Adv Yogesh Naik's B-law-g: May 2012

Thursday, May 31, 2012

NCPCR completes 5 years- Releases Guidelines on Corporal Punishment - http://nlrd.org

NCPCR completes 5 years- Releases Guidelines on Corporal Punishment | National Legal Research Desk:

'via Blog this'

The guidelines include some measures for affirmative action in schools towards positive development of children, for positive engagement with children, for creating an environment conducive to learning and for mechanisms and processes to give children a voice and engage in the process of creating a positive environment as well as for accountability and multi-sectoral responsibility. It considered physical punishment, mental harassment and discrimination of children causing both physical and mental harassment as corporal punishment.

“The release of the Guidelines on eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools is a commendable initiative by the Commission. These guidelines will serve as an important tool for sensitisation and creating awareness on the subject amongst various stakeholders,’’ said Ms. Krishna Tirath, Honorable Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Women and Child Development, while releasing the guidelines. “The guidelines released today are a comprehensive documentation of the perceptions about corporal punishment, and guidelines for affirmative action in schools for positive development of children,’’ she added.

Speaking on the occasion, Dr Shantha Sinha, Chairperson, NCPCR said: “the five years of experience in the Commission has shown that four essential management principles– decentralization, flexibility, institution-building processes and convergence — should inform and guide the programme implementation to ensure universal coverage of children in the 0-18 years age group.’’

“The Commission is entrusted with a vast mandate, covering a whole gamut of child rights. I would especially like to congratulate the Commission for moving away from welfare approach to a rights-based perspective, and thus imparting added strength to making the child rights justifiable,’’ said Dr Kishore Singh, UN Special Rapporteur on Right to Education in his Foundation Day lecture.

Smt. Neela Gangadharan, Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development also spoke on the occasion. “The release of the guidelines is both timely and relevant. The children of our country should also enjoy the fruits of development. The ministry recognizes that violation of child rights is not only the violation of human rights but also a largely an underreported obastacle to child’s development,’’ Smt. Gangadharan said.

Section 4 - Definition of Corporal Punishment

All forms of corporal punishment are harmful to the child. Currently, there is no statutory
definition of corporal punishment of children in Indian law.Definition of corporal punishment
can at best be only indicative. In keeping with the provision of the RTE Act corporal punishment
could be classified as physical punishment, mental harassment and discrimination.

4.1 Physical punishment is understood as any action that causes pain, hurt / injury and discomfort to a child, however light. Examples of physical punishment include but are not restricted to the
following:
4.1.1 Causing physical harm to children with the hand (hitting, kicking, scratching, pinching,
biting, pulling hair, boxing ears, smacking, slapping, spanking,) or with any implement
(cane, stick, shoe, chalk, dusters, belt, whip, giving electric shock etc.);
4.1.2 Making children assume an uncomfortable position (standing on bench, as wall chair,
standing with bags on head, holding ears through legs, kneeling etc.)
4.1.3 Forced ingestion of anything (for example: washing soap, mud, chalk, hot spices etc.)
4.1.4 Detention in the classroom, library, toilet or any closed space in the school.
4.2 Mental harassment is understood as any non-physical treatment that is detrimental to the
academic and psychological wellbeing of a child. It includes but is not restricted to the following:
4.2.1 Sarcasm that hurts or lower the child’s dignity;
4.2.2 Calling names and scolding using humiliating adjectives, intimidation;
4.2.3 Using derogatory remarks on the child, including pinning of slogans;
4.2.4 Ridiculing the child on background or status or parental occupation;
4.2.5 Ridiculing the child on health status of self or the family – especially HIV an d
tuberculosis;
4.2.6 Belittling a child in classroom due to his/her inability to meet the teacher’s expectations
of academic achievement.
Guidelines in PDF can be downloaded from here

Sunday, May 27, 2012

21 bills passed by the Parliament during Budget Session- 2012 - Constitutional Law News - Law, Lawyers, Advocates, Law Firms,Legal Help, Legal Experts,Judgements,Law Help, Indian Lawyers

