eminent former Supreme Court Bar Association Chairman too had said that, “Only by the creation of a high court bench in West UP will the people get speedy and effective justice”. Whom is Centre trying to appease? Is it not emulating the previous governments? It is high time and it must now fulfil its responsibility and also its age old promises to the people of West UP that a high court bench in West UP would be created soon!
                                Last but not the least: Why eminent criminal lawyer, former President of Meerut Bar and present member of Bar Council of UP – Anil Kumar Bakshi proudly points out that he is among the few lawyers who have been to jail because of his active participation in the holy struggle for creating a high court bench in West UP? Why Justice BP Singh (retd) of Allahabad High Court too feels strongly that a high court bench must be set up in West UP? Why many senior and eminent lawyers of Allahabad High Court itself too feel that a high court bench must be set up in West UP? This is only because it is certainly one of the most holy struggle and this alone explains that why lawyers here are ready to go to any extent to ensure that a high court bench is created here and have braved police sticks and all barriers with the greatest of courage! Going on strike for months and months is easier said than done and only lawyers of West UP best understand that how much hardship they have faced to ensure that the sacred agitation for a high court bench in West UP continue uninterrupted! But the billion dollar question that arises here is: For how long will Centre continue ignoring the clear writing on the wall? Even Kapil Sibal as Union Law Minister had wanted a high court bench for West UP to be set up at Meerut as was disclosed by none other than another former Union Minister RPN Singh but former UP CM Akhilesh Yadav he alleged put a cropper in this and therefore nothing materialized! But now there are no excuses as it is BJP and BJP alone which is in power both in UP and Centre! Now only action is needed by setting up a high court bench here! BJP must act now!  
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh. 

Attacks By Cow Vigilantes Must Stop: SC Tells States

To begin with, the Supreme Court on September 6 made it clear in no uncertain terms that attacks on innocents by cow vigilantes must stop. It took a great step towards preventing crimes and violence committed by cow vigilante groups by directing States to appoint a senior cop as nodal officer in each district to monitor such incidents and ensure that culprits are nabbed promptly and punished swiftly. It is really a very good step which shall go a long way in checking attacks and violence by cow vigilantes which till now largely went unhindered and unabated.

                                             While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that a group of petitioners led by Congress spokesperson Tehseen Poonawala and Tushar Gandhi who is the great grandson of the legendary Mahatma Gandhi gave instances where persons were lynched, minors tortured and women raped by men claiming to be part of cow-protecting army. According to senior advocate and former Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising, representing Gandhi, the crimes mostly occurred on mere suspicion that the victims were transporting cows for slaughter or had consumed beef. Jaising pointed out that most of the violent incidents had occurred on highways.
                        Protect highways
                                        For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that the Supreme Court directed the Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police to take steps to protect the highways from vigilante mobs. The Court directed the Centre to respond to a submission by senior advocate Indira Jaising for Tushar Gandhi, that the government cannot wash its hands of its constitutional responsibility under Article 256. The Centre should reply to this argument in the spirit of “cooperative federalism”.
                                              For the uninitiated, let me inform them that a three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar was hearing an intervention by Mahatma Gandhi’s grandson, Tushar Gandhi, about the lack of responsibility and accountability shown by the Centre and State administrations as vigilante groups wreaked havoc and resorted to murder in broad daylight in the name of the cow. This is completely unacceptable! How can a human being be murdered in the name of cow?
                           According to senior advocate Indira Jaising, the crimes mostly occurred on mere suspicion that the victims were transporting cows for slaughter or had consumed beef! Jaising and another senior, eminent advocate and former Law Minister Kapil Sibal also very vigorously raised the cases of Pehlu Khan who was assaulted onApril 1 and who died 3 days later in Alwar in Rajasthan in most dastardly manner by vigilantes over suspicion of cow smuggling and said that far from getting justice, the kin of the victims were being harassed through counter-cases. This is certainly most reprehensible and calls for strictest action against those guilty of perpetrating such heinous crimes! Under no circumstances can this allowed to go unchecked and unpunished! Most importantly, the counter-cases should be removed immediately against the kin of the victims by the police.
