#Supreme-Court-on-Rafale-Case

[beardedmrbean]

WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland's parliament will not start debating a judicial reform bill on Thursday the ruling party hoped would unblock COVID-19 recovery funds withheld by Brussels in a dispute over the rule of law after the country's president voiced his concerns.

Embroiled in a long-running row with the European Union over the independence of the courts, Poland's government on Tuesday said it had agreed with Brussels amendments that would free up billions in funds, which economists say are crucial for an economy hit hard by the war in Ukraine.

But after President Andrzej Duda struck a cautious tone about the bill, the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party said it would be taken off the agenda of a parliamentary sitting on Thursday, casting doubt over its future.

"In connection with the appeal of President Andrzej Duda, a decision was made by Speaker Elzbieta Witek to take the bill on changes in the judiciary off the agenda," party spokesman Rafal Bochenek said.

"We believe that such an important act requires in-depth discussion."

Duda, an ally of the ruling party, earlier said he would assess the bill's compliance with the constitution, "but also take into account Poland's sovereign right to shape the justice system in the way we, as Poles, want to."

The amendments would mean that the Supreme Administrative Court would deal with disciplinary cases instead of a contested chamber of the Supreme Court in a bid to address concerns that the previous system had been used to punish judges critical of the government's judicial reforms.

Judges would also not face disciplinary action for questioning the independence of colleagues appointed by organs critics say are politicized.

Duda has previously opposed any measures that could allow judges to call into question the legitimacy of their colleagues.

"I will not allow any legal act to be introduced into the Polish legal system that would undermine these nominations, would allow for the verification of presidential nominations," he said on Thursday.

The latest set of judicial reforms has split the ruling camp, with a junior partner in government saying it will vote against the reforms, which it says damage Poland's sovereignty.

Opposition lawmakers, whose support would be needed to pass the bill, have said they will examine it, but that it cannot be fast-tracked through parliament.

[mariacallous]

Poland’s Interior Ministry on Thursday morning reintroduced an exclusion zone covering about 60 kilometres of the country’s border with Belarus, a restriction that will initially last for up to 90 days.

Media and humanitarian workers will only be able to access the area after getting permission from the Border Guard, the government announced.

In practice, however, the requirement to obtain a permit effectively limits the ability of media and NGOs to reach migrants in problematic situations, when they are sick or being pushed back from the border by Polish authorities.

The buffer zone will cover key locations where migrants have been most intensely crossing the border since 2021, when this new migration route began to be used.

In most cases, the buffer zone is 200 metres from the border, but in others – including in the area of the Bialowieza National Park – it will be as wide as 2 kilometres.

After initially announcing a ban in May, Prime Minister Donald Tusk said it would cover a stretch of land of “more or less 200 meters”.

However, when the Interior Ministry later published a first draft of the regulation, locals and activists noted that in some areas the buffer zone was to be as wide as 5 kilometres.

Following protests by locals and others, who argued that the ban would negatively affect the lives of locals, tourism as well as the possibility to bring humanitarian aid to the migrants stuck on the border, the government organised public consultations and eventually restricted the buffer zone to what it called “the minimum necessary”.

Rafal Kowalczyk, a biologist living in the Bialowieza area and head of the Mammal Research Institute at the Polish Academy of Science, speaking to Gazeta Wyborcza, said any buffer zone “will make the lives of locals, our lives, more difficult, scare tourists away and make providing help to the migrants more difficult”.

Tusk argues that the buffer zone is necessary to protect Poland’s border, with numbers of migrants trying to enter the EU via the Belarus-Poland border on the rise again this spring.

The prime minister says this poses a security threat to Poland, with Russia and Belarus organising migrants to storm the border as part of its hybrid war with the West.

“Those are not refugees, those are less and less migrants, families, poor people needing help,” Tusk said in May. “In 80 per cent of cases, these are organised groups of men, aged 18-30, very aggressive.”

Tusk announced the exclusion zone one day after Polish authorities said that a soldier was hospitalised after being attacked with a knife by a migrant on the border. The soldier died on June 6.

But humanitarian NGOs providing help to migrants on the border argue that Poland should respect international law and give migrants the right to apply for asylum.

According to the NGO Grupa Granica, the new government has been responsible for over 4,000 pushbacks at the border since coming to power, based on data provided daily by the Polish Border Guard on the number of prevented illegal entries into the country.

A similar exclusion zone was introduced by the previous, Law and Justice, PiS, government in September 2021, at the start of the migration crisis on the border.

At the time, this was widely criticised by human rights lawyers, including the Polish Ombudsman Adam Bodnar, currently justice minister in Tusk’s government. He has remained silent on the matter since the new government announced re-introducing the zone.

In 2022, Poland’s Supreme Court acquitted journalists charged for having entered the zone, ruling that the exclusion zone had been too wide and should not have included journalists doing their job.

On June 4, protests against the exclusion zone took place in several locations across Poland. In the border area itself, locals did a “civil walk” inside what they knew would be banned areas. In Warsaw, activists organised a protest during a march planned by Tusk in the run-up to the European Parliament elections.

[judgementstoday]

5 Recent Judgements Conveyed By Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India is the final court of appeals for civil and criminal matters in India, so its judgements are a good indicator of the prevailing laws in the country. This blog lists 5 recent Supreme Court judgments and analyses them to determine their impact on society.

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered five judgements which cover a wide range of areas.