21 bills passed by the Parliament during Budget Session- 2012 - Constitutional Law News - Law, Lawyers, Advocates, Law Firms,Legal Help, Legal Experts,Judgements,Law Help, Indian Lawyers:

'via Blog this'

During the Budget Session, 21 Government Bills were introduced in Lok Sabha and 5 Bills were introduced in the Rajya Sabha. In all, 21 Bills were passed by Lok Sabha as well as the Rajya Sabha, which included one Ordinance replacing Bill. Some of the important Bills passed were the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012; the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2012; the Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Bill, 2012; the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2012; the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Second Amendment) Bill, 2012; the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Bill, 2012; the Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development Bill, 2012; the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012; the Anand Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2012; and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Bill, 2012.

During the Session, 34 sittings of both the Houses of Parliament were held. Of these, 14 sittings were held in the first part and 20 sittings were held in the second part of the Session.
The first part of this Budget Session commenced on 12 March, 2012 with the Address by the President to the members of both the Houses assembled together in Central Hall. Both the Houses were in recess from 31st March, 2012 to 23rd April 2012 to enable the Standing Committees to examine the Demands for Grants of various Ministries/Departments and submit their Reports thereon. The second part of the Budget Session commenced on 24 April, 2012, after the recess.

Both the Houses discussed the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address, a copy of which was laid on the Table of the House on 12 March, 2012. Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address was adopted in the Lok Sabha on 19 March, 2012. In Rajya Sabha also it was discussed and adopted after a debate during the first part of the session.
The session was mainly devoted to transaction of the financial business. The Budget (Railways) and Budget (General) for the year 2012-13, were presented on 14th and 16th March, 2012 respectively.

After a combined discussion on the Budget (Railways) for 2012-13, Demands for Grants on Account (Railways) for 2012-13, Supplementary Demands for Grants (Railways) for 2011-12 and Demands for Excess Grants (Railways) for 2009-10, the Demands were voted and the related Appropriation Bills were passed by the Lok Sabha. The Demands for Grants (Railways) for 2012-13 were discussed in the 2nd half of the session on 25th and 26th April, 2012. The demands were voted in full and the related Appropriation Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha and returned by the Rajya Sabha.

The two Houses also held a combined discussion on the Budget (General) for 2012-13, Demands for Grants on Account (General) for 2012-13, the Supplementary Demands for Grants (General) for 2011-12 and Demands for Excess Grants (General) for 2009-10. The Demands were voted and the related Appropriation Bills were passed by the Lok Sabha and later returned by the Rajya Sabha.

During the second part of the session in the Lok Sabha, the Demands for Grants for 2012-2013, in respect of the Ministries of Health and Family Welfare, Urban Development, Home Affairs and Commerce and Industry, were discussed before being voted in full. All the other outstanding Demands for Grants in respect of Budget (General) for 2012-2013 of the remaining Ministries were submitted to the vote of the Lok Sabha on 3rd May, 2012 and voted in full and the related Appropriation Bill was passed and subsequently returned by the Rajya Sabha. During this period, the Rajya Sabha discussed the working of Ministries of (i) Labour and Employment (ii) Coal and (iii) Defence.

The Lok Sabha also discussed the Finance Bill, 2012 on 7 and 8 May, 2012. The two houses considered the Finance Bill, 2012 before it was passed/ returned.
The Lok Sabha had debates on matters of Public Importance under Rule 193 on (i) the situation arising out of widespread discontentment among the working class due to faulty Government policies; (ii) need to bring comprehensive policy changes in the Civil Aviation sector due to large scale mismanagement in the affairs of national carrier, i.e., Air India and also some other private carriers and need to look into the problems being faced by the workforce engaged in the civil aviation sector; (iii) steps taken by the Government to protect the river Ganga from pollution and the Himalayas from ruthless exploitation. The Ministers concerned replied to the debates. Two discussions on situation arising out of faulty policy for procurement of food grains and inadequate facilities for their storage and Centre-State relations remained part-discussed. In the Rajya Sabha three short duration discussions were held under Rule 176.

