Eve-teasing is punishable, do not endure it silently - Hindustan Times

Eve-teasing is punishable, do not endure it silently - Hindustan Times:

Though eve- teasing and molestation are offence in India, women face these often while travelling in public transport, walking on the street and at work places. Woefully, women ignore such offences to avoid the harassment of going to police or court of law and endure a mental agony.

Eve-teasing is an act of perversion that includes actions like touching, rubbing, groping, staring, pinching, slapping a woman or showing her private parts or pornographic material, which intrude upon her privacy.

Although eve-teasing has not been defined as an offence in any law in India, similar behaviour is punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the legal remedy available to the victim is lodging a complaint with the police or magistrate. Section 298 (A) and (B) of Indian Penal Code prescribes upto three months imprisonment for making obscene gestures or remarks to a woman.

For showing pornographic or obscene pictures, books or slips to a woman, Section 292 of the IPC prescribes upto two years imprisonment. The same punishment, with or without a fine, is meted out under Section is 354 (IPC) to those who use force or assault a woman to outrage her modesty.

If the complaint of making obscene gestures, indecent body language and lewd comments concerning a woman or exhibiting any such object, which intrudes upon the woman’s privacy is proved, Section 509 of the IPC prescribes punishment upto one year imprisonment or fine.

However, these offences are bailable. More often than not, the offender easily gets away with a bail immediately on his arrest, which protects him from suffering in jail custody. The high prevalence of these offences point out that legislature should look into these provisions of law afresh and make them non-bailable to prevent their occurrence.

But experts also feel that if this happens, women may misuse the law to falsely implicate anyone. The need of the hour is thus to raise awareness about the existing law at least, if not modifying it. Most of these acts cases go unreported at present, as victims are not aware if these are offences.

Psychologists are of the opinion that the men indulge in these acts as they are either sexually repressed or believe that they are more powerful — physically and emotionally than women. Law and police should take the offence seriously to protect the modesty of women.

Anamika Pandey , Hindustan Times
The author is a Calcutta High Court advocate

'via Blog this'

CBI launches search at iron ore exporters, miners

A week after the Supreme Court ordered for an inquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged illegal export of 5 million metric tonnes of iron ore from Belekeri port in Karnataka, the CBI officials have conducted search operations on several iron ore exporters and mining firms at various firms in Bangalore, Karwar, Hospet and Goa.

The CBI officials had filed first information report (FIR) on late Friday and the search operations began in the early hours on Saturday.

The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) of CBI, Bangalore has registered five regular cases and one preliminary enquiry against various firms and exporters in connection with illegally excavated iron ore totaling five million tonnes and subsequent export from Belekeri Port in Karnataka.

According to CBI official sources, 15 teams of CBI officials began search operations at 17 places including residences and offices of several exporters. However, no arrests have been made so far. However, the officials did not disclose the names of these firms.

Hearing on the writ petition (civil) No. 562/2009, the Supreme Court on September 7, 2012, had ordered for detailed inquiry on the alleged export of 5 million metric tonnes of iron ore worth Rs 2,500 crore between January 1, 2009 to May 31, 2010 from several minor ports including Belekeri, a designated port for export of iron ore in Karnataka.

According to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) of Supreme Court, as many as 73 exporters have exported as much as five million tonnes of iron ore illegally from the ports in Karnataka between January 2009 and May 2010. During the period, the state government had issued mineral dispatch permits (MDPs) for only about 3.82 million tonnes for export from the Belekeri port in Karnataka.

“The transportation of such a huge quantity of iron ore involving over 500,000 truck trips could not have been possible without the knowledge and active connivance of the officers and other public servants concerned,” CEC report had said.

The CEC has indicted four leading exporters such as ILC Industries Limited (986,000 tonnes), Dream Logistics Company (India) Pvt Limited (916,000 tonnes), S B Logistics (774,000 tonnes) and Shree Mallikarjuna Shipping Pvt Ltd (723,000 tonnes). The ore was exported from the Belekeri port.

It may be noted that of the 5 million tonnes of iron ore illegally exported, over 800,000 tonnes were actually under orders of seizure by the Forest Department and the Court before it was exported in violation of the orders.

'via Blog this'

Other Posts on the same topic :-

http://yogeshnaiks-blawg.blogspot.in/2012/06/hindu-news-national-how-mining-mafia.html

http://yogeshnaiks-blawg.blogspot.in/2010/03/all-is-not-well-at-belekeri-ore-export.html

http://yogeshnaiks-blawg.blogspot.in/2010/12/cid-files-charges-names-7-in-missing.html

http://yogeshnaiks-blawg.blogspot.in/2011/11/karnataka-cid-chargesheets-sharad.html

HC raps police over 'arbitrary' arrest of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi - Mumbai - DNA

HC raps police over 'arbitrary' arrest of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi - Mumbai - DNA:

Dubbing the arrest of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi on the charge of sedition as "arbitrary" and on "frivolous" grounds, the Bombay High Court today said it breached his freedom of speech and expression.