The five judgements delivered by the Supreme Court of India recently are as follows:

1. The judgement in the Ayodhya land dispute case paved the way for constructing a Ram temple at the disputed site.

2. The judgement on the Sabarimala Temple case allowed women of all ages to enter the premises.

3. The judgement on the Aadhaar case upheld the validity of the biometric identification system.

4. The judgement on the Rafale fighter jet deal found no irregularities in the procurement process.

5. The judgement on reservations in promotion for government employees clarified that such reservations are not mandatory.

These judgements dealt with the following topics: bribery in democracy, pollution, free trade, privacy and the mandatory playing of the national anthem.

The Supreme Court of India has recently delivered several landmark Latest Supreme Court judgments that have far-reaching implications for Indian society. Here is a brief rundown of some of the most important cases:

Bribery in democracy: In a judgment delivered on September 27, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld a Delhi High Court order that had set aside the election of Aam Aadmi Party MLA Somnath Bharti on the grounds of bribery. The court held that using money power to influence voters was "a cancerous affliction" and called for stricter laws to deal with this menace.

Pollution: In a Supreme Court decisions delivered on October 9, 2018, the Supreme Court directed the closure of all industries in Greater Noida and Ghaziabad, causing pollution. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 20 crore on these industries and directed them to compensate those affected by their pollution.

Free trade: In a judgment delivered on October 10, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld India's commitment to free trade by quashing an order of the Kerala High Court that had restricted the import of certain agricultural products from other states. The court held that such restrictions contradict India's international obligations under WTO rules.

Privacy: In Latest Supreme Court rulings delivered on August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. This landmark ruling has far-reaching implications for data protection.

The court upheld constitutional rights to privacy under Article 21 and said that the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 19 includes a right to personal autonomy.

The court upheld constitutional rights to privacy under Article 21 and said that the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 19 includes a right to personal autonomy. The court also said that the right to privacy is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.

[newstfionline]

Headlines

U.S. election officials warn of November chaos due to budget crunch (Reuters) A Michigan town wants machines to speed up counting of absentee ballots. In Ohio, officials want to equip polling places so voters and poll workers feel safe from the coronavirus. Georgia officials, rattled by a chaotic election last month, want to send voters forms so they can request absentee ballots more easily. In all three cases, the money is not there to make it happen, say local officials responsible for running elections in the states. This year’s nominating contests have shown that voting in the pandemic age costs more: Officials have to buy masks, face shields and other equipment to virus-proof polling places. They also must spend more to mail and count ballots. Many officials say they don’t have the funding to do either job properly. Election experts say Americans are likely to vote in record numbers in November, when control of Congress will also be up for grabs along with state governorships and legislatures. A funding shortfall could lead to “widespread disenfranchisement,” said Myrna Perez, director of the elections program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, a non-partisan public policy institute. “We run the risk of people really questioning the legitimacy of the election.”

Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Affirms Native American Rights in Oklahoma (NYT) The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that much of eastern Oklahoma falls within an Indian reservation, a decision that could reshape the criminal justice system by preventing state authorities from prosecuting offenses there that involve Native Americans. The 5-to-4 decision, potentially one of the most consequential legal victories for Native Americans in decades, could have far-reaching implications for the people who live across what the court affirmed was Indian Country. The lands include much of Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-biggest city. The case was steeped in the United States government’s long history of brutal removals and broken treaties with Indigenous tribes, and grappled with whether lands of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation had remained a reservation after Oklahoma became a state. Muscogee leaders hailed the decision as a hard-fought victory that clarified the status of their lands. The tribe said it would work with state and federal law enforcement authorities to coordinate public safety within the reservation.

‘Maybe I Shouldn’t Have Come’: U.S. Visa Changes Leave Students in Limbo (NYT) Oliver Philcox was nearing the end of his first year of graduate studies in astrophysics at Princeton University when the coronavirus outbreak began. Classes were halted in March, and then moved online. By May, he had decided to travel home to Britain. “In the long run, that was a terrible idea,” said Mr. Philcox, 24. “But I had assumed I would be able to go back in September.” Now, the return to an American institution has been thrown into question for Mr. Philcox and countless other international students after a directive by the Trump administration that students whose classes were moving entirely online for the fall would be stripped of their visas and required to leave the United States. Many universities see the move as a political one—an attempt to pressure them to reopen rather than hosting all classes online during the pandemic. For some international students, the directive poses frustrating questions of logistics and uncertainty. But for others—notably those whose home countries are embroiled in conflict or have communications technologies that are insufficient for online learning—the decision has the potential to disrupt their lives and drastically alter their futures. The Trump administration’s plan to require in-person classes for international students would affect around one million students. China sends the highest number of students—with about 370,000 enrolled in American universities in 2018-2019—followed by India with just over 200,000 students enrolled that year.

Bolivian president has COVID-19 as virus hits region’s elite (AP) Bolivia’s interim president and Venezuela’s No. 2 leader announced Thursday that they have been infected with the new coronavirus, just days after Brazil’s leader tested positive as the pandemic hits hard at some of Latin America’s political elite. Three Cabinet ministers in the administration of Bolivian leader Jeanine Áñez have also tested positive for the virus. The infections in Venezuela, Brazil and Bolivia, which is seeing a spike in cases, come after Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández tested positive in June and was briefly hospitalized.