During the session, five important matters were raised by way of Calling Attention, namely the (i) situation arising out of incident of child separation of an Indian couple by the Norway authorities; (ii) need to include Bhojpuri language in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution; (iii) situation arising out of non-implementation of wage revision of Industrial Development Bank of India employees; (iv) situation arising out of severe drought in Karnataka; and (v) situation arising out of shortage of Drinking Water in the Country, particularly in Jhunjunu and Churu Districts of Rajasthan. In response to the two Calling Attentions, the Ministers concerned made a statement each and also replied to the clarifications sought by the members. As many as 56 statements were made by the Ministers on various other important subjects, including five statements by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs on Government Business.

Members of both the Houses of Parliament had a Special Sitting on Sunday, the 13 May, 2012 to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the First Sitting of Parliament of India. The Houses discussed the topic “Sixty years Journey of the Indian Parliament”. A resolution was unanimously passed by both the Houses at the conclusion of the discussion solemnly reaffirming total and binding commitment of the Parliament to the ideals cherished by the founding fathers of the Constitution.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 passed – Children in India get a new Law « LAW RESOURCE INDIA

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 passed – Children in India get a new Law « LAW RESOURCE INDIA:

'via Blog this'

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has been passed by the Lok Sabha today, 22nd May, 2012. The Bill was earlier passed by the Rajya Sabha on 10th May, 2012.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been drafted to strengthen the legal provisions for the protection of children from sexual abuse and exploitation. For the first time, a special law has been passed to address the issue of sexual offences against children.

Sexual offences are currently covered under different sections of IPC. The IPC does not provide for all types of sexual offences against children and, more importantly, does not distinguish between adult and child victims.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 defines a child as any person below the age of 18 years and provides protection to all children under the age of 18 years from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography. These offences have been clearly defined for the first time in law. The Act provides for stringent punishments, which have been graded as per the gravity of the offence. The punishments range from simple to rigorous imprisonment of varying periods. There is also provision for fine, which is to be decided by the Court.

An offence is treated as “aggravated” when committed by a person in a position of trust or authority of child such as a member of security forces, police officer, public servant, etc.

Punishments for Offences covered in the Act are:
Penetrative Sexual Assault (Section 3) – Not less than seven years which may extend to imprisonment for life, and fine (Section 4)
Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault (Section 5) – Not less than ten years which may extend to imprisonment for life, and fine (Section 6)
Sexual Assault (Section 7) – Not less than three years which may extend to five years, and fine (Section 8 )
Aggravated Sexual Assault (Section 9) – Not less than five years which may extend to seven years, and fine (Section 10)
Sexual Harassment of the Child (Section 11) – Three years and fine (Section 12)
Use of Child for Pornographic Purposes (Section 13) – Five years and fine and in the event of subsequent conviction, seven years and fine (Section 14 (1))

The Act provides for the establishment of Special Courts for trial of offences under the Act, keeping the best interest of the child as of paramount importance at every stage of the judicial process. The Act incorporates child friendly procedures for reporting, recording of evidence, investigation and trial of offences. These include:
Recording the statement of the child at the residence of the child or at the place of his choice, preferably by a woman police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector
No child to be detained in the police station in the night for any reason.
Police officer to not be in uniform while recording the statement of the child
The statement of the child to be recorded as spoken by the child
Assistance of an interpreter or translator or an expert as per the need of the child
Assistance of special educator or any person familiar with the manner of communication of the child in case child is disabled
Medical examination of the child to be conducted in the presence of the parent of the child or any other person in whom the child has trust or confidence.
In case the victim is a girl child, the medical examination shall be conducted by a woman doctor.
Frequent breaks for the child during trial
Child not to be called repeatedly to testify
No aggressive questioning or character assassination of the child
In-camera trial of cases

The Act recognizes that the intent to commit an offence, even when unsuccessful for whatever reason, needs to be penalized. The attempt to commit an offence under the Act has been made liable for punishment for upto half the punishment prescribed for the commission of the offence. The Act also provides for punishment for abetment of the offence, which is the same as for the commission of the offence. This would cover trafficking of children for sexual purposes.

