Tag: Education

SC Dumps Draconian PMLA Clause Denying Bail

In a major relief to thousands of undertrials, the Supreme Court on November 23, 2017 very rightly struck down a draconian provision which can deny a person bail even if there is reasonable ground to believe that he or she did not commit the offence of money laundering. We are living in a democratic country in which every person has the right to live a free life. The State has no right to deny any person the right to live a free life on the slightest pretext just on the suspicion of having committed the offence of money laundering.
                                              Noting that the history of bail practices traces back to the Magna Carta, the Apex Court declared the draconian Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002 violative of the fundamental rights to equality, life and personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. How can then it be allowed to continue? This alone explains why Supreme Court has very rightly dumped the draconian Section 45(1) of the PMLA which arbitrarily denies bail without any reasonable grounds whatsoever! There can be no denying this!   
                                        While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that a Bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and SK Kaul, in their judgment, passed a general direction to courts to take up thousands of cases of undertrials who have been languishing in prisons, unable to get bail, because they did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45(1) of the PMLA. By all accounts, this is a landmark order which will benefit thousands of undertrials who will thus be set free and live a normal live just like all others! It certainly deserves unqualified appreciation because if this order had not been passed, many undertrials especially those who are poor would have continued to languish in jail for a long time!
                                            For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that a Bench of Justices RF Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul held Section 45(1) arbitrary and unjust because it allowed a Judge to deny bail to an accused charged with an offence that is punishable with more than three years in prison. It was held that, “We declare Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in so far as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional as it violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India”. As per Section 45(1), an accused could get bail only after the public prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose the application and if the court is satisfied that the person is neither guilty of the alleged offence nor likely to commit the crime again on his or her release. Secondly, the court should reasonably believe that he is not guilty of the “predicate” offence for which he received the laundered money as proceeds of the crime. The Apex Court set aside all orders by which bail to an accused was denied due to the twin conditions and directed that such cases be remanded back to the respective courts to be heard on merits.
                                        Going forward, let me also reveal here that “predicate” offences include a range of crimes from 26 different laws from waging war against the Government of India to offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Indian Penal Code to Wildlife Protection Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Child Labour Law, etc. The Modi government had stoutly defended the stringent conditions on the ground that it was an attempt by the Parliament to get back the black money siphoned off from the economy. But the Apex Court held explicitly that the law leads to “manifestly arbitrary and unjust results and, therefore, violates Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to liberty) of the Constitution.” Justice RF Nariman, who authored the verdict, said Section 45(1) was violative of Article 14.
                                       Truth be told, the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment came on a clutch of petitions challenging the validity of Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It must be noted here that the petitioners in the case had moved the top court after they were denied bail following the twin conditions. The petitioners argued that they were wrongly denied bail.
                                         As it turned out, the Apex Court gave them the liberty to approach the trial court afresh and said their bail petitions should be heard and decided expeditiously thus bringing a fresh smile on their face. It must be recalled here that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was introduced to make money laundering an offence and to attach property involved in money laundering. It was aimed to adequately deal with the serious threat to the financial system of India.
                                        To put things in perspective, though the PMLA Act was passed by the Parliament in 2002, it was brought into force only in August 2005. Thus, in other words, it started functioning only from August 2005. It must be borne  in mind that the Scheduled offences defined in PMLA comprise various offences, including some under Indian Penal Code, anti-drug law, Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, Wildlife (Protection) Act, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Prevention of Corruption Act and Antiquities and Arts Treasures Act.
                                             Be it noted, it was argued before the top court by the petitioners that the two conditions made grant of bail virtually impossible in money laundering cases. Also, to satisfy them the accused will have to disclose their defence at a point in time when they are unable to do so. On its part the government urged the top court not to strike down the provision but read it down to make it constitutional.
                                                     However, the government’s argument was not accepted by the top court, which rightly said the provision had no rational relation with the grant of bail for the offence of money laundering. The two-Judge Bench of Apex Court pointed out a glaring anomaly pertaining to the bail provisions. Such stringent conditions of bail being granted only if the court is convinced that the accused is not guilty are not applicable when someone applies for anticipatory bail to prevent being taken into custody for charges of money laundering and what is worse is that once arrested, his sliver of hope of his/her chances of getting bail shall stand banished!
                                 In hindsight, the Apex Court, while hearing a batch of petitions and appeals challenging the constitutional validity of Section 45 of PMLA termed it as a “drastic provision” which turns on its head the presumption of innocence which is fundamental to a person accused of any offence. It also said that, “Before applying such a Section which makes ‘drastic inroads’ into the fundamental right of a personal liberty under Article 21, we must be doubly sure that such provision furthers a compelling state interest for tackling serious crime.” It further went on to say that, “Without any such compelling state interest, the indiscriminate application of the provisions of Section 45 will certainly violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Provisions akin to Section 45 have only been upheld on the ground that there is a compelling state interest in tackling crimes of an extremely heinous nature. Merely ‘reading down’ the two conditions would not get rid of the ‘vice of manifest arbitrariness and discrimination’.”
                                      Needless to say, the Apex Court also very rightly pointed to one of the anomalies in Section 45 and said that anticipatory bail could be granted to a person who is prosecuted for the offence of money laundering which may last throughout the trial of the case against him. It said if the person is arrested for the offence of money laundering, then in order to seek regular bail, Section 45 will apply, which was an anomalous situation. So it had to be set right which was done!
                                     So, on a concluding note, it can well be rightly said that this landmark judgment validates what once legendary and most learned Judge of Supreme Court of India – Justice VR Krishna Iyer once famously said in a case that, “Bail shall be the rule and jail shall be the exception”! It must be welcomed with both hands by one and all! It will certainly ensure that thousands of undertrials don’t keep languishing in jail just because of this draconian PMLA clause Section 45(1) which has rightly been dumped by the highest court of India and are able to lead a normal life just like all other countryfellows! There is no reason why this landmark judgment should be not appreciated in most grandiloquent terms!  
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Judges Taking Over Executive Power Violates Lakshman Rekha: Jaitley