Stuck at Home Because of Covid, the French Discover France (WSJ) The French are venturing into unknown territory: France. Every summer French vacationers snub their homeland in favor of far-flung destinations, allowing France, the world’s top tourism destination, to become a playground for foreign tourists. That means millions of French have never climbed the Eiffel Tower; or soaked up views from the summit of Mont Blanc; or sauntered along Nice’s palm tree-studded Promenade des Anglais. The French have never seen themselves as “Leven als god in Frankrijk,” as the Dutch like to say, or “Living like a god in France.” It’s an embarrassment of riches that has long stood in contrast with the perennial malaise that many French feel toward France. “Being French is to live in a paradise inhabited by people who think they’re in hell,” Sylvain Tesson, the French adventurer, once wrote. With border reopenings in flux around the world due to the coronavirus pandemic, however, the French suddenly have France to themselves, and they’ve decided it’s time to see what all the fuss is about. A survey of 2,000 French vacationers released last month by Protourisme, a French consultancy, found that 86% of respondents are planning to vacation in France this summer.

Flood-weary Venice puts “Moses” inflatable barriers to test (Washington Post) Venice has conducted a trial run of an ambitious anti-flood system of 78 inflatable barriers in hopes of protecting the lagoon city from devastating high tides. Premier Giuseppe Conte on Friday at a ceremony in Venice pressed a button that activated compressors to pump air into the bright yellow barriers, which then started rising from the sea to act as a kind of a dike-on-demand. The project, riddled by corruption, was supposed to be working in 2011. Now the latest date is 2021, but Conte expressed hope it could be ready by this autumn. In November 2019, Venice suffered its worst flooding in more than 50 years. The project’s name, Moses, recalls the Biblical figure who, the Old Testament recounts, parted the waters of the Red Sea. But it also is the Italian acronym for Experimental Electromechanical Modules. The movable flood gates are attached by hinges to cement blocks on the seabed along three openings from the sea into the lagoon. After high-tide danger ceases, sea water is pumped into the gates to make them heavy so they can be lowered.

At 78, a Sardinian ex-kidnapper is on the run (Economist) Some said Graziano Mesina had absconded to the neighbouring French island of Corsica; others that he had fled to Tunisia. But what became increasingly clear on July 3rd was that the man known as the last balènte, or Sardinian bandit, was yet again on the run—at the age of 78. His younger sister, Antonia Mesina, said he had called by her house the previous day, just before the supreme court in Rome turned down her brother’s appeal against a 30-year sentence for a drug-trafficking offence. “I’ve not seen or heard from him since,” she said. Police carried out house-to-house searches in his home town of Orgosolo, but soon learnt that no one else could—or, perhaps, would—help them. The town’s mayor said it was a coincidence that a surveillance camera near Mr Mesina’s house had twice been shot up before he vanished. But if there was complicity in the reaction to his disappearance, it may have had less to do with the code of silence that once shielded Sardinia’s brigands than resentment towards Italy’s sluggish judicial system. Mr Mesina’s case had dragged on through the courts for seven years. Grazianeddu, as he is half-affectionately known, has been the subject of books, films and songs. He had, and evidently retains, an extraordinary talent for evading justice. Since his first arrest, aged 14, he has escaped or absconded on ten occasions, including from a top-security prison. Strikingly handsome when younger and widely acknowledged as intelligent and charming, Mr Mesina was reputed to have a string of lovers whom he visited in disguise while on the run. Police are said to have visited the homes of several elderly ladies in their search for the missing pensioner-bandit.

Poland’s Race Is Too Close To Call (Foreign Policy) Polish President Andrzej Duda faces off against his liberal opponent Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski this Sunday in one of the first tests of right-wing populism in the age of coronavirus. Polls show the race is too close to call with the most recent one showing Trzaskowski winning 50.6 percent of votes to Duda’s 49.4 percent. A Trzaskowski victory on Sunday would represent a consolidation of support for those opposed to the rule of the right-wing Law and Justice party (PiS). The Warsaw mayor only managed to win 30.5 percent of votes in the first round of voting on June 28 but may gain support from those who backed other opposition candidates and from Polish expat voters, who have recently registered in large numbers. On a practical level, it would allow him to veto legislation from the PiS-controlled parliament.

Turkey’s president formally makes Hagia Sophia a mosque (AP) Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday formally re-converted Istanbul’s sixth-century iconic Hagia Sophia into a mosque, hours after a high court annulled a 1934 decision that had turned it into a museum. Erdogan signed a decree handing over Hagia Sophia to Turkey’s Religious Affairs Presidency and declaring it open to Muslim worship. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has demanded that the hugely symbolic world heritage site should be turned back into a mosque despite widespread international criticism, including from the United States and Orthodox Christian leaders. The move could also deepen tensions with neighboring Greece. Cypriot Foreign Minister Nikos Christodoulides said Turkey’s “escalating, flagrant violation of its international obligations is manifested in its decision to alter the designation of Hagia Sophia, a world heritage site that is a universal symbol of the Orthodox faith.” Nationalist and conservative groups have long been yearning to hold prayers at Hagia Sophia, which they regard as part of the Muslim Ottoman legacy. Others believe the UNESCO World Heritage site should remain a museum, as a symbol of Christian and Muslim solidarity.

China worries about stock market speculators (Daily Telegraph) China’s financial watchdog is increasingly worried about speculative leverage on the soaring Shanghai and Shenzhen equity markets, fearing a repeat of the boom-bust debacle in 2015 when the crash almost spun out of control. The China Securities Regulatory Commission has blacklisted 258 brokerage houses accused of offering illegal margin accounts at 10 times leverage. It told investors to “raise their risk awareness” before the buying frenzy reaches dangerous levels. The state media followed with sober reminders of the “tragic lesson” five years ago, when the market spiked and then plunged 40 percent. That episode shook confidence in the authorities and combined into a currency crisis that proved hard to contain. In the end the People’s Bank had to burn through $1 trillion to defend the exchange rate and counter capital flight.​

Australia restricts number of citizens returning as virus surges (Reuters) Australia will halve the number of citizens allowed to return home from overseas each week, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Friday, as authorities struggle to contain a COVID-19 outbreak in the country’s second most populous city. The state of Victoria reported 288 new cases on Friday, a record daily increase for any part of the country and sparking fears of a wave of community transmission in a country where most cases have involved returned travelers. “The news from Victoria remains very concerning,” Morrison told reporters in Canberra.