For the more heinous offences of Penetrative Sexual Assault, Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault and Aggravated Sexual Assault, the burden of proof is shifted on the accused. This provision has been made keeping in view the greater vulnerability and innocence of children. At the same time, to prevent misuse of the law, punishment has been provided for making false complaint or proving false information with malicious intent. Such punishment has been kept relatively light (six months) to encourage reporting. If false complaint is made against a child, punishment is higher (one year).

The media has been barred from disclosing the identity of the child without the permission of the Special Court. The punishment for breaching this provision by media may be from six months to one year.

For speedy trial, the Act provides for the evidence of the child to be recorded within a period of 30 days. Also, the Special Court is to complete the trial within a period of one year, as far as possible.

To provide for relief and rehabilitation of the child, as soon as the complaint is made to the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) or local police, these will make immediate arrangements to give the child, care and protection such as admitting the child into shelter home or to the nearest hospital within twenty-four hours of the report. The SJPU or the local police are also required to report the matter to the Child Welfare Committee within 24 hours of recording the complaint, for long term rehabilitation of the child.

The Act casts a duty on the Central and State Governments to spread awareness through media including the television, radio and the print media at regular intervals to make the general public, children as well as their parents and guardians aware of the provisions of this Act.

The National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and State Commissions for the Protection of Child Rights (SCPCRs) have been made the designated authority to monitor the implementation of the Act.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 passed – Children in India get a new Law « LAW RESOURCE INDIA

Friday, May 18, 2012

M J Antony: Constitutional turf war - http://business-standard.com

M J Antony: Constitutional turf war: A resolute Supreme Court justifies its role in fighting corruption

'via Blog this'

As long as the courts limit the exercise of their powers in administrative law to prohibit the commercial use of yaks or order the replacement of fibreglass boats in the Andaman islands, the executive and the legislature think the judiciary is acting within bounds. But if judicial review is extended to core areas like distribution of licences for telecom or mining industries, the government can raise a dozen constitutional questions. For instance, it attempted a three-pronged attack on the telecom judgment in CPIL vs Union of India. Two were dented, but the presidential reference has survived to see another day.

The Supreme Court judgments in these cases have pre-empted the criticism against it and explained why the courts intervene in such cases. Last week, again, the court justified its affirmative role in the cases in which natural resources are mishandled by politicians and industrialists. In the Karnataka mining case (the Samaj Parivartan Samudaya vs State of Karnataka), several passages were devoted to the court’s power and duty in such cases.

“Wherever and whenever the state fails to perform its duties,” the judgment read, “the court shall step in to ensure that rule of law prevails over the abuse of process of law. Such abuse may result from inaction or even arbitrary action of protecting the true offenders or failure by different authorities in discharging statutory or legal obligations in consonance with the procedural and penal statutes.”

Justifying its order to hand over investigations to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the court stated that it was compelled to do so under the circumstances. “The only option is to examine in depth the huge monetary transactions which were effected at the cost of national wealth, natural resources, and to punish the offenders for their illegal, irregular activities. The protection of these resources was, and is, the constitutional duty of the state and its instrumentalities and, thus, the court should adopt a holistic approach and direct comprehensive and specialised investigation into such events of the past.”