                                   Truly speaking, Indira Jaising was at pains to point out that, “Non-violence is the founding faith of this country. The Centre cannot turn its back on the violence. The States have the responsibility to lodge FIRs against these vigilantes.” She is absolutely right. It is both the moral and legal obligation of Centre to ensure that violence does not happen and also of States to ensure that FIR is promptly lodged against these vigilantes and they are arrested and put behind bars as early as possible.
                             Before proceeding ahead, let me give a short brief on the major incidents that happened this year in 2017 alone till now. They are as follows: –
Aug 27: Villagers beat to death two Muslim men transporting cattle in West Bengal’s Jalpaiguri district.
June 22: Hafiz Junaid, a 16-year-old boy is stabbed to death and four others are injured on board at Mathura-bound train by attackers who call them “anti-nationals” and “beef eaters”.
May 30: A group of students at IIT Madras allegedly thrash PhD scholar R Sooraj for participating in a beef festival.
April 22: Three men are beaten up by a group of men in south Delhi’s Kalkaji for transporting buffaloes in a ‘cruel’ manner.
April 1: Dairy farmer Pehlu Khan is assaulted by vigilantes over suspicion of cow smuggling in Alwar. He dies three days later.
Apart from this, there are many more cases of violence which largely go unreported as the victim prefer to suffer violence quietly instead of complaining to the police and this holds true especially when the victim are poor and underprivileged! We all know how Mohammad Akhlaq was lynched two years ago on allegations of beef eating and cow slaughter. We all also know how in July 2016 cow vigilantes publicly flogged a Dalit family for skinning a dead cow in Una of Gir Somnath district in Gujarat. All this has to end if we are to really pride in calling ourselves a true democratic country.
                       Centre’s responsibility
                                  It may be recalled that onJuly 21, when the matter was last taken up, the Centre had given a statement that it did not support such violence perpetrated by so-called cow vigilante groups. However, the Government placed the blame squarely on States claiming law and order is a State subject. Jaisingh suggested that it was high time for the Centre to step in and exercise its Constitutional power under Article 256 by passing executive instructions to States for curbing such violence.
                                    To say the least, Article 256 which deals with obligation of States and the Union very clearly stipulates that – 1. The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State. 2. The executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.   
                                    To put things in perspective, Jaising also pleaded that it was high time the Supreme Court stepped in to frame a national policy against cow vigilantism to prevent violence in the name of cow protection. She said that, “Please direct the Centre to come out with a scheme for prevention of such violence.” The Bench said that there was a practical difficulty in asking for a national policy on what was primarily a law and order issue, falling squarely in the domain of states. The CJI Dipak Misra headed Bench said that, “We do not want to pass such an order. It is constitutionally not permissible to order the Centre to frame a national policy”. The Bench refused to be drawn into specific instances of violence by cow vigilante groups while dealing with the larger issue. It said that, “On the Faridabad incident, you must approach the high court concerned. We do not want to mix this incident with the real issue (petitioner) are espousing.”
                                      Needless to say, Dalits and Muslims have reportedly been the prime targets and at the receiving end of unabashed violence unleashed by lynch mobs, especially in the four northern States. They must be protected just like any other citizen without any discrimination whatsoever! The Apex Court exhorted the Centre to uphold its Constitutional mandate under Article 256 and direct the States to act against the groups. It said the Centre could not remain silent leaving everything to the States.
                                             It must be brought out here that BJP-ruled Haryana, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Gujarat accepted the Apex Court’s suggestion to appoint dedicated officers in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to prevent “gau rakshaks” as they call themselves, from taking the law into their own hands or becoming a law unto themselves. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing Maharashtra, Haryana and Rajasthan pleaded with the court not to pass any directions and assured that law will take its own course.
                                        It must also be brought out here that another petition being argued by senior advocate Colin Gonsalves pointed out that leaders of political parties were openly exhorting such groups to lynch people in the name of protecting cows and a State’s Chief Minister publicly revoked criminal cases against persons who indulged in crimes related to this cause. This is most reprehensible and can never be justified under any circumstances! Those who commit such heinous crimes deserve to be punished most strictly because if they are let off that would only abet them to indulge in more such dastardly attacks!
                                         Taking a grim view of the facts pointed out to it, the Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar said unequivocally that, “This must stop. If there is law in place, there has to be some kind of curbs so that people don’t take laws into their own hands. It is a group action and some kind of planned action is to be taken by States so that such kind of vigilantism does not grow in any sphere”. One can only hope that the concerned States where such reprehensible violence takes place pay heed to what the Apex Court has said. It must be ensured that they are never repeated again in the future.