U.N. Security Council votes on Syrian aid (Foreign Policy) A U.N. mandate to deliver aid across the Turkish border into Syria expires today, and so the U.N. Security Council will vote on a resolution put forward by Germany and Belgium to extend it by six months. An earlier amendment to the resolution put forward by Russia would have reduced the number of border crossing points from two to one; it was rejected by the council on Thursday. Permanent members Russia and China argue that cross-border aid is unnecessary and can be managed by Syrian government authorities.

Israelis angry at Netanyahu over new outbreak, economic pain (AP) With an unprecedented new surge in coronavirus cases battering Israel’s economy, one of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s closest confidants was dispatched to a TV studio recently to calm the nerves of a jittery nation. Instead, he dismissed expressions of some of the public’s economic pain as “BS.” The flippant comment by Cabinet minister Tzachi Hanegbi is symptomatic of what critics see as a bloated, out-of-touch government. It also has become a rallying cry for anti-Netanyahu protests spreading, like the virus, across the country. One out-of-work Israeli erupted in anger during a live television interview, berating Netanyahu and warning the country is “going to burn” if aid is not given soon. It is a dramatic turn of events for Netanyahu, who claimed credit and was widely praised for Israel’s successful management of the early stages of the crisis. Now his approval ratings are plummeting, and public health experts warn that Israel is close to being unable to cope. “The management of the corona crisis is a humiliating national failure, it is dangerous and without precedent,” opposition leader Yair Lapid said this week. “People are furious, and they are right to be furious.”

[pgurus]

Why is the Modi government unable to send anyone to jail in corruption cases?

With the BJP party coming to rule in 2014, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi had famously stated himself as the “Chowkidar” of the wealth of the Nation. He had very sternly made a promise to eradicate the corruption from India. All the promises made stand uncurbed. A recent survey also reveals that the corruption has immensely increased in India and the BJP government is not serious about eradicating corruption.

The BJP government has been relentlessly accusing the ministers of the opposition party against corruption. Recently, the former Union Minister P. Chidambaram was arrested for alleged corruption in the INX Media case. One common point here is, while Chidambaram was the home minister, Amit Shah was arrested by the CBI for the fake encounter case of Sohrabuddin Sheikh. Now P. Chidambaram is arrested when Amit Shah holds the seat of home minister. Since 2014, raids and summons intensify on the members of opposition party when an election is around the corner.

Do not mistaken this as a fight against corruption. If this was a true fight then BJP leadres would not be exempted from enquiries of any sort. This selective nature of anti-corruption is a sharp contrast to the BJP government’s refusal to investigate the most controversial Rafale deal pointing a lokpal for five years.

One such case was of chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. In the year 2014 Devendra Fadnavis had accused NCP leader Ajit Pawar of the Rs. 70,000 + amount in 9 irrigation scam. Fadnavis had also issued a state anti-corruption bureau inquiry for the same. In November 2019 Devendra Fadnavis and Ajit Pawar were sworn as chief minister and deputy chief minister of Maharashtra from the BJP party. Three days later to Ajit Pawar helping Devendra Fadnavis to pull out the drawing BJP party, 9 irrigation scams files started closing by the CBI. Anti-corruption bureau’s additional director general had sought quoting that the 9 irrigation scam were not linked to then deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar.

Chief justice Ranjan Gogoi is another example of increasing corruption in the clan of Indian leaders. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had presided over the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court that had pronounced a verdict in favor of a temple at the site of the demolished Babri Masjid. A female staff of the Supreme Court had accused CJI Ranjan Gogoi for sexual harassment. The staff was prior attached to Justice Vikramjeet Sen as a junior assistant till August 2018. Two months prior to the incident on insistence of CJI Ranjan Gogoi she was transferred to Gogoi’s residence office.

Earlier in May 2019 the in-house committee had made a statement saying they found no substance in the allegations contained in the Complaint dated 19.4.2019 of a former employee of the Supreme Court of India. The three members of the in-house committee were Justices SA Bobde, NV Ramana and Indira Banerjee. The complainant objected the presence of Justuce Ramana and he was replaced by Justice Indu Malhotra. The woman refused to be a part of the committee alleging bias. The report was submitted to the next senior Judge, Justice Patnaik competent, when Justice Gogoi was still the CJI. The case was closed in approximately 21 month by bench of Justices Kaul, Bopanna and Ramasubramanian.