In the telecom case, in which 122 telecom companies lost their licences, the court again foresaw the criticism. Therefore, it wrote: “We are conscious of the fact that the court should not interfere with the fiscal policies of the state. However, when it is clearly demonstrated that the policy framed by the state or its agency/instrumentality and/or its implementation is contrary to public interest or is violative of the constitutional principles, it is the duty of the court to exercise its jurisdiction in larger public interest and reject the stock plea of the state that the scope of judicial review should not be exceeded beyond the recognised parameters. When matters like these are brought before the judicial constituent of the state by public spirited citizens, it becomes the duty of the court to exercise its power in larger public interest and ensure that the institutional integrity is not compromised by those in whom the people have reposed trust and who have taken oath to discharge duties in accordance with the Constitution.”

In another major case, involving black money parked in tax havens abroad (Ram Jethmalani vs Union of India), the court said: “Instances of the powers that be ignoring publicly visible stock market scams, or turning a blind eye to large-scale illegal mining have become all too familiar. That such activities are allowed to continue to occur, with weak, or non-existent, responses from the state may, at best, be charitably ascribed to the broader culture of permissibility of all manner of private activities in search of ever more lucre. Ethical compromises by the elite who wield the powers of the state, and those who fatten themselves in an ever-more exploitative economic sphere can be expected to thrive in an environment marked by such a permissive attitude, of weakened laws, and of weakened law enforcement machinery and attitudes.”

The court is aware of the limitation within which it is working. However, “the continued involvement of this court in these matters, in a broad oversight capacity, is necessary for upholding the rule of law, and achievement of constitutional values. But it would be impossible for this court to be involved in day to day investigations, or to constantly monitor each and every aspect of the investigation. The resources of this court are scarce, and it is overburdened with the task of rendering justice in well over a lakh of cases every year. Nevertheless, this court is bound to uphold the Constitution, and its own burdens, excessive as they already are, cannot become an excuse for it to not to perform that task”.

Despite these learned passages, the government repeatedly points out that the judiciary should should not cross the Laxman Rekha. A simple answer from a judge recently was: if Sita did not cross the line, Ravan would not have been killed.

From - http://business-standard.com

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Congress (party) challenges US court’s jurisdiction in ’84 riots case - Indian Express

'via Blog this'

The Congress (Party), which has been named in a case in New York for its alleged role in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in India, has challenged the jurisdiction of a US court to hear the matter filed against it by a Sikh advocacy group.

On Wednesday, federal court Judge Robert Sweet heard oral arguments in the case filed by Sikhs For Justice (SFJ) on the issues of service, jurisdiction and the Congress’ failure to respond to the summons in the case. Sweet said the Congress has not filed any defence on the merits of the allegations of conspiring, aiding, abetting, organising and carrying out the attacks on Sikhs in November 1984. The party, however, has challenged the US court’s jurisdiction to hear the case of 1984 Sikh genocide.

Attorneys from the law firm Jones Day, representing the Congress, argued that under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a “corporation” cannot be sued for human rights violations by its members. Lawyers for the victims, on the other hand, argued that there is difference between the status of a “corporation” and “political organisation”.

The SFJ alleged that since the Congress is taking the defence that a political party cannot be sued under Alien Tort Claims Act, the victims will amend the complaint to include the names of UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi and national leadership of the party in their capacities as president and office bearers.

According to Jones Day attorneys, service of summons on the party through Hague Convention is flawed because the party’s headquarters in New Delhi did not receive the summons and complaint. They added that serving summons last year on Surinder Malhotra, president of the Indian National Overseas Congress (INOC) here, is inappropriate as the Congress has no relationship with INOC and Malhotra is not authorised to act on behalf of the party.

To this, SFJ’s lawyers said they have submitted evidence to the US court showing that summons and complaint was delivered in March, 2011, to the central authority in Delhi — established by the Indian government for receiving and serving judicial documents from foreign court as required by the Hague Service Convention of 1965. Under Article 15 of the Hague Convention on Service Abroad, which has been signed by India and United States, service is considered complete once copy of summons and complaint is delivered to the Central Authority.