Let me begin at the very beginning by pointing out that while crossing swords with the judiciary, the government on November 25 questioned judicial activism and criticized the “trend” of courts appointing retired Judges to head Committees and wondered aloud how Judges would feel if other organs stepped in to do their job. The government certainly has a valid point. As for instance, we saw how the Supreme Court stepped in to decide whether it was correct to send back those thousands of Rohingyas refugees who had illegally crossed over to India following the persecution they faced in Myanmar.
                                            If Government feels that they are a potential threat to the national security and must be sent back that should be final. Judiciary must refrain from stepping in an area which exclusively belongs to the executive. We all know how our national security gets compromised as it had been in the past when we allowed crores of Bangladeshis to illegally stay back in India even after their country got independence from Pakistan! Why should India allow Rohingyas to go and settle in Jammu and Kashmir from where Kashmiri Hindus and those Indian Muslims sympathetic to them were forcibly evicted and compelled to live as refugees in their own country! Why no voice is raised for them? Do they don’t have human rights?
                                       Why is it being treated so casually that Rohingyas entering India and being transported not to some other state close to Myanmar so that they can be deported easily when things calm down but to such sensitive places like Jammu and Kashmir which is directly attacked by Pakistan time and again which can never be good for the national security? Why should Supreme Court even think about allowing them to stay there after PIL is filed in their favour? How can human rights of foreigners who have nothing to do with India be bigger than our paramount national interests? How can it be ignored that many Rohingyas had killed about 100 Hindus and burnt their houses before fleeing to India and have links with dreaded terror organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba? How can Hafiz Saeed’s open call to Rohingyas to kill Indians be ignored while they are in India?
                                             To put things in perspective, while leading the charge was Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, who, addressing a session at the National Law Day function said that, “I have often heard an argument that judicial activism is born out of a phenomenon that other institutions are not doing their job, somebody has to fill the gap. It’s a flawed argument. It is flawed because if any organ of the state is not doing its duty, it can be directed to do its duty. Usurpation of power…by any other organ would never be the correct constitutional approach. What if the same argument was used the other way round against the judiciary? Arrears were pending, judges are not doing their job. So must somebody step in and now exercise that power? The answer is no…And therefore, it’s extremely important that the dividing line on separation of powers is maintained. And therefore, by creating arguments, the thin dividing line itself cannot be lost. Once it is lost, there is no limitation on which area it will go into.”
                                               What Arun Jaitley has said must be treated with utmost respect because he is not just any other Minister or Finance Minister who in the past has also handled Law Ministry but he was also one of the most revered senior lawyer of Supreme Court who even represented Central Government on many occasions till a few years back before ultimately plunging himself fully into politics and becoming a Minister! He thinks a lot before speaking anything and is not the sort of person who would say anything just to remain in news! This alone explains why Centre has very rightly handed him the key Finance portfolio and even the Defence portfolio has also been handled by him apart from Law!    
                                         Be it noted, the session, titled ‘Judicial Review and Parliamentary Democracy – Balancing the Separation of Powers’, was organized by the Law Commission of India and Niti Aayog. Calling for caution while exercising judicial review, Jaitley said, “While exercising the power of judicial review, one has to bear in mind that separation of powers is maintained in its entirety. The executive is not trained to exercise either legislative or judicial power. Parliament is not trained or really an institution to exercise judicial power. Judiciary is similarly not trained nor does it have that administrative maturity of exercising legislative power. In fact, if judiciary gets into the process of exercising executive or legislative power, directly or implicitly, the very institution of judicial review itself will suffer.” Judiciary must always bear this in mind what Jaitley has said!
                       It also must be borne in mind that Jaitley went on to talk of the “latest trend” of courts appointing “retired judges” to various committees to discharge executive functions. He said that, “Also this…new trend…alright, I don’t exercise the power myself (but) I will appoint my nominee to exercise the executive power, the nominees may be equally unsuitable to exercise the executive power because they have not been trained. Retired judges have been trained to write judgments…not to run sports organisations…Therefore this temptation of taking over executive power and exercising it yourself or through your nominees clearly violates the Lakshman Rekha (of separation of powers).”
                                     The moot question that arises here is: Why when judiciary exercises so much restraint that it has never till date ever ordered the creation of a single bench of high court in any part of India even though it is a judicial function and it understands the implications fully well of creating a bench in far off places due to which people have to face so many unnecessary inconveniences , it has never so ordered and always left it to the government to decide! The people of Uttarakhand from 1947 to 2000 till it became a separate state had to travel thousands of kilometers all the way to Allahabad to attend court hearings as there was no bench there but only one single bench had been created way back on July 1 in 1948 for such a big state like UP and that too in Lucknow which is just about 150 km away from Allahabad but Supreme Court never stepped in to save people from the huge inconvenience of travelling so far to Allahabad! Even now people of West UP about more than 9 crore of about 26 districts are compelled to travel all the way to Allahabad which ais about 700-800 km away from all these districts and benches and high courts of 8 states are nearer to West UP as compared to Allahabad still Supreme Court never stepped in!
                           As if this was no enough, Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge – Justice Jaswant Singh had recommended 3 benches of high courts to be created for West UP and hilly areas (now Uttarakhand) at Agra, Nainital and Dehradun but not a single bench was created even though on its order a bench was created at Aurangabad in Maharashtra, Jalpaiguri in West Bengal and Madurai in Tamil Nadu! Yet Supreme Cout never said a word on it! In 2012, Centre created 2 more high court benches for Karnataka which already had a bench at Hubli for just 4 and 8 districts at Dharwad and Gulbarga but not a single bench for more than double of the districts – 26 of West UP yet Supreme Court never said a word on this! The 230th report of Law Commission had recommended creation of more high court benches in big states in 2009 buit Centre implemented it only in Karnataka which till now remains the only big and sole beneficiary of it yet Supreme Court did not say a word on it!
                                 This despite the fact that Ban ki Moon who was UN Secretary General had slammed UP and not Karnataka as “rape and crime capital of India” and maximum pending cases are in UP about 10 lakhs and in Karntaka it is less than 2 lakhs yet it was awarded 2 more benches but Supreme Court said nothing! West UP accounts for more than half of pending cases of UP as was testified by Justice Jaswant Commission yet Supreme Court never ordered creation of a bench here! Even former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee demanded creation of a bench in Parliament but again Supreme Court kept aloof! It is no secret that maximum crime, maximum killings alkl take place in West UP yet it has no bench and UP tops the number of killings list of states and Bihar comes second yet UP has least benches in India and Bihar has none whereas peaceful states like Maharashtra, Karnataka and Assam have either 3 or 4 benches yet Supreme Court never stepped in even though it comes under its purview!
                               Truth be told, the lawyers of West UP have gone several times on strike as for instance for 6 months from July to December 2001, for 3 to 4 months in 2014-15 and have been striking work for more than 36 years every Saturday from May 1981 to December 2017 and is still continuing but judiciary has never stepped in to resolve this vexed issue! It has always chosen to kept aloof! Why has it never intervened for such a long time?
                                Truly speaking, the people of West UP who are litigants are compelled to travel whole night more than 700-800 km all the way to Allahabad without reservations many times and face many other inconveniences but judiciary never intervened! Why? When it can exercise itself restraint on this count where so many people have to face so many inconveniences which is a talking point everywhere especially in West UP then why can’t it act similarly in other cases also?
                               Warning that there would be no limits if the “Lakshman Rekha” is crossed, Jaitley said, “You probably (will) have a court saying where security forces are to be deployed is something which I will decide…” He added that if every high court were to decide on where security forces are to be deployed, for instance, “it’s an invitation to anarchy.” The Kolkata High Court had in October stayed the Centre’s move to withdraw Central forces from Darjeeling and Kalimpong districts, where they had been deployed during the recent Gorkhaland protests. This was subsequently lifted by the Supreme Court.
                           It has to be borne in mind that in his inaugural address, President Ram Nath Kovind who earlier has himself practised inm Delhi High Court and Supreme Court too touched upon the need for sepration of powers between the judiciary, legislature and executive, saying, “They need to be careful not to cross into each other’s defined spaces or give the opportunity to read transgressions where none is intended. This can occur in many circumstances. For instance, when extraneous comments and obiter dicta come to dominate public debates, crowding out of substantive understanding and deliberation of a well thought out judgment.”
                          It also cannot be lost upon us that earlier, addressing the inaugural session, CJI Dipak Misra asserted that judiciary was duty bound to stand with citizens if other organs of state encroached on their fundamnetal rights. He said that, “The fulcrum of governance – let it be legislature, let it be judicary, let it be executive – is that the citizens have been guaranteed fundamental rights and the governing entities are not expected to encroach upon it. The moment thery encroach upin it or there is an apprehension there shall be encroachment, the judicary is obliged to stand by them.”
                                   It is also of immense significance that the CJI sought to allay fears of judicial activism but stressed that it was the job of the courts to interpret government policies. He said that, “There is a perception that there is judicial activism. I must clarify. Protection of fundamental rights of each and every citizen is trhe sacrosanct duty of the judiciary which has been conferred on it by the Constitution. Fundamental rights have been expanded from the date the Constitution came into existence. Expansion of fundamental rights is done by the process of interpretation…Nobody intends, nobody has the desire to enter upon policy making areas. We don’t make policies, we interpret policies and that’s our job.” He has a point!
                                  Well said but again I must ask: Why Supreme Court has never ordered the creation of more high court benches in big states like UP and Bihar which are notorious for their lawlessness when even Union Cabinet Ministers like former Satyapal Singh have in past demanded the creation of 5 more benches at Meerut, Agra, Jhansi, Gorakhpur and Varanasi and considering the indisputable fact that Allahabad High Court is oldest in India completing its 150 years in 2016 and is biggest court in whole of Asia yet has least benches in India! All high courts come under the jurisdiction of Supreme Court still why has it never taken any action on this score?
                                 Why UP sends maximum MPs, maximum MLAs and maximum elected representatives and has maximum population more than that of Pakistan still has least benches and why when even Justice Jaswant Commission recommended creation of bench here in Agra was not a bench created here? Why Supreme Court till now has chosen to look the other way? Why has it never shown any activism in this regard not just in UP but for any other state as well? Why can’t it exercise such restraint in other areas also? It is high time and some serious introspection must be done and it must be always rememebred that “Even Judges are not infallible”! A good rapport is needed between executive, legislature and judiciary for running the country smoothly and clashes must be avoided by paying heed to what Arun Jaitley has said so elegantly! This is what our nation needs now!   
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Strike By Lawyers Of West UP Every Saturday For 36 Years Is Most Concerning