                                              To put it simply, such incidents are a shameful blot on our democracy  which under no circumstances can ever be justified! The Bench directed States to nominate a senior police officer as a nodal officer to stop such acts and directed Chief Secretaries to coordinate with Director General of Police (DGP) to take steps to prevent incidents of cow vigilantism. The Bench directed that, “The senior police officer shall take prompt action and ensure (that) vigilante groups and such people are prosecuted with quite promptitude”.
                                                           Let me hasten to add here that each State was asked to apprise about steps taken in an affidavit to be field in two weeks. The Bench also asked the Centre to take instructions on whether directions under Article 256 needed to be issued to all State Governments. The Apex Court further directed States to be vigilant to ensure such incidents do not take place on highways. 
                                        Be it noted, the Apex Court posted the case for further hearing on September 22. It must be noted here that Justice AM Khanwilkar wondered why no one had field PIL pleas against the carcasses of slaughtered animals found strewn on roads and public places. CJI Dipak Misra also made it very clear to Centre who was represented by Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who appeared for the four northern States that, “The Centre cannot remain silent, leaving everything to the States. You have to stop it [the violence]”.
                              Briefly stated, the Apex Court asked the counsel for 22 states to file compliance reports by October 13 and fixed October 31 as the date for hearing the PILs. It also made it clear that, “Let the compliance reports be filed…nobody can wash off their hands (from their duty). We will give directions to all the states”. The direction came after the Bench was informed that only five states – Rajasthan, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat – have carried out the order so far and that Bihar and Maharashtra would be filing it during the day. The Apex Court also asked States and Union Territories to comply with its September 6 order to appoint nodal officers byOctober 31 to deal with cow vigilantism.
                                  To put it succinctly, the Apex Court while proposing measures to stem what it called growing violence by so-called cow protection groups, had said that the nodal officers would have to ensure that vigilantes do not become a law unto themselves. It had given states a week time to comply with the order. The court had also asked states to list steps they would take to step up security on highways, where cow vigilantes have stopped vehicles carrying cattle and attacked people.
                                     All said and done, Centre and all States must take all steps to comply with what the Supreme Court has said. It must be ensured that no human being is ever killed or even attacked by vigilantes under the garb of cow protection. Vigilantes are nobody and it is police who is entrusted with the task of ensuring that cows are not killed ruthlessly by anyone. It has been noticed that mostly these vigilantes are anti-social elements who in the garb of gau raksha resort to violence to create disharmony and communal violence also. Their nefarious designs have to be thwarted under any circumstances well in time. It is a matter of grave concern that the senior counsel Indira Jaising had submitted that there had been 66 incidents of mob lynching and assault since July. In response, the Bench had rightly ruled that, “Steps have to be taken to stop this…Some kind of planned action is required so that vigilantism does not grow. Efforts have to be made to stop such vigilantism. How they (states) will do it, is their business but this must stop.”
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Give Full Freedom To Army To Deal With Situation In J&K: MSY

Let me begin at the very beginning by stating most emphatically that I fully support what the Samajwadi Party patron Mulayam Singh Yadav said that the Army should be given full freedom to deal with the situation prevailing in Kashmir. There can be no two opinions about it. No sane person will ever dispute this!
                                                  Truth be told, the former Defence Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav while interacting with journalists very rightly said that, “The Army should be given permission to deal with the situation there and maintain peace and at the same time deal with separatists strictly.” It needs no rocket scientist to conclude that the Kashmir Valley has witnessed a spurt of attacks by militants and protests by civilians against security forces. We all saw recently how Lieutenant Umar Fayyaz was brutally murdered while he was on leave in South Kashmir and had gone to attend the wedding of his cousin sister from where he was taken at gun point. Now another soldier of BSF Mohammad Ramzan Parray too has been brutally murdered and many of his family soldiers have been wounded in a cowardly attack by terrorists! But still Centre is refusing to arm them with weapons by which they can defend themselves and their family? Parray was shot dead and 4 of his relatives were injured including one women relative.  has been brutally murdered and many of his family soldiers have been wounded in a cowardly attack by terrorists!