They also presented evidence showing that after receipt and acknowledgement of summons in March 2011, the Congress had taken a series of legal actions to defend against the claims of human rights violations.

Sikhs for Justice, along with victims of the Sikh riots, had filed a complaint in March 2011 under Alien Tort Claims Act and Torture Victim Protection Act against the Congress for conspiring, aiding, abetting, organising and carrying out attacks on the Sikh population in November 1984.

From - http://www.samachar.com/Congress-challenges-US-courts-jurisdiction-in-84-riots-case-mfksNsafagh.html

Attorneys from the law firm 'Jones Day' representing the Congress party argued that under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a "corporation" cannot be sued for human rights violations by its members.

Lawyers for the victims argued there is difference between the status of a "corporation" and "political organisation".

SFJ said since the Congress party is taking the defence that a political party cannot be sued under Alien Tort Claims Act, the victims will amend the complaint to include the names of UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi and national leadership of the party in their capacities as President and office bearers.

Jones Day attorneys further said service of summons on the party through Hague Convention is flawed because the party's headquarters in New Delhi did not receive the summons and complaint.

Jones Day attorney said serving summons last year on President of the Indian National Overseas Congress (INOC) here Surinder Malhotra is inappropriate as the Congress party has no relationship with INOC and Malhotra is not authorised to act on behalf of the Congress.

SFJ's lawyers said they have submitted evidence to the US Court showing that summons and complaint was delivered in March 2011 to the central authority in Delhi, established by the Indian government for receiving and serving judicial documents from foreign court as required by the Hague Service Convention of 1965.

Under Article 15 of the Hague Convention on Service Abroad, which has been signed by India and United States, service is considered complete once copy of Summons and Complaint is delivered to the Central Authority, SFJ's lawyers said.

SFJ's attorneys presented evidence showing that after receipt and acknowledgement of summons in March 2011, Congress took series of legal actions to defend against the claims of human rights violations.

From - www.kirpan.com

Sikh for Justice, a US based Human Rights Advocacy Group, Pursuing Case of Sikh Genocide.

Ludhiana, Punjab (Mary 10, 2012): As per information provided by Sikhs for Justice, on May 09, 2012 in a first ever lawsuit alleging human rights violations by Congress (I), the ruling political party of India, US Federal Court heard the oral arguments on the issues of Service, Jurisdiction and Congress (I)’s failure to timely respond to the summons before calendaring the case for trial.

Judge Robert Sweet opening the hearing commented that Congress (I) has not filed any defense on the merits of the allegations of conspiring, aiding, abetting, organizing and carrying out attacks on Sikh population of India during November 1984 while Congress (I) only challenged the US Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case of 1984 Sikh Genocide.

Attorneys from law firm of “Jones Day” argued that service of summons on the Congress (I) is flawed because Plaintiff’s attempt to serve the Congress (I) in India through Hague Convention is not complete as Party’s headquarter in New Delhi did not receive the summons and complaint; and March 04, 2011 service of summons on Dr. Surinder Malhotra, President of Indian National Overseas Congress (INOC) in New York is inappropriate because Congress (I) has no relationship with INOC and Dr. Malhotra is not authorized to act on behalf of the Congress (I).

Plaintiff’s attorney submitted evidence to the US Court showing that on March 28, 2011, summons and complaint was delivered to the Central Authority in Delhi established by Government of India for receiving and serving judicial documents from foreign court as Hague Service Convention of 1965. Under Article 15 of the Hague Convention on Service Abroad, which has been signed by India and United States, service is considered complete once copy of Summons and Complaint is delivered to the Central Authority, pointed the Plaintiff’s attorney. In another case, Judge Sweet had ruled that holding that delivery of summons to Central Authority suffices the service on a defendant.