Visit PGurus

[bbcbreakingnews]

Priyanka asks Congress MPs to take cue from US lawmakers in showing solidarity with farmers

NEW DELHI: Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Saturday asked a meeting of party general secretaries and state in charges that like Democrat MPs took a knee to protest the recent US Capitol Hill siege, Congress’s Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha MPs should join, at least for a day, their party colleagues from Punjab who have been sitting in protest at Jantar Mantar to express solidarity with farmers against the contentious new farm laws. In a virtual strategy meeting led by general secretary administration K C Venugopal to chalk out the party’s programme to strengthen farmers’ protests against the three farm laws, Congress also decided it will lead rallies and ‘gherao’ Raj Bhawans across India on January 15, coinciding with the next round of talks between the government and farmer unions. “The government is merely trying to tire the farmers out by leading them into meaningless talks that have yielded no results. To show our solidarity to farmers, and to show that the Modi government is sold out to few capitalists, Congress will observe January 15 as the “Kisan Adhikar Diwas”. It is time now to listen to farmers’ voices,” said Randeep Singh Surjewala, Congress’ general secretary and communications head. Congress also said it will decide the next course of action on January 16, the day after the next round of talks, when another strategy meeting has been called. On Saturday, Surjewala slammed PM Modi, saying he had failed to pay homage to 60 farmers who had died while protesting over the last 45 days, a clear sign that the government is beholden to its “capitalist masters”. The party will also run a social media campaign, ‘SpeakUpForFarmers’, to coincide with the countrywide physical protests, he said. Sources said while Congress leader Rahul Gandhi is expected to be back in the country in time for the protests, it remains unclear whether he will join the protests in Delhi or in Kerala, from where he has been elected as MP. At least three general secretaries, Bhakta Charan Das, Rajini Patil and Harish Rawat also raised the issue of party leadership and the need for Rahul to return as party chief during the strategy meet. Sources said Patil said the new year warranted a new beginning, especially since good work done by the party was often overshadowed due to the lack of clarity over the party’s leadership. Emphasising the need to prioritise the farmers’ protest, however, Surjewala alleged that the Modi government was “abdicating” its duty to the people of India by asking them to move the Supreme Court to intervene instead of repealing the contentious laws. “When 62 crore farmers in the country refuse to go to the Supreme Court, the court should also look within…Whether it is the Citizenship Amendment Act or the Rafale deal, why does the government seek to find solutions in Supreme Court and not in Parliament, where the laws were made,” Surjewala said. He said PM Narendra Modi should quit if he finds his government unable to repeal the farm laws. “People have elected the government and not the Supreme Court. Laws are made by Parliament, not the Supreme Court. Why then is the government asking farmers to go to the apex court,” he said. Congress also rubbished the Union government’s claim that states are free to legislate and implement their own versions of farm laws. “If that were the case, Modi government should not have enacted the farm laws. Also, how will the jurisdiction of one state law extend to another state? This is just another attempt to mislead farmers. But this time, the government will fail,” Surjewala said.

source https://bbcbreakingnews.com/2021/01/10/priyanka-asks-congress-mps-to-take-cue-from-us-lawmakers-in-showing-solidarity-with-farmers/

[newsupdated]

Rahul Gandhi Trying To Discourage People Amid COVID-19: Giriraj Singh

Rahul Gandhi Trying To Discourage People Amid COVID-19: Giriraj Singh

Giriraj Singh said that Rahul Gandhi is trying to discourage people amid pandemic.

Begusarai (Bihar):

Union Minister Giriraj Singh on Friday said that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi is trying to discourage people during coronavirus pandemic and it is not in the national interest.

“He is following the theory of Hitler’s minister Goebbels. The Supreme Court gave him a warning in the Rafale case…

[loyallogic]

Critical Analysis of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.

This article has been written by Jay Vyas, a BA.LLB student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai. 

Introduction

On 13th November 2013, the Supreme Court of India consisting of a five Judge bench passed a Landmark Judgement which is cited even today in the midst of the Rafale case. However this Judgement is not free from criticism. The Five Judge bench held that once a cognizable offense is made out under Section 154 of CRPC the police have to mandatorily register the FIR.

In this article, I argue that this Judgement is against the jurisprudence of previous notable judgments of the Supreme Court like Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra. This case has raised eyebrows regarding the power of the Police to conduct Preliminary Inquiry, Principles of Malicious Prosecution. In this article I also argue that Mandatory registration of FIR by the police without proper scrutiny is a dangerous and extreme position held by the Supreme Court which is contrary to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore the court failed to consider the consequences of an FIR registered against a citizen and the social stigma a person has to face. The article concludes that the judgment ends up showing intentions of giving dictatorial power to police and takes away many rights essential in seeking criminal remedy, thus, defeating the very purpose of people approaching the police for enforcement of their rights, and nullifying the purpose of the criminal justice system.

The three-Judge bench in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP and Others opined that registration of First Information Report (hereinafter FIR) should be Non-Mandatory. They reasoned that an officer should be satisfied that an offense is made out in the FIR after a preliminary inquiry as an FIR leads to serious consequences for the accused and for this reason the need for a preliminary inquiry is implicit with the provisions of section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure. These provisions should be read down in the light of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Facts of the Case in Brief 

The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the constitution by Lalita Kumari(Minor) through her father Shri Bhola Kamat for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus as the officer –in-charge of the police station who did not take any action. The petitioner stated that even after registration of FIR no concrete steps were taken to recover the minor girl or trace the accused. The court on 14.7.2008 passed a comprehensive order expressing its grave anguish on non-registration of the FIR even in a case of a cognizable offense.

Issues

Whether the police officer should compulsorily register an FIR under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to Cognizable offence or the police officer to check the authenticity of the complaint can conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR? 

Contentions of the Parties

The counsel for the petitioner stated to the court that when the officer-in-charge of the police station receives a complaint disclosing a cognizable, he has to mandatorily register an FIR under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance was placed on the Judgments of The Supreme Court like State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab. The Counsel draws the attention of the court that under Section 154(1) of the Code the word “Shall” is used by the Legislation signifies the legislative intention and it is compulsory for the police officer to register the FIR.