                                           How long will Centre tolerate killings of our security forces? How long will Centre not deal with separatists strictly? How long will Centre provide security to separatists who hate India and love Pakistan and how long will separatists rejoice when a DSP Mohammad Ayub who was deployed for security of separatists like Mirwaiz Umar Farooq would be brutally killed after stoning him and stripping him naked by those very people for whose security he was deployed there? How long will Centre bear all the expenses of separatists leaders in Kashmir who always work against our national interests and how long will Centre deploy soldiers for their security? How long will Centre not throw such separatists behind bars for spreading venom among the masses?
                                            How long will Centre not give a free hand to Army to deal with stone pelters in the way they should ideally be dealt with? How long will Centre allow police to order inquiry against brave soldiers of Army like Major Ranjan Gogoi who to save his men from being lynched just tied one stone pelter to the bonnet of his vehicle so that the stone pelters don’t throw stones at the vehicle in which they were moving? How long will soldiers of Army suffer humiliation in silence by getting beaten by crowd instigated by separatists?
                                                  How long will soldiers of Army be stopped from capturing these Pakistani supporters and throwing them into Pakistan where their heart lies? How long will Pakistanis be treated as Indians? How long will these Pakistani supporters be allowed to kill our soldiers?
                                             How long will our soldiers be taught by Centre to do nothing when hit by stones by Pakistani supporters? How long will our soldiers be taught not to open fire even if their life is at threat? How long will Centre value the lives of Pakistanis living in India more than the lives of our brave soldiers and order them to display maximum restraint? For how long?
                                       For how long will Centre order our soldiers of Army to do nothing when separatists leaders like Syed Ali Shah Geelani and others come out in the street and order people to attack Army? For how long will Centre order our soldiers of Army to respect the human rights of Pakistanis who want to destroy India? For how long will Centre keep chanting the old third rated dialogue that, “We have to act as per world pressure”.
                                       Why is no world pressure applied on Pakistan to stop proxy war against India? Why is no world pressure applied to arrest all top terror leaders like Syed Salaluddin whom America has just recently declared a terrorist, Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar and many others who are all enjoying life in Pakistan and why are they not hanged for killing so many innocent people? Why only India comes under world pressure and gladly invites Pakistani invader like General Pervez Musharraf who masterminded Kargil war in which we officially lost more than 600 soldiers and who himself paid Rs 1 lakh as prize to dreaded Al Qaeda terror leader Iliyas Kashmiri way back in 2000 when he presented him with a severed head of an Indian soldier – Bhausaheb Maruti Talekar on 27 February 2000 and started weeping in joy as was reported in most English dailies?    
                                             Why former DGP of UP – Vikram Singh said in a news channel recently that those stone pelters who throw stone at Army must be treated like terrorists and neutralized by our brave soldiers by showing no mercy towards them? Why Centre is allowing stone pelters to become a part of Pakistani gang and openly throw stones at our soldiers when they are engaged in gun battle with terrorists? Why Centre is itself becoming a protective shield for them? What message is Centre sending?
                                           Why Centre is not giving a free hand to our brave soldiers to mercilessly deal with stone pelters as demanded by Mulayam Singh Yadav  who openly says that in his tenure as Defence Minister no Kashmiri had the guts to attack Indian soldiers or pelt stones or indulge in any kind of anti-national activity? Why Centre fails to appreciate that this has a very demoralizing impact on our brave soldiers when they are asked not to retaliate hardly even inspite of being provoked which is now fast becoming a fashion in Kashmir? Why Centre keeps trusting Pakistan and invite ISI agents as we saw after Pathankot terror attack in which we lost a Major and many soldiers?
                                                Why is Centre not withdrawing Most Favoured Nation status to Pakistan which we granted way back in 1996 and which they never granted us as demanded by Shashi Tharoor, Subramanium Swamy and many others? Why is Centre not declaring Pakistan a terror sponsor country as demanded by Rajeev Chandrashekhar who is MP from Bangalore and name it “Aatankistaan” as demanded by Maulana Mehmood Madani who is a former Rajya Sabha MP? Why Centre just keeps requesting other nations to act against Pakistan but does nothing itself to hurt Pakistan and just rejoices after carrying out one surgical strike which tantamount to nothing as Army is not given a free hand to deal with stone pelters in the most ruthless fashion and it is our brave soldiers who are facing the maximum onslaught?