Defense counsel argued that Congress (I) cannot be sued as per the recent appellate court decision (Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum), which states that a “Corporation” cannot be sued under Alien Tort Claims Act for human rights violations by its members. While defending the filing of complaint against Congress (I) by the victims of November 1984 Sikh Genocide, the Plaintiffs attorney argued that there is difference between the status of a “Corporation” and “Political organization”. Unlike “Royal Dutch Petroleum”, Congress-I is a political party with a mass following and political network across India, which was used to organize attacks on Sikh population of the India during November 1984, so case filed against Congress (I) under Alien Tort Claims Act for human rights violations by its members is within the jurisdiction of the US Federal Court argued Plaintiff’s attorney.

Plaintiff’s attorney presented evidence showing that after receipt and acknowledgement of summons in March 2011, Congress (I) took series of legal actions to defend against the claims of human rights violations. Plaintiff’s attorney presented “Clerk’s Certificate” of October 06, 2011 issued by Ruby J. Krajick noting Congress (I)’s default, argued that defendant’s default is willful and intentional and thus warrants entry of default judgment by the court.

According to attorney Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, legal advisor to SFJ, Congress (I)’s complicity in November 1984 Sikh Genocide and its lack of defense to the allegations became obvious when it defended itself only on procedural issues related the case during oral arguments before the US Court. Congress (I) has no defense to the charges of organizing systematic killing of Sikhs during the first week of November 1984, added Pannun.

Since before US Court, the Congress (I) is taking the defense that a political party cannot be sued under Alien Tort Claims Act, the victims will amend the complaint to include the names of Sonia Gandhi and national leadership of the Congress (I) in their capacities as President and office bearers of the Congress (I)

Also at - http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Cong-challenges-US-jurisdiction-in-1984-anti-Sikh-riots/Article1-853440.aspx

Friday, May 11, 2012

Justice Bhandari elected to ICJ - The Hindu

The Hindu : News / National : Justice Bhandari elected to ICJ:

Justice Dalveer Bhandari

India's nominee Justice Dalveer Bhandari of the Supreme Court was on Friday elected to the post of Judge of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the elections held in New York, United States.

Justice Dalveer Bhandari defeated the 84-year-old Justice Florentino Feliciano of the Philippines in the elections held to fill the casual vacancy following the resignation of Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh from Jordan in October 2011. He will have six-year tenure. He is eligible for re-election for a second term of nine years at the end of the present term.

Justice Bhandari expressed his happiness on being elected to the ICJ. He said he secured 122 out of 197 votes in the General Assembly and 13 out of 15 votes in the Security Council.

He will be the third Asian representative in the 15-member ICJ. As per Article 8 of the ICJ statute the General Assembly and the Security Council elect a judge for the ICJ.

In the past, Sir Benegal Rau (1950s), Dr. Nagendra Singh (1970-80s) and Justice R.S. Pathak (1988-90), former Chief Justice of India, had served as Judges of the ICJ. Two persons served as ad hoc Judges namely: M.C. Chagla in a dispute with Portugal in the 1950s and Jeevan Reddy in a dispute with Pakistan in 2002.

The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It consists of 15 Judges who serve for nine years. Out of 15 Judges, the distribution is 3 for Africa; 2 for Latin America; 3 for Asia; 5 for Western Europe and other States and 2 for Eastern Europe.

At present, among the 15 Judges on the Bench of ICJ, two representatives from Asia are: Hisashi Owada from Japan, who is also the president, and Xue Hanqin from China.

Supreme Court lawyer Mohan Katarki, an expert in international law and water disputes and one who is familiar with the working of the ICJ, told The Hindu“election of an Indian nominee to the ICJ with a proven judicial background may help in strengthening the institutional competence to handle complex disputes on environmental or ecological issues in the era of climate change possibility.”

Vast experience

Justice Bhandari (64) has vast experience in international law and is familiar with the working of the U.N. organisations. On April 21, 2009, he delivered the Key Note address on “Transnational Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights” at the 5th International Judges Conference on Intellectual Property Law organised by the Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation at Washington DC, U.S.A. He was nominated as a Member of “3rd High Level Indo-Australian Legal Forum Meet” held on 9th - 10th November, 2011 at New Delhi which consisted of Chief Justices, Judges, Attorney Generals from India and Australia.