He stated that under section 154 of the code there are no implicit provisions relating to Preliminary inquiry and there is no discretion left to the police officer.

In support of his arguments, he placed heavy reliance on the following judgments viz. B. Premanand v.MohanKoikal, Hiralal Rattanlal v. State of U.P. and Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Godhra.

The counsel for the respondent submitted that the registration of an FIR cannot be subjected to a straitjacket formula as it is an administrative act requiring the application of mind, scrutiny, and verification of the facts. No administrative act can ever be a mechanical one. He placed reliance on Rajinder Singh Katoch, P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, and Sevi v. State of T.N., which holds that before registering an FIR under Section 154 of the Code, it is open to the police officer to hold a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offense or not. The learned counsel submitted that a statute should not be interpreted in such manner where it leads to a absence of any discretion to the police officer especially in Fake cases where registration of an FIR leads to an empty formality. 

Also, for the receipt and recording of information, the report is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. The counsel explained that a provision for preliminary inquiry already exists in cases like Corruption, Medical Negligence and Matrimonial Offences. 

The counsel submitted to the court that every statute should be interpreted while keeping in mind the provisions of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution which provides protection to an innocent person from baseless charges. In situations like these, a police officer needs to be equipped with the power of conducting a Preliminary inquiry. 

        Click Above

Critique of the Judgement 

In this article, I argue that the Hon’ble Court has gone against the jurisprudence of previous notable judgments of the Supreme Court like Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra. 

In the judgment of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra the Supreme Court took great pains in demarking the powers of the police and the judiciary. They explained the duties of the police, in the matter of investigation of offenses, as well as their powers, it is necessary to refer to the provisions contained in Chapter XIV of the Code. Sections beginning from Section 154, and ending with Section 176. Section 154 deals with information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense, and the procedure to be adopted in respect of the same. In each of these sections, there is no role of Judiciary, the sections provide guidelines to the police on how to proceed with the Investigation but there is always a discretion to the police officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry in case a complaint does not clearly disclose a Cognizable offense or has doubts over the veracity of the complaint.

In Nazir Ahmed case, H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi:

The court held that the Judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters such as Investigation especially of cognizable offence which is the statutory right of the police. The court observed that the police needs no authorisation of the judiciary. The court opined that the functions of the police and judiciary are complimentary and not overlapping keeping in mind individual liberty and law and order situation in the Country. The judiciary role comes into play when a charge is established and not before that. 

In Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court categorically stated that an officer in charge of the police station cannot be expected to register an FIR on receiving information which does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The court observed that it should be open to the officer-in-charge to check the veracity of the complaint and further inquiry whether a cognizable offence has been committed. 

In Sevi v. State of Tamil Nadu also the court had expressly ruled that before registering the FIR under section 154 of CrPC it is open to the station house officer (SHO) to hold a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offense or not. 

Lastly the Bombay High Court has laid general principles governing preliminary inquiry which can be followed by the courts. Such guides give discretion to the police to keep a check in frivolous complaints and also does not cause undue harassment to the accused. Therefore in the case of Kalpana Kutty v. State of Maharashtra the guidelines laid down by the court relating to preliminary inquiry:

“(a) When information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense is received by an officer in charge of a police station, he would normally register a FIR as required by section 154(1) of the code.

(b) If the information received indicates the necessity for further inquiry, preliminary inquiry may be conducted.

(c) Where the source of information is of doubtful reliability i.e. an anonymous complaint, the officer in charge of the police station may conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain the correctness of the information.

(d) Preliminary inquiry must be expeditious and as far as possible it must be discreet.

(e) Preliminary inquiry is not restarted only to cases where the accused are public servants or doctors or professionals holding top positions. In which case preliminary inquiry is necessary will depend on facts and circumstances of each case.”

In the second part of this paper, I argue that this Judgement is against the mandate of Article 21. I argue that a mandatory duty of registering FIR should not be cast upon a Police officer. I argue that such an interpretation of the statute would harmonize two extreme positions viz. the proposition that the moment the complaint disclosing ingredients of a cognizable offense is lodged, the police officer must register an FIR without any scrutiny whatsoever is an extreme proposition and is contrary to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, similarly, the other extreme point of view is that the police officer must investigate the case substantially before registering an FIR. Guidelines laid down by Kalpana Kutty v. State of Maharashtra should be followed. 

In the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi the Supreme Court held that Article 21 as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi’s case provides that a procedure while depriving a person his life or personal liberty should be fair, reasonable, just and should not be arbitrary. The court has the constitutional power of judicial review whenever there is a deprivation of life or personal liberty by an unjust procedure. 

The consequences of a criminal case on the accused have far-reaching consequences. Though the accused may be innocent, he is subjected to psychological anxiety, social stigma and probable economic impairment till proven innocent. Even, if he is guilty, delay shakes his confidence in the system of criminal justice and makes him cynical. The impact of this drama does not confine itself to the accused but extends to his dependants who may be subject to undue suffering. Worse is the effect-of delay on complaint or victim to whose traumatic suffering the system seems to be heartless. It is a greater paradox that injustice is being done to them in the process of justice. 

In Moti Ram v. State of M.P. Krishna Iyer, J. opined that there are grave consequences of pre-trial detention. He observed that the psychological and physical deprivation of jail life a defendant has to go through even though he is presumed innocent is worse than that of a convicted defendant. He explains that jailed defendant loses his job if he has one and is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. Equally important, the burden of his detention frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. 