The court also said it intended to lay down guidelines for application of the pre-Independence law to ensure that liberties guaranteed to citizens in a civil society are not encroached.

"How can you (police) arrest people on frivolous grounds? You arrest a cartoonist and breach his liberty of freedom of speech and expression," a division bench of justices D Y Chandrachud and Amjad Sayyed said, voicing strong displeasure over the arrest of Kanpur-based cartoonist whom it had granted bail two days back.

The Kanpur-based cartoonist, arrested last Saturday, was released on Monday after the high court granted him bail amid mounting public outcry.

Observing that Trivedi's arrest was prima facie "arbitrary", the court said, "We have one Aseem Trivedi who was courageous enough to raise his voice and stand against this, but what about several others whose voices are shut by police."

The court was hearing a PIL filed by a lawyer Sanskar Marathe against Trivedi's arrest, which he described as "illegal, bad in law, and unjustified".

Noting that the law governing sedition was a pre- Independence provision in the statute book when government wanted protection from citizens, the bench said it intended to lay "parameters" for its application to check misuse.

"If there are no parameters there will be serious encroachment of a person's liberties guaranteed to him in a civil society," the bench said.

Demanding that the police satisfy the court regarding the justification for applying the provisions of section 124 A of IPC relating to sedition in Trivedi's case, the court asked the police to file a comprehensive affidavit by October 12 detailing reasons for its application.

"Today you attacked a cartoonist, tomorrow you will attack a filmmaker and then a writer. We live in a free society and everyone has freedom of speech and expression," the court observed.

"What is the government's stand now? Does it intend to drop the charge? Someone has to take political responsibility for this. Why did the police not apply its mind before arresting him on sedition charges," the court wanted to know.

Appearing for the government facing criticism over Trivedi's arrest, additional public prosecutor Jayesh Yagnik told the court the Assistant Commissioner of Police probing the case was in a meeting with the law and judiciary department to ascertain maintainability of sedition charge against the cartoonist.

The court added Trivedi as respondent in the PIL.

Advocate Mihir Desai appearing for Trivedi told the court he would file an affidavit seeking to quash the case on the next date of hearing.

Trivedi was arrested on September 8 on the basis of a complaint filed in December by a member of Republican Party of India Amit Katarnayea, who had alleged that the latter had put up banners mocking the Constitution during Anna Hazare's rally held last year at the Bandra Kurla Complex. It was also alleged that he had put obscene content on his website.

He was on Monday remanded in judicial custody till September 24, after police said they no longer required his custody and Trivedi refused to seek bail. However, the high court granted him bail while hearing Marathe's PIL two days later.

The city police had come under fire over Trivedi's arrest from activists and politicians including BJP leader L K Advani, who equated it with conditions reminiscent of Emergency.

'via Blog this'

Whistleblower in UBS tax case gets record $104 million | Reuters

Whistleblower in UBS tax case gets record $104 million | Reuters:

The whistleblower in a breakthrough tax fraud case against Swiss bank UBS AG has won a record-setting $104 million reward from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, a handsome payout that could entice more informants to come forward.

Bradley Birkenfeld, who once confessed to smuggling diamonds in a toothpaste tube, was not present at the news conference on Tuesday where his award was announced by his lawyers.

He was released from prison just last month and is living in New Hampshire under home confinement at a friend's estate where he is gardening and assisting with other jobs involving manual labor on the property, the lawyers said.

Based on netting roughly $44 million after paying federal taxes and legal fees, which tax lawyers not involved in the case called a reasonable estimate, Birkenfeld realized about $46,000 for each day he spent in prison.

In a case that shook Swiss banking to its core, UBS in 2009 entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and paid $780 million in fines, penalties, interest and restitution to settle charges that it helped thousands of wealthy Americans hide billions of dollars in secret Swiss accounts.

U.S. authorities are still investigating other Swiss banks.

Birkenfeld knew the inner workings of UBS and spilled many secrets about his former employer's dealings with U.S. clients. But he was jailed after the government said that he withheld other information and he spent 30 months in prison.

He is scheduled to be freed from home confinement in late November and he is continuing to help government tax authorities with their investigations, said his lawyers, Stephen Kohn and Dean Zerbe, who would not discuss their cut of the award.