To begin with, it is no ordinary matter that the lawyers of West UP have been on strike every Saturday since May 1981 to protest against denying West UP even a single bench of high court even though the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission had recommended the setting up of a high court bench at Agra apart from Nainital and Dehradun which are now in Uttarakhand but not a single bench was created anywhere. On the contrary, Centre took just no time to create a high court bench at Aurangabad in Maharashtra in 1985 on the recommendations of the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission as also at Madurai in Tamil Nadu and Jalpaiguri in West Bengal! It was then that the lawyers of West UP decided to set up a Central Action Committee to pursue the most sacred and legitimate demand for a high court bench by fighting for it relentlessly till it reaches its logical conclusion.  
                                    It needs no rocket scientist to conclude that it is the “poorest of the poor” people among the more than 9 crore people of all religions, castes, communities and sexes without any discrimination whatsoever who will stand to gain the maximum if a high court bench is created in West UP! What is the problem then in creating a high court bench for more than 9 crore people living in 26 districts of West UP in 2018 when a high court bench for Lucknow for just 12 districts was created way back in 1948 on July 1? Why even after 70 years is Centre not prepared to create a high court bench in West  UP even though the people are compelled to travel for about 700-800 km whole night all the way to Allahabad as there is no bench here and have to spend huge money for staying, lodging and other expenses? Why can’t all this be avoided by setting up a high court bench in West UP or by attaching 26 districts of West UP with Delhi High Court which is so nearby?
                                             Why the high court and benches of 8 states and above all even Lahore high court in Pakistan is nearer to West UP as compared to Allahabad? Why the lawyers of West UP were compelled to go on strike for 6 months from July to December 2001 demanding the creation of a high court bench in West UP yet no action taken? Can anyone in Centre even dream as to how the lawyers managed to strike for so long thereby depriving themselves from livelihood for full 6 months and how they struggled to meet their daily end yet no bench created?
                                      Even in 2014-15, the lawyers of West UP went on strike for 3 to 4 months and even boycotted Lok Adalats and protested whole night outside the court but again Centre just gave empty assurances but nothing materialized on ground! Even in 2009, the lawyers of West UP went on strike and even called a bandh in whole of West UP to protest the decision to not create a single bench here! Even in 2010, the lawyers of West UP went on strike for a month demanding bench.
                                                      Most recently, the lawyers of West UP went on strike for a week from 14 October to protest against the Governor of West Bengal Kesarinath Tripathi being accorded a guest honour in CCSU and while staging peaceful protest, many senior and eminent lawyers among others got injured badly, the most prominent being Chaudhary Narendrapal Singh, OP Sharma, MP Sharma and Vinod Rana among others as Kesarinath Tripathi had opposed the creation of a bench in West UP in 1995-96 when Mayawati wanted the same to be done and had infamously said that, “Creation of a bench in West UP will be over my dead body”. Why this hatred for West UP? Have people of West UP ever opposed the creation of just one bench for whole of UP in Lucknow which is just 150 km away from Allahabad where high court itself is located? If Lucknow is capital then so are Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Dehradun and Thiruvananthapuram among others?   
                                      Why a high court bench at Port Blair for just 3 lakh people, a high court for just 6 lakh people of Sikkim, for just few lakhs of people of people in Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura as also in many other smaller states? Why a high court now for Uttarakhand since 2000 for just 88 lakh people but not even a bench for more than 9 crore people of West UP? Why such a raw and third rated treatment for them?
                                             Recently, President, PM and Chief Justice of India among others wished the nation on “Constitution Day” and everyone reiterated the dire need to make justice accessible to poor people! But I fail to understand why since last 70 years a single bench has been denied to West UP thus compelling people to travel without any reason so far to Allahabad to get justice? Why when 230th report of Law Commission recommended creation of more high court benches was it not implemented in big states like UP and Bihar which top in the crime rate, murder rate and still UP has just one bench and Bihar has no bench even though Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad is from Bihar? Why more than half of pending cases from West UP as acknowledged even by Justice Jaswant Commission yet no bench created here?       
                                         Why for a peaceful state like Karnataka 2 more benches were approved in 2012 at Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts even though a bench existed at Hubli even though the pending cases are less than 2 lakh and that of UP stands at more than 10 lakh pending cases? Similarly why many other states like Maharashtra and Assam have 3 and 4 benches but for UP which has maximum population more than 22 crore as CM Yogi Adityananth keeps boasting still has least benches in India inspite of having maximum pending cases in high court about 10 lakh and more than 58 lakh in lower courts?
                                          Why maximum MPs, maximum MLAs, maximum villages more than 1 lakh whereas in other states the number is not more than few thousands at the most, maximum districts, maximum crime etc all in UP yet least benches here? Why former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon slams UP as “crime and rape capital of India” still we see least benches here and here too West UP which accounts for maximum crime has least benches? Why even leaders of BJP as also other parties are repeatedly killed by criminals without any fear and crime rate is exceeding so much that even foreign tourists are not spared as we saw a Swiss couple beaten up badly in Agra still no bench here? Why even 100 year old woman is raped by criminals without any fear still no bench here?
                               Why Centre does not have pity on more than 9 crore people of West UP in whose support lawyers have been waging agitating for a bench since independence and which has intensified since 1981 when lawyers decided to strike every Saturday and make sure that no lawyer does any work on this day and unitedly demand the creation of a bench here? Why lawyers even started striking many times even on Wednesdays yet Centre took no notice? Why even Atal Bihari Vajpayee demanded bench for West UP inside Parliament yet no action?
                                         Why all Union Ministers, MPs and MLAs have unitedly demanded creation of a bench here yet no action? Why for 36 years lawyers of West UP have been striking which should find entry even in Guiness Book of World Records for most period of strike still no bench is being created here? Why in 1955 the then UP CM Sampoornanand had demanded the creation of a bench in Meerut but Centre didn’t agree even though Lucknow had a bench since 1948?
                                             Why this stupidity that the people of Uttarakhand had to travel thousands of kilometers as it had no bench and for more than 50 years were compelled to travel all the way to Allahabad as a single bench was created at Lucknow in 1948? Why bench was not approved for any other place? Why even after 70 years nothing has been done to remedy this grave injustice? Why inspite of population of West UP being more than any other state except Maharashtra and Bihar and here too areawise Bihar with 94000 square km is smaller than West UP with 98000 square km still it has no bench?
                                    Why inspite of repeated assurances by successive governments in Centre was nothing done to fulfil it? With what face is Centre denying a bench even now when Amit Shah who is BJP national President and Rajnath Singh who is Union Home Minister had repeatedly assured that a bench would be created once NDA comes to power in Centre and in UP? Why Centre feels that even if lawyers of West UP strike for 100 more years nothing will change?
                                      Why only lip service of “speedy justice”, “justice to be made accessible to the poor” and “justice at doorsteps” if no step is taken to create a bench in West UP where incidents of crime are touching dizzying heights? Why Centre fails to appreciate that lawyers of West UP striking since such a long time for 36 long years every Saturday and regularly holding meetings after meetings to chalk out new strategy to push forward the surge of creating a bench can be resolved only by creating a bench here in any of the 26 districts wherever Centre wishes to do so? Is it such a big deal?
                                       Should it not be done immediately? It is the litigants who will stand to gain and here too it is the “poorest of poor” who will benefit most if a bench is created here and all strikes every Saturdayand sometimes even on Wednesday and sometimes for 6 months in a row will become a matter of past! Does Centre not wishes this happens?
                                              Why then it refuses to take any action on this score? Why is Centre not taking some action to ensure that this more than 36 year old strike by lawyers of West UP is brought to an end by mutual deliberations, discussions and decisions? Why is decision on this score being postponed inordinately when a bench was created at Lucknow in 1948, in Dharwad and Gumbarga for just 4 and 8 districts and in many other places even though the law and order situation is worse in West UP as compared to any other place for which benches were approved? Why can’t Centre stop coughing preposterous excuses and create a bench in West UP by which more than 9 crore people will gain in equal measure?
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.    

Can Convicted Politicians Head Political Parties?