                                                      Why Centre is not giving a free hand to Army to rein in anti-India crowd in Kashmir and why instead Centre expects Army to display maximum restraint by simply doing nothing or offering resistance just for name sake? Is Centre not spoiling these stone pelters and encouraging them to act more fiercely by not allowing Army a free run in crushing them? Why Centre has allowed these stone pelters and brazen supporters of Pakistan to openly indulge in anti-national acts and restrained Army from acting tough against them? What message is Centre sending? Is Centre not encouraging them to always make it a habit and after gathering in group start pelting stones at soldiers of Army which has become a trend also most unfortunately? Should we be proud of this? Centre must strictly adhere to the sagacious advice which Mulayam Singh Yadav is giving of giving full freedom to Army to deal with those who attack our soldiers as it suits our national interests in best possible manner without wasting any more time further! Will Centre do?   
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.   

Pakistanis Must Be Sent To Pakistan Right Now

Coming straight to the core point, let me begin at the very beginning by pointing out most emphatically that India is for Indians and not for Pakistanis. Pakistanis have been given a separate country by partitioning India way back in 1947. But now there can be no more partitions in the name of Pakistan! Centre must enact a law and send Pakistanis to Pakistan. Those who shout “Pakistan Pakistan” must be sent to Pakistan right now. No more wastage of time!
                                                   It is so frustrating to see that it is increasingly becoming a growing trend to wave flags of Pakistan on Indian soil, burning of Indian flags, chanting of pro-Pakistani slogans and anti-India slogans. What is even more frustrating to see is that the Centre is not doing anything to check this divisive and most dangerous trend that started from Kashmir! A Maulvi Abbas whose full name I don’t remember rightly said in a newschannel that if this glorification of Pakistan is not checked in Kashmir soon it will spread to all parts of India! He also rightly demanded that such Pakistanis must be booked and punished most strictly so that no one else dare to do it again.
                                          We all saw recently how Pakistani flags were waved when India lost to Pakistan in cricket and firecrackers bursted in joy! How can any self-respecting nation tolerate such anti-national activity quietly? No individual and even no law and even no Constitution can be above the unity and integrity of the nation as no one can be above the nation!
                                                        Why is our national media so conspicuously silent on it? Every Indian has a right to dissent and criticize the government of the day but this right does not extend to doing anti-national acts like burning of Indian flags, waving of Pakistani flags, chanting of pro-Pakistani and anti-India slogans etc! Pakistanis must be sent to Pakistan right now without delay. Why are they staying in India when they consider themselves Pakistan?
                                         Prime Minister Narendra Modi must immediately act and enact law by which Pakistanis are deported to Pakistan immediately. Why should Pakistanis be allowed to stay in India? Why should Pakistanis be allowed to avail all the benefits available to Indians when they don’t consider themselves as Indians?
                                               I am not alone in feeling so very strongly. None other than National Commission for Minorities Chairman Ghayorul Hasan Rizvi has said that those who support Pakistan by celebrating their sporting achievements should cross the border and go to that country, “or better still, be deported there”. Rizvi made the comments while attending an iftar party in Meerut. He has valid reasons in saying so.
                                            Rizvi said that, “I was asked about people, including those in Kashmir, who celebrated Pakistani win (in the Champions Trophy final). I said these are people whose mind and heart is actually in Pakistan, just their bodies are here, so they too should go there. Or better still, they should be deported across the border.” Rizvi’s comments were in response to reports of celebrations in Kashmir following Pakistan’s victory over India in the final. Separatist leaders Syed Ali Shah Geelani had congratulated Pakistan on the win, while Mirwaiz Umar Farooq had tweeted, “Fireworks all around, feels like an early Eid here. Better team took the day. Congratulations team# Pakistan.”
                                           Rizvi rightly said that, “It is unfortunate that some people say things like Pakistani victory has brought ‘Eid before Eid’. It is sad that they live in India, in Hindustan and say ‘Pakistan Zindabad’. As a Hindustani, this pains me a lot. My statements in Meerut came from those sentiments.” All Indians must be very proud to have patriotic Indians like Ghayorul Hasan Rizvi for whom nation comes first and religion comes next. What Rizvi has said is absolutely right.