The sum paid by the IRS to Birkenfeld is "the largest whistleblower reward issued to a single individual," Kohn said.

In October 2010, a GlaxoSmithKline Plc quality manager won $96 million for exposing manufacturing defects at a plant in Puerto Rico. The drug company paid $750 million to settle the charges.

Bryan Skarlatos, a tax lawyer with law firm Kostelanetz & Fink LLP, said the IRS whistleblower program is likely to become a bigger deal now, "people will come out of the woodwork."

ENCOURAGING WHISTLEBLOWERS

Solomon Wisenberg, a partner at law firm Barnes & Thornburg, said the award would draw attention to the IRS whistleblower program.

"Certainly there are a number of tax scams out there still, and this sends a message: if I know something about that, even if I am involved, I can get something for me out of that," Wisenberg said.

Confirmed by the IRS, the award comes as U.S. and European authorities are investigating a wide range of tax evasion cases involving people with accounts in Switzerland, a long-standing bastion of banking secrecy that is being forced to change.

In 2010, UBS agreed to disclose 4,450 American client names to U.S. authorities. Eleven Swiss banks are known still to be under U.S. scrutiny. The Swiss have been seeking a legal deal to remove the taint from their financial industry.

The crackdown comes at a time of massive budget deficits for the U.S. government and pressure on the IRS to collect more tax.

The information provided by Birkenfeld has brought in $5 billion in taxes from "big banks and wealthy individuals who tried to evade paying their fair share," Zerbe said.

The IRS whistleblower program gathers information from people who want to alert the tax-collecting agency to misconduct. Last year, the program collected only $48 million in tax revenues, down from $464 million in fiscal 2010. New whistleblower cases were down as well.

Those results drew criticism earlier this year from Republican Senator Charles Grassley, who wrote legislation overhauling the program in 2006. But Grassley said on Tuesday the Birkenfeld case showed the whistleblower program can work.

Wisenberg said friends of big business in Congress might argue that it was an outrage for someone involved to get so large an award.

"But if ever there was anyone who deserved a big reward it was this guy," he said. "He's done something no one's ever done before, essentially brought the Swiss banks to their knees."

'via Blog this'

'Evening courts might disrupt law and order' - The Times of India

'Evening courts might disrupt law and order' - The Times of India:

Lawyers in Punjab believe that evening courts can pose a law and order problem in a state known for its post-sunset love of the booze. According to All Punjab State Bar Associations, an umbrella organization of the local bar associations of Punjab which has been protesting against the introduction of evening courts in the state, litigants may visit courts under the influence of liquor creating law and order problem in functioning of the court.

The association is to hold a statewide protest march on August 31 on the premises of the Punjab and Haryana high court. Terming the move as disturbance with the "social culture" of the state, association president Sunil Moga told TOI on Wednesday that: "drinking is intricately woven in the Punjabi culture and if the evening courts continue till late hours, it can create a law and order situation".

Giving another reasons for not accepting the concept of evening courts, Moga said that launching the evening courts is a unilateral decision of the Union government and nothing was discussed with the lawyers' community before implementation. Recently, the Punjab and Haryana high court had asked to hold evening court from 5 to 7pm to reduce the pendency of cases from the subordinate courts. These courts were to take up the cases pertaining to cheque bouncing under the Negotiable Instrument Act.

A meeting of president and secretaries of 62 bar associations of the districts and the sub-divisions of Punjab was held in Moga last week and decided to protest against the evening courts. Lawyers' community is of the view that pendency of cases is higher in high court and they should hold the evening courts not the subordinate courts.

Some of the other reasons the associations have mentioned for not accepting the evening courts include non-availability of transport facility after 5pm in most parts of Punjab, it may not be possible for the litigants from remote areas of Punjab to come in the evening, difficulties for women advocates to attend the court in the late hours and lawyers will not be able to continue to work till night at the cost of health and family life.

'via Blog this'

Judges should not rule the nation: CJI

Judges should not rule the nation: CJI
Press Trust of India
Saturday, 25 August 2012 18:14

New Delhi: Asserting that the judges should not govern the country or evolve policies, Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia on Saturday wondered what would happen if the executive refuses to comply with judiciary's directives.

He asked judges if they would invoke contempt proceedings against government officials for not complying with their decisions and disapproved a recent Supreme Court judgement which said "right to sleep" was also a fundamental right.

"Judges should not govern this country. We need to go by strict principle. Whenever you lay down a law, it should not interfere with governance. We are not accountable to people. Objectivity, certainty enshrined in the basic principles of the Constitution has to be given weightage," he said, delivering a lecture on 'Jurisprudence of Constitutional Structure' here at the India International Centre.