In the case of State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Nazrul Islam, the Supreme Court ruled that any person facing or convicted of a criminal offense cannot be considered suitable for a government appointment. To be considered eligible, a person should either have no charges pending against them or have been acquitted of these charges by the court. However, this acquittal must not be out of a compromise between the accused and the victim, or due to the witnesses in the case turning hostile.

Under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, the passport authority can refuse a foreign visa to any applicant if-

In the preceding 5 years, they have been convicted of an offense of moral turpitude and been sentenced to more than two years’ imprisonment.

Criminal proceedings are pending against them in India.

A summons to the court, warrant for arrest or order prohibiting departure from India has been issued against them.

It is a crying shame upon our adjudicatory system which keeps men in jails for years on end without a trial.In many cases trials do not commence for as long as a period as three to four years after the accused was remitted to judicial custody. In several cases the time spent by the accused in jail before the commencement of trial exceeds the maximum punishment which can be awarded to them even if they are found guilty of offenses charged against them. The mental torture and anxiety suffered by an accused for a long length of time is to be treated as sufficient punishment inflicted on him. Owing to the prolonged pendency of a case, individuals may suffer in many and different ways. In many cases, the accused is the head of a family and is the only breadwinner; his responsibility is also towards the large family left behind him. It is not only the accused but also other members of his family who suffer because of delays in the trial.If his family is affected in no other way, it will suffer at least from social stigma due to the arrest of the accused during the trial and also from the loss of income during this period. They are likely to be forced to borrow money to run the family and also to defend the defendant. 

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) had released a report called ‘Prison Statistics India 2015’ which had stated the overcrowding of prisons as the biggest problem the prisoners have to face. The occupancy rate of these prisons was at an all India level of 114.4 per cent. This results in grave problems to prisoners such as lack of sanitation and hygiene and lack of sleep. This is against the human rights of the prisoners. 

Another disturbing fact the report states is that sixty-seven per cent of people in prisons are under trials i.e. people that are not convicted of any crime and are facing trial in a court of law. On an average, every day four people die in prison. Seventy per cent of the convicts are illiterate. 

In an another report by the Delhi Government’s Central Jail, the occupancy in the year 2019 has increased to 174.89%. If we break down this figure, there are atleast 82.02 % people who are under-trials. Since it has been established that the consequences of an FIR has serious consequences on accused, the Mandatory registration of FIR will make things even worst for the prisons in our country. If we analyse the data above, we can understand that in Indian Prison system the under trials are more than the convicts. This is very worrisome and it should be touched upon by the legislature.

Conclusion

Therefore I conclude that a delicate balance has to be maintained between the interest of the society and protecting the liberty of an individual. Criminal procedural law has to embody principles of natural justice and the constitutional guarantees must be safeguarded. A balance has to be struck between speedy trial and fair trial and the principles of natural justice cannot be compromised with in order to achieve speedy dispensation of justice. Liberty of an individual has to be zealously guarded by the law. Detention for even a single minute would amount to an invasion of liberty. Civil liberties cannot be jeopardized unless sufficient grounds exist for doing so. As I have highlighted the effects of a criminal case on the accused it is imperative to follow guidelines laid down by the Bombay High Court in Kalpana Kutty v. State of Maharashtra. 

Also, the position held by the three judge bench of Lalita Kumari v. Govt of UP is a correct legal position and it should be revisited.

References

1.) https://www.thehindu.com/news/resources/article26793859.ece/BINARY/Rafale-Review-Judgement_10-Apr-2019.pdf

2.) AbhinandanJha v. DineshMishra 1968AIR117 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49832/

3.) http://164.100.117.97/WriteReadData/userfiles/Report%20No.%20277%20Wrongful%  20Prosecution.pdf

4.) Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP and Others AIR 2012 SC 1515 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117323641/

5.) State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1033637/ 

6.) Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677

7.) Parkash Singh Badal vs. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1

8.) B. Premanand and Ors. vs. Mohan Koikal and Others (2011) 4 SCC 266 

9.) M/s Hiralal Rattanlal Etc. Etc. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. Etc. Etc. (1973) 1 SCC 216

10.) Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Godhra and Ors. (1975) 2 SCC 48. 

11.) P. Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595 

12.) Sevi vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1981 Supp SCC 43

13.) Shashikant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2007) 1 SCC 630

14.) Rajinder Singh Katoch v. Chandigarh Admn. (2007) 10 SCC 69 

15.) P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras 1970 SCC (Cri) 240

16.) State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi AIR 1964 SC 221

17.) Sevi v. State of T.N 1981 SCC (Cri) 679 

18.) Nazir Ahmed case LR 71 IA 203 

19.) H. N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi(2) 1955 1 SCR 1150

20.) Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (1997) 1 SCC 283 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1460988/

21.) Kalpana Kutty v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (109) Bom LR 2342

22.) Burking of Crimes by Refusal to Register FIR in Cognizable Offences, 55 JILI (2013) 361 at page 374

23.) Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78536/

24.) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1979] 1 SCC 248;

25.) S.K. Ghosh, “In search of Justice”, 25 (1976) 

26.) Moti Ram.v.State of M.P 1978 4 SCC 47 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1912056/ 

27.) State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Nazrul Islam CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8638 OF 2011

28.) Upendra Baxi, “The Supreme Court Unter-trial: Under-trials and the Supreme Court” (1980) 1 SCC 35 at 45-46 (Journal).