It must be said at the very beginning that there can be no two opinions about the indisputable fact that in India a lot of cleaning is required in political parties because politics has become quite a murky affairs as anyone can not just enter politics but even head political parties inspite of being convicted. It is also unquestionable that political parties are most reluctant to do anything on this score and let us not live in a fools paradise by hoping that their stand would change somehow in the coming years. So, it needs no rocket scientist to conclude that Supreme Court must step in and bar convicted politicians or even politicians who have serious criminal charges against them from heading any political party or from even being a member of it.
                                        While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me also inform them that the Supreme Court on December 1, 2017 sought the responses from the Centre and the Election Commission on a plea seeking to restrain convicted persons from forming political parties and becoming their office-bearers for the period they are disqualified under the election law. Can convicted politicians who incur disqualification to run for elections, head political parties? This question will now be dealt by the Supreme Court after a public interest litigation (PIL) suggested that political parties headed by convicted persons should be derecognized by the Election Commission.
                                             For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud sought the response of the Centre and Election Commission in this regard.  This Bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra while asking whether the court could stop a person from propagating his political views, agreed to examine the Constitutional validity of Section 29A of the 1951 Representation of the People Act (RPA) which deals with the power of the poll panel to register a political party. The Court clarified that it was only dealing with the question whether the power of Election Commission to recognize political parties under Section 29A of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 will also carry with it the power to derecognise such political outfits headed by convicted netas.  
                                                Needless to say, if an order is passed banning convicted netas, it is bound to take within its fold the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) whose chief Lalu Prasad is a convicted person and he will be worst affected by it. The fate of another important leader Sasikala, who claims to be the political heir to Jayalalithaa and who would have become Chief Minister if she was not convicted for corruption in a disproportionate assets case will also hinge on the outcome of this petition as she is presently in jail. Without getting personal, let me mince no words in stating unequivocally and unambiguously that all convicted politicians must be barred entirely not just from heading parties but also from being associated with politics in any manner as they are just not fit for it.
                                      Let me be upfront in saying: The real problem in India is that there are no parameters for politicians. Are politicians coming from some different planet? If not then why are they treated with kidgloves?
                                 Let me also be upfront in saying: Even for getting a very small job one has to be a minimum graduate nowadays but for becoming an MP or MLA or for heading a political party there is no such minimum educational qualification which is a huge mockery and an open travesty of justice which must be set right without forwarding any excuse of any kind! Why there is a proper police verification for getting any job no matter how small it may be but for becoming an MP or MLA, you can like Phoolan Devi indulge in mass murders or any other crime and yet no one can stop you from taking oath not just as an MP or MLA but also as Ministers and slam the charges as “politically motivated”! Why any person cannot vote from jail but contest elections from jail? Why are those who are in jail allowed to contest from jail?
                                          It is also worth asking: For how long will our democratic system be held hostage to such criminals and for how long will they be given a long rope? Why only politicians alone for whom the standards of recruitment must be comparatively much higher than other professions because they have a share in every pie and exercise untrammelled power in every field are given relaxations everywhere and are allowed to hold the entire system to hostage and make an open mockery of our democratic system? Why can’t politicians be also made accountable like others? Why politicians like Vijay Mallya who is a former Rajya Sabha MP are allowed to take huge loan of more than Rs 9000 crore and then allowed to flee India and enjoy luxurious live in London in UK with that money which is taxpayers hard earned money? Why special treatment for them alone?
                                               Be it noted, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra who is appearing for the petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay submitted that convicted politicians are barred from contesting elections but they indirectly call the shots by heading a political party and hold posts in them. He said rightly that if a person on conviction in a criminal case was barred from contesting elections, it would be incongruent to allow such person to form or head a political outfit. The plea said convicted politicians, who are barred from contesting elections, can still run political parties and hold posts in them, besides deciding as to who will become a lawmaker.
                                      Not stopping here, the plea has sought a ban on convicted persons from forming a political party and becoming office bearers for the period they are disqualified under the election laws. It has sought a direction to declare Section 29A of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 as “arbitrary, irrational and ultra-vires” to the Constitution and to authorize the poll panel to register and de-register political parties.
                                               Why should convicted netas have a say in deciding as to who should become a law maker? Why should they not be barred from heading political parties also? Why no action till now in this regard?
                                  Truth be told, the PIL sought framing of guidelines to decriminalize the electoral system and ensure inner-party democracy as proposed by the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC). The petition very rightly said that currently, even a person who has been convicted for heinous crimes like murder, rape, smuggling, money laundering, loot, sedition, or dacoity, can form a political party and become its president or office bearers. The petition named several top political leaders who have been convicted or have charges framed against them and were holding top political posts and “wielding political power”.
                                     Going forward, it said the proliferation of political parties has become a major concern as Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, allows a small group of people to form a political party by making a very simple declaration. “Presently about 20 percent of registered political parties contest election and remaining 80 percent parties create excessive load on electoral system and public money,” the plea said and rightly sought the implementation of the 1990 Goswami Committee on electoral reforms. The plea also claimed that in 2004, the poll panel had proposed amendment to Section 29A, authorizing it to issue apt orders regulating the registration or de-registration of political parties.
                                            It is noteworthy that senior lawyers Siddharth Luthra and Sajan Poovayya informed the Bench that under the statutory schemes, the poll panel was empowered to register political parties but it lacked the authority under the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 to deregister them. But the Bench while not giving a final order on this and fixing the plea for hearing after six weeks hastened to ask that, “Can a court restrain a convicted person from forming a political party? Can you stop a man from propagating his political views? It would be against the freedom of speech and expression to debar a convicted person from propagating political views through a party”.
                                    With due respect to Supreme Court, I would like to ask: Why are candidates barred from any government job if even their name is falsely dragged in by their rivals? Why only politicians alone are given the long rope? Why is it conveniently ignored that it is politicians who are running this country and therefore there must be highest standards for them in all respects otherwise we will continue seeing MPs and MLAs bunking session even when important Bills are being presented and not just this but also throwing papers on Speaker and using filthy language in court and resorting to all sorts of uncivilized acts?
                                       Why can’t they also be treated like others? Why recognition of political parties is not cancelled when their supporters indulge in wanton violence and destruction of public and private property and why are they not compelled to pay for all the damage inflicted by them or their supporters with their active blessings? Why even after raping and killing are they shown undue leniency but applicants for all government jobs are not shown any such kind of leniency?
                                           Which job can be bigger and more prestigious than that of politicians who become MPs, MLAs, Ministers, Chief Ministers and even Prime Minister? Still why no strict parameters for them? It is high time and this must change now. The earlier this is done, the better it shall be for the healthy functioning of our democratic system because it is politicians and politicians alone who are the bedrock of democracy and exercise control in every sphere in our country! Can anyone dispute this also?
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.   

Karnataka Assembly Passes Anti-Superstition Bill

To begin with, it must be appreciated that the ruling Congress Government in poll bound Karnataka has finally on November 16, 2017 got the controversial “Anti-Superstition Bill” passed unanimously in the ongoing winter session of the Karnataka State Assembly to eradicate evil practices with some minor amendments. It is largely based on the Maharashtra model. The much-delayed, much-hyped and hotly debated “Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Bill, 2017” which is popularly known as the “Anti-Superstition Bill has finally been passed by the State Assembly by a voice vote.  
                                      It may be recalled here that this Anti-Superstition Bill was earlier cleared by the Karnataka Cabinet on September 27. The Bill has exempted stamping of mudras on the body which is a practice in the upper caste community (Madhwa Brahmins), but advertisements that offer miracle cures for diseases have been banned. The Bill bans “Vashikarna” which is an occult practice of subjugation and also bans performing Vashikarana or advertising about it.
                                 Truly speaking, a Cabinet meeting which was presided over by Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah cleared the Bill to protect people against evil and sinister practices and to combat and eradicate inhuman, evil and sinister practices propagated/performed in the name of the “supernatural” or “black magic”. Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister TB Jayachandra told the media after the Cabinet meeting that the Bill proposes to ban ‘made snana’, which is practiced at Kukke Subrahmanya temple in Dakshina Kannada district in violation of human dignity.     
                                  Be it noted, Janata Dal (S) President HD Kumaraswamy requested that the Government ban the practice of conducting poojas in Government offices. He has a valid point. This will certainly minimize superstition to some extent and this is exactly what is the basic aim of the Anti-Superstition Bill that has been passed recently.
                                    While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that performing any black magic, inhumane act and evil practices in search of treasure or bounty, tantric acts which include physical and sexual assault will be banned as per the Bill. Rituals of exorcism, assaulting people under the pretext of exorcism, misinformation and creating a panic-like situation under the pretext of ghosts and black magic comes under the purview of the Bill. Very rightly so!  
                        It also gives me immense satisfaction to note that not everything is banned under this Anti-Superstition Bill. Any form of worship including pradakshine, yatra, parikrama at any religious shrines, harikatha, keerthana, pravachana, bhajans do not come under the purview of the Bill. It is also noteworthy that providing knowledge of ancient arts and practices, speaking about miracles performed by deceased saints and literature on them offering prayers, upasana, religious rituals at places of worship or at people’s homes, religious celebrations, festivals, processions, piercing of ears and nose, shaving of head, astrology and vaastu are considered acceptable under the Bill.
                                For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that among other things, it seeks to ban the controversial ‘made snana’ ritual (where devotees roll over plantain leaves with leftover food) in public/religious places. It primarily seeks to protect people against evil and sinister practices and combat inhuman and sinister practices propagated/performed in the name of “supernatural” or “black magic”. In all, 16 practices  are banned under the legislation.   
                                      It needs no rocket scientist to conclude that organizing macabre and bizarre rituals, offering magical cures which is just not practically possible and threatening people with dire consequences as for instance incurring the peril of divine or supernatural displeasure are also covered by this law. It is very sad to note that some people are condemning it without even understanding it properly or knowing even the ABC of this highly commendable law which deserves to be implemented not just in Karnataka but all over the country as a whole. We all know how people are made fool by many of those who have made it their open loot in the name of God. So I am very happy to note that Karnataka Government has made some commendable effort to check this which has to be lauded without any “ifs” and “buts”.        
                                         It also must be appreciated that this Anti-Superstition Bill of Karnataka has tried to draw a distinction between religious traditions and superstitious practices. It has borrowed some features from Maharashtra’s law also against black magic and other evil practices. Those who term this Anti-Superstition Bill of Karnataka as violating the right to practice and propagate one’s religion under Article 25 of the Constitution are way off the mark because certainly reasonable restrictions can be placed on the right to practice and propagate one’s religion which under no circumstances can be “unfettered and unlimited”.   
                                      Truth be told, we all keep seeing for ourselves so many times reports of most bizarre rituals being carried out openly right under the nose of the administration without facing any restrictions whatsoever. It must be reiterated that among the rituals, this Anti Superstition Bill outlaws explicitly the ‘urulu seve’ which is also known as ‘made snana’, in which devotees roll over food leftovers, the irrational practice of walking on fire, branding children and piercing one’s tongue or cheeks, human sacrifices, pelting stones in the name of sorcery (banamathi, mata-mantra), claiming to perform surgery with fingers, or claiming to change the sex of foetus in the womb and worst of all, ‘betthale seve’, where women are paraded naked as also sexual exploitation by invoking supernatural powers. This is most shocking!
                             What is wrong in outlawing such not just irrational practices but also dangerous and harmful practices by which those practicing it are harming themselves the most as also their very own children whom they profess to love the most yet foolishly indulge in such bizarre practices which should have no place in any civilized society under any circumstances whatsoever as they are completely inhuman and most exploitative carried out by those who exploit innocent and illiterate people for their own petty vested interests? In other words, no time should be wasted by all states in emulating Karnataka’s worthy Anti-Superstition Bill so that millions of innocent people are saved from being duped, harmed and exploited in the worst possible manner! The earlier this is done, the better it shall be in the supreme interests of millions of ordinary people in the longer term who are very easily fooled by those running business in the name of superstition who must be jailed and penalized heavily so that it acts as a “potential deterrent” to refrain from indulging in such abhorrent practices!  
                              On a concluding note, Karnataka State Government certainly deserves all the applauds and appreciation for having dared to bring in such a commendable Anti-Superstition Bill at the risk of antagonizing many illiterate voters who believe blindly in all such superstitions but this alone is not enough. All States must emulate it and further make more improvements wherever possible! It must be followed by many awareness campaigns so that people are educated properly on this score. Unless this is done on a war footing and on a mammoth scale just a tough law alone won’t act as a potential deterrent and people will continue to be fooled by those “spineless crooks” who believe in running their own shops at the expense of ordinary people!   
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Poor People Will Gain Maximum From More High Court Benches