Kapadia said judges should go strictly by the Constitutional principles which has clearly demarcated the separation of powers among the judiciary, the legislature and the executive.

"Right to life, we have said, includes environmental protection, right to live with dignity. Now we have included right to sleep, where are we going? It is not a criticism. Is it capable of being enforced? When you expand the right, the judge must explore the enforceability.

"Questions which judges must ask if it is capable of being enforced. Judges must apply enforceability test. Today if a judge proposes a policy matter, government says we are not going to follow, are you going by way of contempt or implement it?" he asked.

The CJI said judges must abide by the principles of Constitution while dealing with Centre-State relations, federal policy etc in the wake of the recent scandals but clarified he was not mentioning the "coalgate" scandal.

The CJI said judges must abide by the principles of Constitution while dealing with Centre-State relations and federal policy while dealing with matters arising out of scams and made it a point to clarify he was not mentioning the "coalgate" scandal.

Quoting Justice BP Jeevan Reddy in the SR Bommai case, the CJI said the Constitution was not federal but tilted in favour of the Centre. But at the same time Justice Reddy, had cautioned that it should not mean that States powers are to be whittled, he said.

"Let me give an example. I don't want to mention anything about the coalgate, Let it be understood.

"When we analyse whether the Centre seeks to whittle the powers, if land is a State subject what is the implication, if State has reservation on a policy can the Centre, override it?" he asked, saying judges must keep in mind the principles of Constitution while deciding the issue.

Justice Kapadia cited the apex court direction for suspending mining activities in Karnataka's Bellary district to say that environmental concerns should be balanced with sustainable development.

"At the same time there is unemployment. Economy will suffer. Therefore, we have to strike a balance," he said, stressing the need for judges to consider the sustainable development of the country.

He referred to his speech on August 15, when he had told the Union Law Minister that the Constitution should not be tinkered with including the collegium system of appointment for judges unless a better alternative was available.

Laying great stress on the importance of Constitutional law not only for the legal fraternity but for the common man too, the CJI said the subject should be taught to every student in the country so as to enable every individual to know his or her rights and duties.

In Conversation With: Prosecutor Gopal Subramanium - NYTimes.com

In Conversation With: Prosecutor Gopal Subramanium - NYTimes.com:

In Conversation With: Prosecutor Gopal Subramanium

By NIHARIKA MANDHANA

Courtesy of the Press Information BureauSolicitor General of India Gopal Subramanium, left, with deputy chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia at a meeting in New Delhi in this Nov. 5, 2009 photo.

India’s highest court on Wednesday upheld the death penalty for Ajmal Kasab, the sole survivor among a group of militants who attacked Mumbai in 2008. Mr. Kasab, a Pakistani, confessed to the attacks and asked to be hanged while in custody. He later retracted his confession, saying he was framed by the police. Judges said the conspiracy behind the attack was “vicious,” the trauma and loss of life caused by the attacks made them the “the rarest of the rare” since the birth of India and the attackers attempt to pass off as Indian Muslims was “ominous and distressing.” (Read the full judgment here.) 

 For Gopal Subramanium, a former solicitor general and the prosecutor in this case,  the judgment was a moment of personal and national pride, he said. In the months of marathon arguments that tackled questions of constitutional and international laws, Mr. Subramanium, who also prosecuted the case involving militant attacks on the Indian Parliament in 2001, faced Raju Ramachandran, an Indian lawyer appointed as amicus curiae, or friend of the court, to defend Mr. Kasab.

In a conversation with India Ink, Mr. Subramanium talked about the trial, the public pressure for speedy judicial results and terrorism.  

Q.

Many have called this judgment historic, but you have said the trial itself is historic for India. Why?

A.

When the trial was under way, I was conscious that this was a case with international ramifications. The way in which Kasab would be dealt with, I knew, would be a benchmark. Our institutions and our performance as a country would be subject to international scrutiny. People do expect to see how the Indian judicial system works. That’s why I wanted to make sure that our benchmarks were completely international.

I would say that the standards of rigid scrutiny which were employed in this case were stricter than would be observed in Europe or the United Kingdom.

Q.

This trial raised several questions about the rights of the accused in our criminal justice system. Do you believe Kasab received a fair trial?

A.

Yes, I think every judge gave Kasab his fair chance. No judge allowed emotion to come in. There was no prejudice against Kasab.

The Indian government actually gave an opportunity to the Pakistan government to ask for a Pakistani lawyer for Kasab. But Pakistan disowned him. They didn’t send him a lawyer.