                                          Centre must stop kowtowing in front of Pakistan and Pakistanis. Centre should not harass anyone based on his/her religion alone. But Centre should also simultaneously not spare anyone swearing loyalty to Pakistan. Pakistanis must be sent to Pakistan and Arnab Goswami who runs the Republic Channel TV news channel too feels the same way. He rightly said that Mirwaiz Umar Farooq instead of taking security from India and enjoying all facilities in India must go to Pakistan promptly as he considers himself Pakistani.  
                                            We all saw how the DSP who was incharge of security of Mirwaiz was brutally thrashed and beaten to death by supporters of Mirwaiz and nothing was done to save him. Why security for Hurriyat leaders like Mirwaiz who swear by Pakistan? Why is Centre still providing them security?
                                         Why Centre gives Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to Pakistan since 1996 even though they have not given us that status till now? Why are Indian soldiers daily being killed and beheaded and mutilated by proxy war sponsored by Pakistan and yet Centre does not revoke this MFN status even though senior leaders like Shashi Tharoor, Subramanium Swamy are demanding this regularly? Why Centre is so soft towards Pakistan and not learn anything from a small country like Kuwait who has ordered all Pakistanis to leave Kuwait as Pakistan is spreading terror everywhere  and has severed all relations with it? Why can’t India do the same inspite of losing more than one lakh soldiers in proxy war sponsored directly by Pakistan? Why senior leaders like Maulana Mehmood Madani demands that Pakistan should be declared “Aatankistan” and all relations with it should be nuked but Centre does not listen? Why Rajeev Chandrashekhar who is MP from Bangalore demands that Pakistan be declared a “terror state” and a “rogue state” but Centre is just not prepared for it? Why Centre too lashes out in UN against Pakistan and labels it as “Terroristan” but does nothing on ground to substantiate what they say?     
                                             Centre must amend citizenship laws and revoke the citizenship of all those who swear by Pakistan and say “Meri Jaan Pakistan Mera Kaleja Pakistan” etc. You cannot be Indian and Pakistani at the same time. Either become an Indian or become a Pakistani by migrating to Pakistan. Why Centre takes no step in this direction?
                                         How stable Pakistan is we all know very well! How Shia Muslims are being killed by terrorists encouraged directly by Pakistani Army and ISI on a regular basis and their sacred shrines being blown off as also of Sufis we all know too well!  How Mohajjirs who migrated from India to Pakistan in 1947 are treated there is all too evident!
                                             How Baluchis are killed, tortured and humiliated is all well known and merits no description. The same is true of PoK, Sindh, Pakhtoonistan and other places! They want to come to India as they consider it much better just like Adnan Sami who was a famous Pakistani singer but preferred to become Indian citizen. They must be all granted Indian citizenship as their heart and soul is in India.
                                            Similarly all those Indians in Kashmir or Kerala or Delhi or UP or MP who love Pakistan and behave like Pakistanis must be immediately sent to Pakistan! They must not be tolerated in India because they don’t consider themselves as Indians and behave openly like Pakistanis and can betray our country whenever they want. Why should this be allowed at the first place? Before deporting Rohingyas first and foremost deport Pakistanis who inspite of claiming Indian citizenship do all anti-national acts and yet stay in India?
                                        No one can be above the nation. Such Pakistanis who are a threat to our national security must be sent to Pakistan! On what basis are they staying in India if they consider themselves as Pakistan? Why is Centre maintaining a deafening silence on it and allowing this dangerous and derogatory trend to be emulated by all others all over the country? This is nothing but disloyalty and Centre too is guilty of encouraging it by doing nothing! How much more time does Modi want ? For more than 3 years he has been in power! He must act now! My best friend Sageer Khan rightly said way back in 1993-94 that, “Muslims enjoy the maximum freedom in India which they cannot get anywhere else. See how Mohajjirs are treated as second graded citizens in Pakistan. Those Muslims who keep shouting slogans in favour of Pakistan never go to Pakistan themselves because they know that what they get in India they will not get anywhere else. In India Muslims can lay claim to Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi which have been sacred to Hindus for lakhs of years. If Hindus lay claim on Mecca and Medina will Muslims agree? Muslims won’t agree not just on Mecca or Medina but at any other place in Saudi Arabia! So all Muslims must appreciate the tolerance level of Hindus and emulate them and realize that Pakistan by fighting proxy war is destroying its ownself and not India. India is the best country for Muslims to stay in and Pakistan is the worst country. I have no doubt on this. This alone explains why those shouting Pakistan, Pakistan and waving Pakistani flags never migrate to Pakistan even though they try their level best to pretend that they are Pakistanis. Such Pakistanis must be thrown out of India but our politicians for reasons known best to them prefer to keep quiet. Why is Kashmir not being integrated fully with India? Why can’t Indians from other states settle there or buy property there or apply for any job there? Why separate flag and separate Constitution for them? Why are we playing in the hands of Pakistan?”      