Let me start by wishing my countrymen the very best wishes on this day that is 26th November on which day our Constitution was prepared after years of relentless toil. This alone explains why 26th November is celebrated as “Law Day” and “Constitution Day”. Our Prime Minister Narendra Modi, President Ram Nath Kovind, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra among others have very rightly expressed their best wishes on this auspicious day!
                                    It was rightly reiterated that the best tribute to our Constitution and its makers is to make justice more accessible to the poor. How better can it be done by setting up more high court benches especially in big states like UP, Rajasthan, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar among other states ? This has been reiterated even by 230th report of Law Commission which recommended the setting up of more high court benches in states.
                                       But what an unbeatable irony that only one state that is Karnataka has stood to gain by it because after this report was submitted in 2009, it is only in Karnataka that two more high court benches were set up for just 4 and 8 districts at Dharwad and Gulbarga respectively in 2012 even though the number of pending cases in high court is less than 2 lakh in whole of Karnataka whereas in UP which tops the states list among pending cases has more than 10 lakh pending cases and the cases from West UP alone are more than half of the total pending cases that is 5 lakh still we see that there is just one high court bench in Lucknow which is just about 200 km away from Allahabad created way back in 1948 on July 1 and after that not a single bench was created in any part of the state!
                                      What is even worse is that Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by Justice Jaswant Singh who is a former Judge of the Supreme Court was appointed by Central Government of former PM late Mrs Indira Gandhi to recommend at which all places high court benches were needed most. It recommended 3 high court benches for UP at Agra which is in West UP, Nainital and Dehradun which are now both in Uttarakhand but then were in UP but not a single high court bench was allowed to be created in UP and the people of Uttarakhand were compelled to travel thousands of kilometers all the way to Allahabad to get justice for which they had to bear unbearable expenses and waste many days travelling all the way to Allahabad. The net result was they became very agitated in demanding a separate state for themselves and we saw how Centre which refused to set up even a single high court bench there was compelled to set up a high court in Nainital!
                              Let me be direct in asking: Why when on the recommendations of Justice Jaswant Singh Commission a high court bench was created in Auranagabad in Maharashtra, Jalpaiguri in West Bengal and Madurai in Tamil Nadu then why not a single bench for UP even though 3 benches were recommended for it? Why Centre allowed the people of Uttarakhand to become agitated by not setting up a single high court bench there? Why Centre cared the least also for West UP which alone accounts for more than 57% pending cases as was acknowledged by Justice Jaswant Commission itself due to which it recommended creation of high court bench here?
                                       Let me also be direct in asking: Why inspite of lawyers of West UP striking work every Saturday since May 1981 till now that is more than 36 years to protest West UP not being given a single high court bench here even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission had recommended creation of 3 benches has Centre failed to create even a single more high court bench here? Why lawyers of West UP went on strike not for one month or two months but for more than 6 months in 2001 and for 3 months in 2014-15 and for one month in 2010 and many times strike even on Wednesdays yet Centre just kept assuring the lawyers of West UP that a high court bench would be set up soon was no bench created here?    
                                          Bluntly put: Why Andaman and Nicobar islands with just about 3 lakh population has high court bench at Port Blair but West UP with more than 9 crore population which is more than any other state except Bihar, Maharashtra and UP of which it is itself a part has not even a single high court bench? Why many other small states like Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura having population of just 14 lakh, 18 lakh and 24 lakh has high court since last few years and bench since many decades but West UP with more than 9 crore population has not even a single high court bench? Why for just 88 lakh people of Uttarakhand was a high court itself approved in 2000 when it was given statehood but for more than 9 crore people of West UP not a single high court bench approved even 18 years later in 2018?
                                       Why the more than 9 crore people of West UP have been compelled to travel all the way to Allahabad about 700-800 km away to attend court hearings as no high court bench has been created here in any of the 26 districts of West UP who are all unitedly demanding the creation of a high court bench and lawyers of all these districts have even created Central Action Committee to pursue the legitimate demand for a high court bench here since 1981? Why Sampoornanand as CM had recommended a high court bench in Meerut  way back in 1955 but even in 2018 no bench has been created here? Why Mayawati as UP CM had recommended the creation of a West UP as a separate state to be named Harit Pradesh way back in 1995 but still not a bench created here?
                              Is this not a violation of Article 14 of Constitution which talks about equality? Why talk about just West UP alone? Even in Bundelkhand, Western part of Odisha and many other parts in different states we see that people have to suffer all types of inconveniences because their region has no high court bench! Why the 230th report of Law Commission was not implemented in all these needy places?
                                   It is futile to talk about speedy justice as long as more than 9 crore people of West UP are made to travel more than 800-900 km away all the way to Allahabad to get justice! This alone explains why former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee as Leader of Oppositon had himself demanded the creation of a high court bench in West UP in 1986! One can understand that Vajpayee as PM could not create bench here because he didn’t had majority but what about Narendra Modi who enjoys brute majority not just in Centre but also in UP for which US President Donald Trump had even congratulated him especially? Yogi Adityanath as MP had raised demand for a bench for Gorakhpur which is his constituency in 1998 but 20 years later as UP CM he will celebrate 1 year of his completion in office but he is unable to create a sngle bench there leave alone West UP!      
                                   We see that maximum crime, maximum riots, maximum killings all take place in West UP still there is not even a single high court bench here! When a high court bench can be created in Lucknow in 1948 then why not a single bench in West UP 70 years later in 2018? Is this fair justice? Is this equality that both high court and a single bench are in Eastern UP at Allahabad and Lucknow so close to each other? If Lucknow is capital then so are Bhopal, Dehradun, Bhubaneshwar, Thiruvananthapuram not capitals? Then why no high court or bench in these places?  
                                         I fully appreciate the Lok Adalats and other steps like video conferencing to reduce the pending cases but they alone are simply not enough!  Government has just no other option but to set up more high court benches in all those places where needed. Former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon had himself castigated the law and order situation in UP and slammed it as “rape and crime capital” of India yet Centre is not ready to  set up more high court benches here!
                                   Maximum MPs, maximum MLAs and maximum elected representatives are all from UP still it has just 1 high court bench whereas states like Maharashtra, Karnataka and Assam have 3 high court benches or more even though the law and order situation there is much better than in UP! Is this equality?  Why UP which has more than 22 crore population which is more than the population of many small countries put together as UP CM Yogi Adityananth keeps proudly proclaiming every now and then has just one high court bench and that too so close to Allahabad? Why not a single high court bench for another lawless state like Bihar? Why only few states are accorded 2 or 3 or 4 high court benches and not others?
                                          Are we doing justice with our Constitution by acting in such a partisan manner? Why people of West UP are compelled to travel whole night to Allahabad many times without reservation as it is difficult to get it done in a short time notice? Why can’t the more than 26 districts of west UP have its own high court bench so that people don’t have to waste so much of time travelling all the way to Allahabad? Why such a third rated treatment for West UP since last more than 70 years of independence? Why is it ignored that initially from 1866 to 1869 the high court itself was in West UP at Agra before being transferred to Allahabad? Still why can’t a bench be created in any of the 26 districts of West UP?
                               I unequivocally hail PM Modi’s many initiatives like awarding the district where the number of pending cases are reduced maximum in a given year but they in itself are just not sufficient to address the burgeoning Frankenstein monster of pending cases unless more high court benches are created in big states like UP especially in West UP! Just recently a 100 year old woman was raped in West UP in Meerut and what is worse is that to seek justice she too has no option but to travel all the way about more than 700 km away to Allahabad as there is not even a single bench of high court here! What sort of justice system is this? Bench so close at Lucknow but no bench in West UP or in Bundelkhand like in Jhansi nor in far off places like Gorakhpur which CM Yogi represents since many decades!    
                      A serious disease like cancer cannot be treated by just a band aid or strepsil. All other steps to address the huge pending cases are bound to fall flat unless and until more high court benches are created in big states like UP, Bihar, Rajasthan among others! But nothing just nothing is being done on this score and only one state that is Karnataka has stood to gain from the recommendations of 230th report of Law Commission which till 2012 had just one bench at Hubli! Why is Centre not taking any steps in this regard? Why more than 9 crore people of West UP are being rashly denied “cheap and speedy justice” since 1947 till 2017?  Why if Supreme Court in near future direct Centre to create more benches will it have the temerity to term it as “judicial activism”? With what face? Why can’t it take emergency steps well in time?
                                       Eminent senior lawyer and revered jurist Harish Salve very rightly points out that if Centre does its job properly then judiciary will never step in! It is inaction on the part of the Centre that compels Supreme Court to step in for which it is then wrongly accused of “judicial activism” as a junior minister in Law in Centre dared to indulge in! Why Nehru can dare to create a bench in Lucknow in 1948 but no PM till now can dare to create even a single bench anywhere else even though Justice Jaswant Commission recommended 3 more benches?
                                  Why inspite of Allahabad High Court completing more than 150 years and being the biggest court not just in India but in whole of Asia has least high court benches only one just nearby at Lucknow and not at any other place like Gorakhpur, Jhansi, Meerut or Agra or any other place? Why no step is being taken to correct this historic blunder? Why a firm determination to carry on with what Nehru did way back in 1947-48? Have things not changed since then? There are many more such compelling soul searching questions which demands answers but no one is ready to ever address them! Just ritually organizing “Law Day” or “Constitution day” will serve just no real purpose unless serious steps are taken like setting up more high court benches as recommended very rightly by 230th report of Law Commission! Hope good sense will prevail!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.   