He has been selected as one of the 16 most illustrious and distinguished alumnus in the 150 years (1859-2009) history of the Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, U.S.A.

He was unanimously elected as President of the India International Law Foundation in 2007. He is continuing in that position. Justice Bhandari, who is due to retire in September, will have to resign as a judge of the Supreme Court to take up his new assignment
.
'via Blog this'

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Vice President Adresses the Golden Jubilee Celebrations of Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh - Press Information Bureau English Releases

Press Information Bureau English Releases:

'via Blog this'

The Vice President of India Shri M. Hamid Ansari has said that the role of lawyers in the initial years of our independence was critical in emphasizing the Rule of Law in the governance of the country. As intellectuals and civil society activists, advocates were role models in society helping the marginalized and the downtrodden. Addressing at the “Golden Jubilee celebrations of Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana” at Chandigarh today, he said that this audience is well aware of the dicta of our courts that “Advocacy touches and asserts the primary value of freedom of expression, which is essential to the rule of law and liberty of citizens”. The Supreme Court has held that a social duty is cast upon the legal profession to show the people beacon light by their conduct and actions. The poor, uneducated and exploited mass of the people need a helping hand from the legal profession.
Shri Ansari said that by the same token, and for the same reason, the Supreme Court has held: “An advocate is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable. Ignoring even a minor violation/misconduct militates against the fundamental foundation of the public justice system”.
Following is the text of the Vice President’s address :
“It gives me great pleasure to participate in the Golden Jubilee Celebrations of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. During its fifty years of existence, the Bar Council has discharged with distinction and excellence its mandate under provisions of the Advocate Act 1961.
Law as religious prescription and philosophical discourse has a long and distinguished history in India starting from the Vedic age. Secular law differed widely from one region to another and from one ruler to the other. Notable court systems for civil and criminal matters were in existence, for example, under the Mauryans and the Mughals.
The sterling role of the Indian Bar in the independence of the country, in formulating our Constitution and thereafter in providing leadership inputs for steering the fledgling Republic is a matter of record and needs no elaboration.
The overwhelming majority of our founding fathers were lawyers including the Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi, our First President Babu Rajendra Prasad, the First Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution Dr. Ambedkar. The role of lawyers in the initial years of our independence was critical in emphasizing the Rule of Law in the governance of the country. As intellectuals and civil society activists, advocates were role models in society helping the marginalized and the downtrodden.
A golden jubilee is an appropriate occasion to recall the first principles of the calling of law and for its practitioners to rededicate themselves to these principles. Advocates, in addition to being professionals, are also officers of the courts. They play a vital role in the administration of justice and have a huge responsibility towards the society.
This audience is well aware of the dicta of our courts that “Advocacy touches and asserts the primary value of freedom of expression, which is essential to the rule of law and liberty of citizens”. The Supreme Court has held that a social duty is cast upon the legal profession to show the people beacon light by their conduct and actions. The poor, uneducated and exploited mass of the people need a helping hand from the legal profession.
By the same token, and for the same reason, the Supreme Court has held: “An advocate is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable. Ignoring even a minor violation/misconduct militates against the fundamental foundation of the public justice system”.
I believe the legal profession can, indeed must, reclaim the hallowed ground that it occupied during our freedom struggle and in the early years of the fledgling republic. The need for introspection is imperative; it should lead to an ethical renewal in actual practice. It is essential for the legal profession today to help expedite the dispensation of justice.
I am confident that the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana would lead such an effort so that the profession becomes a beacon light to our society and polity, and provides a helping hand to empower the poor and needy. I thank Pawan Kumar Bansal ji and Shri Lekh Raj Sharma for inviting me to this function and wish the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana every success in the decades ahead in fulfilling its mandate.”
*****

Pages