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

What Gen Bipin Rawat Has Said Is Hundred Percent Right

Let me begin on a cheerful note by first and foremost expressing my utmost happiness to note that finally we have one such Army Chief who believes very firmly in dealing with rogue nations like Pakistan who never understands the language of peace which India has been speaking always since the last seven decades. Instead our peace policy has always been taken to be our biggest weakness which alone explains that why they have mercilessly been carrying out proxy war against India since ages as their clear cut policy is “To make India bleed by giving thousand cuts”. It is our politicians who are more responsible than Pakistan for allowing to take India for granted always! Nothing in India can ever happen without consent of politicians because it is they who have the remote control of all power!
                                     It is our politicians who frittered away the gains of our Army in 1948, 1965 and most of all in 1971 when inspite of winning decisively they handed back more than 93,00 Pakistani surrendered soldiers back to them even though they did not hand over many of our soldiers who bore the maximum brunt of their torture as was testified by none other than former Pakistan PM late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who said he could not sleep in prison as in the adjoining barrack Indian soldiers captured in 1971 war were tortured mercilessly whole night and whole day! Why Pakistan Occupied Kashmir was not taken back? This alone explains why I believe that politicians are more dangerous than Pakistan who are ever ready to play politics even with the lives of our soldiers and completely ignore what happens to them!  
                                         Why just after two to three months after the Kargil war planned and masterminded by the Pakistani invader Gen Pervez Musharraf did India decide to accord a red carpet welcome to him and shower flowers on him? Did he really deserve this? Why Indian politicians very conveniently forgot that it was Musharraf who was responsible for masterminding the killing of more than 600 of our brave soldiers and had threatened to nuke India if we stepped even one inch inside their territory as he felt Pakistan alone has the right to invade and he alone had the unfettered right to come 14-15 km inside Indian territory just before Kargil war started to boost his soldiers morale to most brutally kill our soldiers as he himself very proudly acknowledges?
                                         Pakistan badly failed to capture even an inch in Kargil and even did not claim the dead bodies of its soldiers especially of Northern Light Infantry Regiment and India cremated them in India. Even in 1988 when Gen Musharraf was Brigadier, Pakistani Army under his leadership tried to snatch Siachen but again there too they failed miserably! Yet our politicians unnecessarily made a hero out of a failed and most frustrated person which he never deserved! Now he is a “proclaimed offender” in his own Pakistan!
                                              Coming back to the main subject, Army Chief General Bipin Rawat has said that surgical strikes conducted across the Line of Control last September were a message to Pakistan and more such strikes would be undertaken if needed. Speaking at an event in New Delhi on September 25, Gen Rawat said that, “The strikes were more of a message we wanted to convey and these things could follow if need be”. When asked how capable India was to carry out more such operations, he said: “All that I can say is that you can count on us.”
                                               It may be recalled here that close on the heels of four Pakistani terrorists attacking an Indian Army unit’s administrative base in Uri on September 18, 2016, J&K killing 18 soldiers, the Army carried out surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads near the Line of Control in Pakistan. The strikes conducted on September 28, 2016 had inflicted significant casualties on terrorists which Pakistan will never admit. Pakistan was completely caught napping as they never even dreamt that India which believed until now only in honouring Pakistani invaders like Gen Musharraf on its soil and in kowtowing in front of him could strike back with such a vengeance!   