NGT Pulls Up Delhi Govt As Air Begins To Worsen

Coming straight to the key issue, with the air in Delhi beginning to worsen once again, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on December 4 has pulled up the Delhi government headed by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for not filing a comprehensive action plan detailing ways to deal with the condition. It also questioned authorities on why they held the India-Sri Lanka cricket match at Delhi despite the bad air quality? Why could the match be not held at any other appropriate place?
                                             Needless to say, this is for the first time that a foreign country are playing with masks on their faces! Not just this, some Sri Lankan players complained of uneasiness and one even vomited! It is most disgusting to see that knowing fully well what Delhi is going through yet Delhi was approved for conducting matches and that too not domestic matches but international matches involving players of other countries like Sri Lanka! This should never have happened at the first place!  
                                          While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that a Bench headed by NGT Chairperson Justice Swatanter Kumar directed the AAP government to file the action plan within the next 48 hours, even as the State government sought more time stating that both the Chief Secretary and the Environment Secretary had recently changed. But the Bench was very furious with the nonchalant approach of the Delhi government! It minced no words in making it clear what it wanted to convey to the Delhi government!
                                       For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that the Bench lashed out in no uncertain terms saying that, “Where is your action plan? Why have you not submitted it? What can we do if you keep on changing everybody? It’s not our problem if people don’t want to stick to you. You keep on doing meetings but tell us a single action or step you have taken in the last four days to combat air pollution”. Delhi government must take this rap on the knuckles most seriously. This rap has come from none other than the NGT!
                                     To be sure, the Green Tribunal was further more irked by authorities for conducting the third Test between Sri Lanka and India on December 3, which was disrupted due to smog and Lankan players had complained of uneasiness. Why was the match not shifted to some place other than Delhi or cancelled? Why was the green signal given to the match at the first place?
                                     It merits no reiteration that the Bench also minced just no words in making it absolutely clear that, “Every newspaper has been carrying headline that the air pollution was going to be higher this week. Still you took no action. Even the players were playing the match wearing masks. You should have not held the match if the air quality was so bad. Are people of Delhi supposed to bear this?” The Tribunal also pulled up the Delhi government for not introducing odd-even car rationing scheme at this point of time when the air quality is severe!
                                  As it turned out, the AAP government was also pulled up for not introducing the odd-even vehicle rationing scheme at this point when the air quality is severe. It said that, “You want exemptions for two wheelers but you do not apply your mind that these 60 lakh vehicles cause the maximum pollution.” It also said that despite stating before the Tribunal that 4,000 buses would be introduced to decongest the city roads, the city government has not procured a single bus even after three years of assurance. This is really most shocking to learn!
                                         It is the bounden duty of the Delhi government to act promptly because Delhi is our national capital and all this is battering our international image which can never be good for the long term national interests in any manner! Even UN just recently expressed its utmost concern over the pollution level in Delhi. Action has to be taken on a war footing and there is just no other way out.
                                            It is a matter of grave concern that pollution levels in Delhi has worsened on December 4 as the air quality index inched towards ‘severe’. The air quality index was recorded at 390ug/m3 (of a maximum of 500) and was in the ‘very poor’ range. Pollution levels had been shooting up over the past few days because of low wind speed and high moisture levels. This is the most worrying aspect and yet we see little action being taken on the ground to check this. The ground situation in Delhi has become so worse that 1 in 7 traffic cops has lung trouble.
                                     It must be added here that the NGT Bench had on November 17 directed the Delhi government and other NCR states to submit an action plan. The plan was supposed to contain measures that could come into force automatically when pollution hits emergency levels. It is a matter of deep regret that even though Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan have already submitted their plan well in time, Delhi is yet to do so!
                                  All said and done, the Sri Lankan players cannot be faulted for wearing masks. They wore masks to protect themselves from the thick smog that had enveloped the whole atmosphere where the match was being played at Feroz Shah Kotla Stadium in Delhi! NGT very rightly rapped the Delhi government for its inaction because if timely action had been taken, India perhaps could have been saved from massive international embarrassment! Delhi government must now admit its grave errors as very rightly pointed out by NGT and set them right by working very hard on this score so that the damage done can be undone to some extent if not fully!  
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Nation, Religion And Parents Can Never Be Changed