An amicus curiae was appointed in this case. He maintained the high traditions of the bar, which postulate that no person can be left undefended. He took a few months off and studied the record in a meticulous way. And he came up with valid constitutional points.

As the prosecutors, we used a human rights liturgy. This was not a case where the prosecutor said ‘Hang him, hang him.’ The prosecutor said, let’s look at the evidence and come to conclusion A, then B, then C, then D. I used every standard which was the higher benchmark.

Q.

Kasab has been found guilty of waging war against the state. What were the arguments for and against this contention?

A.

According to the lawyer for Kasab, this was not a case where there was any waging of war at all. They said that attacking a few buildings in Bombay is not waging war against India. So I then argued that if you make a wanton attack on the people of a country because they are citizens of that country, it constitutes waging war against the state. I borrowed a public international law definition of state, which is to be found in Israeli decisions, among others, and the court has accepted that definition.

Q.

What were the main questions of law considered by the court?

A.

Kasab’s fundamental point was: My trial did not follow due process.

There were two important constitutional issues of due process which were urged by Kasab.  This first was in reference to his confession. The court has accepted the confession, except some portions of it.

They said that if you think that in procedural compliance [while the confession was made] there has been adequate adherence to constitutional values, you can accept the confession. And a retracted confession in our jurisdiction can still be acted upon if you have corroboration.

The second argument was that Kasab should have had a lawyer from Day 1. The court has actually agreed to that. But they’ve said that the absence of a lawyer doesn’t vitiate the trial. That’s a very interesting development in our law.

Q.

What kind of evidence was presented before the court?

A.

I want to point out that courts of appeal are not meant to be always appreciating evidence. But in this case the court evaluated all the evidence afresh.

There was eyewitness evidence. Poor people, many of whom had lost close family members, took the trouble to be witnesses. Second, there was documentary evidence in the form of audio transcripts of terrorists in conversation with each other. The third was DNA evidence. The fourth was video evidence of a man shooting people and walking.

Q.

People feel disillusioned with the slow delivery of justice in India. In this case in particular, there was a lot of pressure from the media and the people for swift punishment. Did that weigh on your mind?

A.

Public feeling is different from public justice. Public justice would require the rule of law to be followed. Many people thought we should send him to the gallows immediately, that he should be shot dead. But that’s not the rule of law. That would really be the rule of law in a banana republic. We had to try him.

I think we did a completely professional job. I was unaffected by all the public discourse.

Q.

How does the Indian judiciary look at terrorism? Do they treat it differently from other criminal cases?

A.

Terrorism is a stronger kind of case than a mere murder. Terrorism’s impact is much wider. Terrorism can make a country bleed. It can break asunder a country. This is the first judgment that gives the state or the prosecution the right to treat such crimes as an act against the people of India.

Q.

You have significant experience dealing with terrorism cases. What lessons do they hold for policy makers and society in general?

A.

We must look at terrorism as a mental disease. We must view this in a very different way. This is a product of cognitive dissonance that happens in the psyche.

We must therefore find out the psychological cause which makes people vulnerable to suggestive behavior from people who slowly win over confidence and then push a person from a phase of rationality to a phase of irrationality.

'via Blog this'

Freshers can practise law without bar exam - BCI

Freshers can practise law without bar exam:

Chandigarh, Aug 24, 2012, DHNS:

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has allowed law graduates to practise in courts without clearing the All India Bar Examination for a period of six months.

In a resolution on August 16, the Bar Council of India gave provisional nod to fresh passouts to practise without attaining the Right To Practise certificate, mandatory for fresh law graduates to appear in courts.

The decision follows the BCI inability to hold the examination since December 2011 due to practical difficulties, said sources.

However, the Bar Council of India has asked the lawyers to sign an undertaking stating they will appear for the examination within the 6 months allowed to them.

Lekh Raj Sharma, Chairman, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, had taken up the matter with the Bar Council of India. He had asked them to conduct the examination or give provisional permission to practise.

All State Bar Councils have been asked to provisionally permit the newly-enrolled advocates.

“In view of the practical difficulties in conducting of All India Bar Exam and the delay in holding the same, it is resolved to request all the State Bar Council to provisionally permit the newly-enrolled advocates to practice for a period of six months from today,” the resolution said.

In the meantime, they should also be asked to furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit on the prescribed performa stating that they shall not practise after the said period of six months without passing the All India Bar Exam, it added.

In case the candidate fails to pass the All India Bar Examination within the prescribed period, he shall be required to seek fresh permission for provisional practice to the concerned State Bar Council, the resolution said.



'via Blog this'