                                              Following the surgical strikes, India was seen as a stronger nation, one that retaliates, Gen Rawat said. Let me add here further that just like after Kargil war when our political leadership bent overbackwards to invite a defeated Pakistani invader Gen Pervez Musharraf who could not summon even the courage to lead his troops from forward the world looked down upon India as a weak country! I still fail to understand why our politicians ignored that this same Gen Musharraf had ordered Captain Saurav Kalia and 5 soldiers to be brutally tortured for not just 1 day or 5 days or 10 days or 15 days or 20 days but for full 22 days and their whole body bore signs of unspeakable torture, cigarette signs, their eyes were punctured with hot iron rods and pulled out, same with ears, nose and even their private parts were not spared and finally they were shot in head and their body maimed and mutilated was handed over to India and yet decided to accord red carpet welcome to him just two to three months after Kargil war?
                                          Gen Musharraf had even paid Rs 1 lakh as cash prize to dreaded Al Qaeda leader Iliyas Kashmiri who earlier was in Pakistani Army when he beheaded and presented his beheaded head as trophy to Gen Musharraf as was reported in most English dailies in 2000! Still some of our journalists, big media houses and our politicians shamelessly honoured him as if he had done a great job! This only left him more emboldened and he hailed terrorists like Osama and Hafiz as “Osama to hero hain ji hero. Hafiz Saeed to bilkul aasli hero hain ji. Bharat ke liye yeh aatankwadi hain paar hamare liye to ye hero hain ji hero. Dawood is also in Pakistan somewhere in Karachi but why should we disclose this to India or hand him over.” He is accused of plotting murder of former Pakistan PM Benazir Bhutto, attack on Lal Masjid in Pakistan which left many dead and was also accused of killing Nawab Bukhti in Baluchistan and is also facing trial in many other cases. Still some of our big journalists and leaders shamelessly laugh and feel proud to talk with him and slam Gen Rawat as “Sadak ka goonda”! This has to change now and it is our leaders who must change first and foremost in dealing with Pakistan!
                                     Why Most Favoured Nation status to Pakistan is continuing unilaterally since 1996 shamelessly and most unfortunately even though we are daily losing our brave soldiers fighting the proxy war perpetrated by Pakistan since last more than four decades? Why in UN we condemn them as “Terroristan” but yet keep engaging them? Why all relations with Pakistan which is a rogue nation are not being nuked? Why Pakistani Indians who chant “Pakistan, Pakistan and nothing but Pakistan” are not being deported to Pakistan as we see in the case of Rohingyas? Kuwait has ordered all Pakistanis to leave Kuwait as they feel that they are a threat to their nation but why we refrain from doing so even though it is India who is worst affected by proxy war perpetrated against India by Pakistan? Ask politicians ruling in Centre!  
                                         This NDA government is now hardening its stance slowly but it needs to do a lot more and never repeat the foolish mistake of inviting Pakistani ISI agents to Pathankot to inspect terror spots where terrorists had attacked and killed our soldiers and even a Major and Lieutenant Colonel! I am happy to note that Gen Rawat when asked if terrorists would attempt to carry out another Uri-like attempt said categorically that, “Terrorists will keep coming because their camps are operating there. But we are prepared to receive them and send them to their graves and bury them two and a half feet inside.”
                                              This is what is required and our political leadership too must like Gen Rawat demonstrate more resolve in giving a free hand to deal mercilessly with such Pakistani Indians who attack our soldiers, misbehave with them so that no one again dare misbehave with our soldiers! Disrespect of Indian soldiers by anyone whether they are Kashmiris or Pakistanis or anyone else be it even me should never be tolerated even slightly under any circumstances!
                                          Happy to note that in the latest incident, security forces had foiled a terror attack on a military camp in Uri sector killing four militants mercilessly near Line of Control! Our politicians too must learn something from Gen Rawat and completely boycott Pakistan till it dismantles all terror camps and deport terror leaders to India so that they can be tried and punished accordingly! Why we are keeping so many Pakistani diplomats in India and allowing them to meet Hurriyat leaders and fish in troubled waters? Why security at taxpayers expense for Hurriyat leaders and not jail who always rant against India and plot with terror leaders as was disclosed recently by NIA?
                                               All this must end forthwith and Gen Rawat is hundred percent right that following the strikes, India was seen as a stronger nation, one that retailiates! This must continue always! No compromise on this must be made ever! Politicians must now emulate what Gen Rawat has said and immediately nuke all relations with Pakistan!  
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.