29.) Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, [1980] 1 SCC 81, M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra – 1978 (3) SCC 544 

30.) Arun Kumar’Ghosh.V.State of W.B. 1991 Cr. LR. (Call 365)

31.) V.N. Rajan and M.Z. Khan, Delay in. the Disposal of Criminal Cases in the sessions and lower Courts in Delhi (1982)

32.) Presidential Address by Hon’ble Justice K.G.Balakrjshna National Seminar on Delay in Administration of Criminal Justice System.

33.) Narasimhum.V.Public Prosecutor, -A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 429. 

34.) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/%E2%80%98Two-thirds-of-prisoners-in-India-are-undertrials%E2%80%99/article16080519.ece

35.) http://web.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/lib_centraljail/Central+Jail/Home/Prisoner+Profile

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

The post Critical Analysis of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. appeared first on iPleaders.

Critical Analysis of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

[webodisha18]

SC Gives Clean Chit To Modi Govt In Rafale Deal New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday gave a clean chit to the Narendra Modi government in the Rafale fighter jets deal case, saying review petitions were without merit.

[bbcbreakingnews]

PM Narendra Modi should quit if he can’t repeal farm laws: Congress

NEW DELHI: The Congress on Saturday asked the Centre why it wants farmer groups opposed to the new agricultural reforms to move the Supreme Court and said Prime Minister Narendra Modi should quit if he is not competent enough to repeal them. People have elected the government and not the Supreme Court, Congress chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala said. He also announced that the Congress will observe ‘Kisan Adhikar Diwas’ (Farmers’ Rights Day) on January 15, when the government and the farmer unions will meet for the next round of talks, and hold ‘Jan Andolans’ at all state headquarters. The party will hold protest marches and gherao the governor’s office in every state. The decision was taken after a meeting of the party’s general secretaries and in-charges in various states. “People have elected this government and not the Supreme Court. Then why does the government want people to go to elsewhere?” Surjewala asked. “The Modi government is answerable to the people for taking decisions and not the Supreme Court. The responsibility of making and repealing the laws wrests with Parliament and not the court,” he said. He added that if the Modi government is unable to discharge its responsibility, “the Congress wants that you should resign and sit at home as you have no moral authority to remain in power even for a minute”. Surjewala alleged the farm laws were forcibly passed by the Modi government in Parliament by “crushing democracy”. “This is the first government in the history of India which is woefully abdicating its responsibility and telling the farmers to approach the Supreme Court and the sooner the Modi government vacates the throne, the better it would be for the country,” he said. The eighth round of talks between the government and the farmer unions on Friday did not make any headway as the Centre ruled out repealing the three contentious laws while the farmer leaders said they are ready to fight till death and their ‘ghar waapsi’ will happen only after ‘law waapsi’. Later, prominent farmer leader Balbir Singh Rajewal told PTI that the government suggested to the unions that why don’t they become a party in the ongoing case on three farm laws in the Supreme Court. The unions “outrightly” rejected the suggestion, he had said. Surjewala said the Supreme Court should also introspect as to why the farmers are not ready to approach it. “When 62 crore farmers in the country refuse to go to the Supreme Court, the court should also look within,” he told reporters. He asked why the government seeks to find solutions to different issues, be it the Citizenship Amendment Act or the Rafale deal, in the Supreme Court and not in Parliament. The Congress spokesperson said the farmers will neither tire out nor surrender, and the Modi government should shed its arrogance and repeal the farm laws. Thousands of farmers, mainly from Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh, have been camping at various border points of Delhi for over a month now, despite the cold weather and heavy rains, to demand the repeal of the three laws. Enacted in September 2020, the government has presented these laws as major farm reforms aimed at increasing farmers’ income, but the protesting farmers have raised concerns that these legislations would weaken the minimum support price (MSP) and ‘mandi’ (wholesale market) systems, leaving them at the mercy of big corporations.

source https://bbcbreakingnews.com/2021/01/09/pm-narendra-modi-should-quit-if-he-cant-repeal-farm-laws-congress/

[news4me]

Allegations in Rafale Deal to 'Malign' PM, Congress Should Apologise: Rajnath Singh After SC Ruling

Allegations in Rafale Deal to ‘Malign’ PM, Congress Should Apologise: Rajnath Singh After SC Ruling

[ad_1]

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave a clean chit to the Narendra Modi government in the Rafale fighter jets deal case, saying review petitions were without merit. PTI

Updated:November 14, 2019, 1:59 PM IST

Rajnath Singh gestures as he sits in a Rafale jet fighter during an handover ceremony at the Dassault Aviation plant in Merignac,France. (Image: AP) Tawang: Slamming…

[tumbledsom]

Allegations in Rafale Deal to ‘Malign’ PM, Congress Should Apologise: Rajnath Singh After SC Ruling The Supreme Court on Thursday gave a clean chit to the Narendra Modi government in the Rafale fighter jets deal case, saying review petitions were without merit. via Top Politics News- News18.com

[optimisticprincepainter]

SUPREME COURT CLOSING CASE AGAINST RAHUL GANDHI WARNED HIM ‘BE CAREFUL’ IN FUTURE :

SUPREME COURT CLOSING CASE AGAINST RAHUL GANDHI WARNED HIM ‘BE CAREFUL’ IN FUTURE :

A Supreme Court bench has closed the case, but admonished Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for wrongly wrongly attributing to the Supreme Court his “chowkidar chor hai” remark in the Rafale case against PM Modi. The court said Rahul should be more careful in future.  A criminal contempt plea filed was against the Congress leader by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi.Gandhi had made the remarks on April 10, the…