It is most hurting to see that the incidents of waving of Pakistani flags in India is growing by the day. This is most reprehensible and condemnable. Under no circumstances can it be ever justified. All this cannot happen without active political patronage of different political parties.
                                            Let me be candid enough to admit that in 1994 when I was terribly upset over many of my very good Hindu friends making a joke of me for not performing well in BSc especially in Second year in which I lost one year not because of my lack of hard work but because my Botany paper was not checked properly and revaluation result came after the Supplementary exams were over and only one of my Muslim friend Sageer Khan stood by me in a manner which I can’t describe in words I was very impressed by him and I told him that I too want to become Muslim like him and moreover I feel that in Hindu religion I have no place as my friends mock me and Lord Shiv too has no time for me.
                                     Sageer Khan was in tears. He immediately took my hand on his head and asked to me to give a vow to him that I will never change in life: Nation, religion and parents. He told me that just like he is a born Muslim and will die as a Muslim similarly I also should never ever think of renouncing my religion. He also asked me to worship Lord Shiv till my death whom I had worshipped till then but at that point of time had lost all faith in him. He said that, “All religions are but different paths and who all have one common destination God whom we call by different names like Hindus call God as Lord Shiv, Lord Krishan etc and Muslims call it Allah. One should never renounce one’s religion, God, parents and nation under any circumstances come what may because there can be no substitute for them!”
                                      Even in my wildest of dreams I had never expected that a Muslim whom I always thought of as “Mandir (Temple) tod (breaker) and Murti (Idol) tod (breaker) would one day make sure that I regularly visit Mandir (temple) and worship Murti (Idol). It was a coincidence that whenever he accompanied me to temple, the idol that I saw in front of me was not of Lord Shiv  but of Lord Hanuman and Ma Durga whom till then I never worshipped but since then always invoke their name!
                                           Such Indians who inspite of staying in India wave Pakistani flags must introspect and ask themselves: Is Pakistan a country worth staying? Certainly not. This alone explains why my best friend Sageer Khan once said to me that, “Those who shout slogans supporting Pakistan and wave Pakistani flags never go to Pakistan to settle there permanently because they too know fully well that it is a rogue country where Mohajjirs (Muslims from India) are still treated like refugees, third rated citizens and discriminated against and similarly those in PoK are not given any voting right or any other right and similarly the people of Balochistan are slaughtered like animals. I bet that if such Indians who wave Pakistani flags and shout Pakistani slogans are told to leave India permanently, they will themselves never go to Pakistan.”
                                         Sageer Khan further said once to few of his Muslims friends which I overheard from outside a room that, “Muslims are most safest in India and India alone. There can be no country more safe for Muslims in the world than India. Taliban  means student but see how Pakistan is making them terrorists. Jihad means a holy war by which poorest of poor benefits but see how innocents are being killed in name of Jihad. Hafiz means a person who learns Quran by heart but see how terrorists are naming themselves Hafiz in Pakistan! Mujahideen means a person (Mujahid) who struggles for betterment of society but see how terror groups are being named after it! Islam means “submission to peace” but see how violence is being spread in name of Islam! Nothing can be more insulting than this!”
                                     Sageer also said that, “It is only in India that Muslims can lay claim to Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi despite knowing fully well that these places have been Hindu’s pilgrimages site since time immemorial which I totally oppose. If Hindus also similarly lay claim to Mecca and Medina, will any Muslim in the whole world ever accept it? No, not just in Mecca or Medina but Muslims will not allow temple to be built in any place in Saudi Arabia or in any other Gulf country. I bet it.  Also, no true Muslim will ever offer namaz in a disputed site. Also, since no namaz had been offered in the site where Babri Masjid stood since last more than seventy years, it ceases to be a mosque. Moreover, Muslims must learn tolerance from Hindus who have been tolerating this nonsense since so many years”!  
                                         Having said this, let me also bring out here that there are many more like my best friend Sageer Khan. Mohammad Amir Khan was wrongly implicated in about 20 terror cases in 1998 and was wrongly jailed and tortured for about 14 years and his father died as he could not tolerate people calling him as “father of terrorist” and his mother also became paralysed and later died yet he still feels proud to wave Indian flag and calls himself an Indian! NHRC recently awarded him Rs 5 lakh compensation also for being wrongly jailed yet he never waves Pakistani flags nor shouts slogans supporting Pakistan! Such Indians who have never been sent to jail nor ever labelled “terrorist” nor tortured yet chant “Pakistan, Pakistan” and wave “Pakistani flags” must learn something from him! For me, Mohammad Amir Khan is the “real Bharat Ratna” who is a living testimony to prove that Pakistan can never give India what India can give to them!
                                      It is wrong to slap sedition charges against 11 people raising anti-national slogans during the victory march of a Congress candidate Sana Khan in Dhaurhara Nagar Panchayat in Lakhimpur Kheri. They must be asked as to do they really like Pakistan so much that they wave flags and raise slogans in their favour and do they really hate India so much that they abuse their nation. If the answer is in the affirmative then they must be immediately sent to Pakistan! Adnan Sami who was a Pakistani singer came to India and settled in Mumbai and took Indian citizenship! Why can’t they too behave similarly and take Pakistani citizenship if they are really so attracted to Pakistan?    
                                         My best friend Sageer Khan said to me in 1994, “I challenge that not one Muslim of India will ever be ready to go to Pakistan if they are asked to go and if someone still really wants to go then why stop them? Why slap Indian laws on them in which they don’t believe? Why treat them like Indians when they consider themselves as Pakistanis? Why accord them Indian citizenship? Why no national party is prepared to draft Uniform National Code in which clear provisions must be made that those who abuse India, burn Indian flags and wave Pakistani flags and shout slogans supporting Pakistan would be deprived of Indian citizenship and would not be given any benefit henceforth? Not one Indian will then ever dare to indulge in such anti-national acts”!
                                         But that is the real tragedy! Indian politicians of all parties including BJP will never dare to do such thing for reasons known best to them nor will they ever revoke Most Favoured Nation status wrongly given to a country like Pakistan which is the biggest insult to our soldiers and martyrs because it is Pakistan and Pakistan alone who is responsible for sponsoring cross border terrorism in India since last many decades yet we maintain cordial relations with them even though Kuwait has revoked all relations with Pakistan and ordered all Pakistanis to leave Pakistan as they get lured to terror acts very easily and are a grave national threat to them! Can Indian leaders of any party ever dare to do similarly? Never!
                                           This is the real crisis of India!  What can you expect from leaders who are themselves morally bankrupt and who believe in inviting Pakistani invaders like Gen Musharraf who as Pakistani Army Chief had masterminded Kargil war in which we lost more than 600 soldiers just 2 to 3 months after Kargil war? All leaders unitedly welcomed Gen Musharraf and not one word was spoken against him except one or two notable exception and that is Pranab Mukherjee who lambasted Centre for inviting a rogue who called terrorist as “freedom fighters” and terrorism as “freedom struggle” and also Maulana Mehmood Madani who advised Musharraf to not start his politics from India and not to worry about Indian Muslims as 95% Hindus are with them always which angered him to no end!
                                       Rajiv Chandrashekhar who is MP from Bangalore wanted to get Pakistan declared as “rogue and terror sponsor country” and had even placed a private members Bill in Parliament but not one national party supported him even though leaders of big parties in UN forum always slam Pakistan as “Terroristan”! This must change now if India is to progress! All relations with Pakistan must be nuked as long as it continues exporting terrorism to India and keep fomenting trouble here! But no national party is prepared for this for reasons known best to them! Before concluding, let me again reiterate what my best friend Sageer Khan said to me way back in 1993-94 that, “Anything can be changed but religion, parents and nation can never be changed come what may. Never forget this if you truly consider me your friend in life”. Absolutely right!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.  

PM: 3 Pillars Must Work Together For New India

Coming straight to the crux of the matter, let me begin by first and foremost pointing out that Prime Minister Narendra Modi on November 26, 2017 stressed the need for the judiciary, Government and executive to strengthen each other and work together for a new India. 
PM: 3 Pillars Must Work Together For New India
However, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra emphasized that judiciary has a Constitutional duty to interpret and enforce a policy or law and apply “judicially manageable standards” to assess if a policy of the Government be interfered with. CJI has a valid point and it is a fact that judiciary has always taken care not to step into the terrain of the executive unless and until it is absolutely the crying need of the hour!
                                   While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me also inform them that while speaking at the Law Day function organized by the Law Commission of India, both PM Narendra Modi and CJI Dipak Misra did agree on one point that to maintain balance between the three wings of the State, there should not be any claim to supremacy. The commendable restraint exercised by the judiciary can be gauged from one glaring but never highlighted fact that the first Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru created a single bench of high court for such a big state like UP (which has maximum population, maximum MPs, maximum MLAs, maximum Judges, maximum pending cases, maximum crime, maximum districts, maximum towns, maximum villages more than one lakh and what not) at Lucknow which is so close to Allahabad just about 150 km away and that too way back on July 1, 1948 but not at any other place! Seventy years have lapsed since independence but not a single bench of high court has been added till now in any hook and corner of the state by any Prime Minister till now!
                                    This despite the fact that Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed by former PM late Mrs Indira Gandhi had recommended the setting up of 3 high court benches at Agra, Dehradun and Nainital but not a single bench was approved for UP even though the hilly people of UP which is now a separate State called Uttarakhand had to travel thousands of kilometers all the way to Allahabad to attend a single hearing as there was no high court bench either in the hilly areas nor in West UP! What more raw discrimination can be on display than the irrefutable fact that on the recommendations of Justice Jaswant Singh Commission, a high court bench was created for Maharashtra at Aurangabad, at Jalpaiguri in West Bengal and Madurai in Tamil Nadu! But did judiciary interfere? The answer is a “resounding no”!
                                   The former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon had slammed UP as “rape and crime capital of India” and here too maximum crime, maximum killings and maximum riots all take place in West UP still not a single high court bench here! Even former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1986 had demanded high court bench for West UP in Parliament but 31 years later still no bench! The 230th report of Law Commission recommended creation of more benches in 2009 but even as 2018 is about to start only one state Karnataka has gained as 2 more benches were approved for just 4 and 8 districts at Dharwad and Gulbarga even though it is a peaceful states with pending cases in high court not exceeding 2 lakh but in UP where pending cases exceed 10 lakh we see only one high court bench at Lucknow! Is this fair?
                                   Why West UP which has more population than any other state except Bihar, Maharashtra and UP of which it is itself a part and accounts for more than half of the pending cases of UP yet has no high court bench here and litigants are compelled to travel whole night often without reservation all the way to Allahabad as there is no high court bench in any of the 26 districts of West UP? Why Bihar has not even a single high court bench which is again notorious for lawlessness and 3 or 4 benches for states like Assam, Maharashtra, Karnataka among others? West UP area is 98,000 square km and that of Bihar is 94,000 square km yet Bihar has high court but West UP not even a bench! The high court and benches of 8 states and above all Lahore high court is nearer to West UP as compared to Allahabad!
                                     Why has Centre utterly failed to do anything on this score? Why Justice Jaswant Singh Commission landmark recommendations for creating 3  high court benches for UP were disregarded due to which lawyers of West UP started striking everySaturday since May 1981 and even went on strike not for 1 or 2 or 3 but for more than 6 months from July 2001 onwards and for a month in 2010 and for 3 months in 2014-15 apart from many other strikes for many weeks together? Why UP has more population than Pakistan and is 5th largest in world in population and areawise also is bigger than many states put together yet has just one high court bench created by Nehruji in 1948 but no PM even 70 years later cannot dare to create a single bench anywhere else in 2018? Why Allahabad High Court has completed more than 150 years of existence and is among the biggest court as also oldest in whole of Asia yet has just a single high court bench at Lucknow and nowhere else? Why Yogi Adityanath as MP had demanded creation of bench in Gorakhpur in 1998 but even in 2018 we will see no bench? Why high court and a single bench both in Eastern UP but no bench anywhere else either in West UP or in Gorakhpur in Bundelkhand at Jhansi or anywhere else? Is this not the worst case of violation of the fundamental right to equality as enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution? Why BJP leaders are getting murdered every second day in different parts of West UP still no high court bench is being set up here in any of the 26 districts?
                                        Anyway, coming to main subject, Modi while putting it succinctly said that, “We know our individual strengths and weaknesses. It is not a question of proving who is superior as every decision or step taken by each wing affects the life of common man. The question we need to ask is whether as members of one family, do we work to strengthen and support each other in realizing the common aspirations of all citizens contained in the Constitution or not”. Asserting that the Indian Constitution is as vibrant as possible, and even more sensitive, Modi said the Constitution is accountable, competent and sacred and has kept the spirit of democracy alive. Why people of West UP are being punished to travel whole night without reservation many times more than 700 km all the way to Allahabad as there is no bench in West UP but only in Lucknow? Why people of West UP are not being given speedy and cheap justice at doorsteps by setting up a bench here?
                                 Hailing the makers of the Constitution, Modi said, “It was not easy to make a historical document which binds a country which has more than a dozen sects, more than 100 languages, and more than 1,700 dialects and people living in places with various beliefs.” Modi also called for judiciary to ensure that nobody rises above the law. He said that, “Nothing is above the law. The law itself lies in the power of the king and the law enables the poor to fight the mighty weak. While on the same mantra, our Government has also worked out new laws and dismantling old laws to Living the Ease of being.” I fully appreciate this landmark step of dismantling old laws and working out new laws but why can’t similarly old benches at places not required or at the very least establishing new benches at places where required like in West UP, Bihar, Western Odisha and many other places not carried out not even in any one place even as Modi is all set to complete 4 years in office? Why no action is being taken on  this score inspite of 230th report of Law Commission of India strongly recommending so?
                                         Referring to the President’s concern regarding the judiciary, Modi also made the case for equitable representation in the judiciary. He said that, “Yesterday, the honourable President also expressed his concern that there was a nervousness in coming up to the court for poor justice. The result of all our efforts should be that it is not frightened by the poor court, and the justices at the time and the procedures of the court are also reduced.” Claiming that the balance between the judiciary, legislature and executive has been the backbone of the Constitution, Modi said legislature, executive and judiciary should keep in mind the decorum dictated by the Constitution.
                                       Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad severely criticized the judiciary for failing to be accountable by stalling reforms in judicial appointments and hampering development by entering policy making spheres of Government and thus violating the golden rule of separation of powers. The CJI Dipak Misra countered this by saying that, “All wings of the State are bound by the principle of constitutional sovereignty and there should not be any claim to supremacy by any wing. I assure everybody that Constitution never envisaged what is not judicially manageable standard. There are instances where we have refused to entertain PILs as we felt judiciary cannot dictate Government on policy matters. But when policies are framed, we have a Constitutional duty to interpret it and enforce it.”
                                              What bigger proof is needed than CJI himself asserting that judiciary has refused to entertain PILs as it felt judiciary cannot dictate Government on policy matters. But the moot question is: Why Centre takes no action on several key issues like setting up more high court benches in big states like UP notorious for worsening law and order where even foreigners are attacked as a Swiss couple was attacked in Agra and a 100 year old woman was brutally raped in Meerut! Why Prasad who in his first tenure as Law Minister had favoured the creation of a bench in West UP has maintained a stoic silence on this in his second term? Why he can’t even set up one bench even in his own lawless state Bihar when UPA’s Law Minister could manage to set up 2 benches for just 4 and 8 districts?
                                              Referring to the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) case where a Constitutional amendment for appointing Judges was struck down by the Supreme Court, Prasad pointed to a High Court Judge sent to jail for contempt of court. He said this showed the quality of Judges selected by the Supreme Court Collegium and urged the need for an “audit” to ascertain what the country has lost in the process. But what about increasing criminals finding entry in Parliament and State Assemblies? Why no step taken to stop this open mockery of democracy?
                                      Why those bunking sessions of Parliament and State Assemblies are not deprived of their status as MP or MLA or at the very least why their salary is not deducted? Why politicians are allowed to contest from jails even though no one can vote from jail? Why no step is taken to bar those MPs and MLAs who resort to unruly scenes in Parliament or State Assemblies?
                                         Why when a single false complaint also can bar a person from applying in any government job then why can a person after indulging in dacoity, killings, rape, murders etc can still enter Parliament? Why no check imposed on politicians? Why politicians alone are empowered to decide their own salary and increase it as much as they want and whenever they want with no checks and balances?
                                      Why no change is being initiated on this count? Law Minister must very seriously introspect on all this before lambasting judiciary! Why even dacoits and rapists can become MPs and MLAs very easily after labelling charges as “false”, “fabricated” and “politically motivated” while imposing very high standards on other government servants like IAS, IPS, Judge or Army officer or even a soldier or a clerk when even a false FIR eliminates all chances of securing a government job? Why this worst discrimination? Are politicians above the law? Why then are they given exemptions everywhere? Why no transparency in political funding and why political parties are exempted from disclosing from where all they got funds and how much when others are all mandated by law to do so? Are politicians above law? If not then why are they treated so?
                                         Ravi Shankar Prasad said that his office cannot remain merely a “post office” to forward names of Judges forwarded by Collegium. The CJI differed sharply saying, “We never imagined nor regard office of Law Minister as a post office. We never ignore his views and many times out of mutual respect do not reiterate our recommendation acting on the views he sends…There may be certain occasions where orders are passed by Supreme Court under Article 142 (to do complete justice). But things are done and rectified later on.” What CJI is saying has a point.
                                      It is a fact that Gopal Subramanium who was a former Solicitor General inspite of being recommended by Collegium was rejected by Government on IB report which is no basis for rejecting anyone’s name! There are many more such unreported cases! Can anyone deny this? CJI further went on to say that, “Many things we have accepted with mutual respect. We are absolutely conscious where we can intervene and where we cannot. One institution should not claim supremacy over the other.”
                                  Acting as the peacemaker on the occasion, PM Modi said that, “We must strive to work together to strengthen each other and understand problems facing each other. The balance of the three wings is the backbone of our Constitution. This is the reason that despite Emergency we have maintained on the path of democracy.” He also emphasized on the Indian Constitution’s important role in the country’s overall development after independence and said it has withstood the test of time.    
                                     All said and done, PM Modi is absolutely right that all 3 pillars must work together for new India. New India is possible only if more high court benches are set up as recommended by 230th report of Law Commission of India especially where law and order situation is very bad like UP and Bihar which occupy first and second position in terms of crime and murders of persons yet Bihar has no high court bench and UP has just one bench and West UP which accounts for more than half of pending cases as was testified by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission has not even a single high court bench even though it recommended the setting up of 3 high court benches! Why is Law Minister inspite of coming from Bihar taking no steps in this regard? Can he please explain?
                                      When Law Minister from Karnataka can create 2 more benches for Karnataka despite one being already at Hubli then why is Prasad from Bihar sitting quiet? Can he again explain? Can Prasad explain why since last so many years more than half of posts of Judges were lying vacant even in High Courts like Allahabad and Calcutta and the latter had even rapped Centre for it?
                                          On a concluding note, before blaming judiciary for all ills, politicians must introspect and remember that when you point one finger at other you are pointing three fingers at yourself! Who is stopping Prasad from creating more benches and why no benches created in last 3 to 4 years inspite of his government enjoying brute majority in Parliament? Can he again explain? Every organ of the state should remain within its space, respect limits and do its duty under the Constitution as the PM Modi very rightly emphasized also while stressing on balance of power between 3 pillars who must all work together for new India!  
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.    

The Real Face Of Musharraf Stands Exposed Yet Again

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

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

Srikrishna Panel Recommends Setting Up Data Privacy Authority

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

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

Let Censors Decide On Padmavati: SC

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

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

Why Not A Single HC Bench For West UP?

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

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

SC: Engineering Degree Through Correspondence Invalid

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

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

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

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

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