Gujarat High Court has recently held that a law graduate working as a Legal Consultant with a Corporation with a contract in the nature of a full-time job is not eligible for enrollment as a lawyer to practice law.

Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a writ petition filed by a law graduate against non-granting of enrollment as an advocate to practice law by the Bar Council.

The petitioner having passed out five years integrated course of B.A., LL.B. from Maharaja Sayaji Rao University, Vadodara, got selected during her academic period in campus interview of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and she was given appointment as Legal Consultant also known as legal expert having been so selected.

When she applied for enrolment the Enrolment Committee noticed that the petitioner was associated with the Corporation as a legal expert rendering her services in that capacity from 16th June, 2012 and was getting amount of Rs.25,000/- per month, Bar Council of Gujarat decided to call for an opinion from Bar Council of India.

The BCI informed that if the applicant files undertaking on affidavit that she will not be employee of any establishment including Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. Thereafter final enrolment certificate and certificate of practice can be granted by the State Bar Council subject to the other conditions fulfillment prescribes by the State Bar Council.

Bar Council of India, affidavit-in-reply stating inter alia that for completing the procedure regarding enrolment of the petitioner as per the directions of the Court, an urgent meeting was called on 03rd March, 2016 after issuing notice to the petitioner to remain present on that date; petitioner expressed her inability to come to Delhi at such a short notice. It was further stated in the affidavit that therefore on 03rd March, 2016 Bar Council of India passed Resolution No.107 of 2016 resolving that Council was not in a position to inquire and investigate into the matter in absence of the applicant, therefore it was resolved to constitute a Committee headed by Justice R.C. Mankad, Retired Judge of High Court of Gujarat, and place a report before the Council.

The Committee rejected the request of the applicant for enrollment.

During the hearing the petitioner submitted that. with reference to the letters of the Corporation that even the Corporation termed her engagement as contractual only. She further submitted that she was never treated as an employee and was paying tax at source using form 16A which was for professional services and that in view of Section 194J of the Income-Tax Act, what was paid to her was was not the salary.

The Bar Council submitted that having regard to the nature of engagement of the petitioner with the Corporation and the conditions attendant to the engagement as legal assistant, it was not permissible to enroll the petitioner.

Rejecting the petition, the Court observed as follows;

“Looking at Rule 49 of the Bar Council Rules, it provides that an advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee. The conditions attached to the contract of service of the petitioner with the Corporation are reflective of the nature of the employment. The employment envisages that services are required to be rendered during the standard hours of service as per condition No.2. Condition Nos.9 and 7 show that service as legal assistant rendered by the petitioner is a full-time job and attaches with it monthly payable amount of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner joined the Corporation in the year 2012 and the contract has continued having been renewed on year- to-year basis till date”.

“From the totality of operation of the facts and considering the nature of the service contract of the petitioner with the Corporation, there is no gainsaying that the petitioner incurs debility in terms of Rule 49 as her employment could be characterised as a full-time salaried employment. As a result, refusal by the respondents to grant the petitioner enrollment and the certificate to practice law could be said to be eminently proper and legal”.

Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court, in the case of Israr vs State, has upheld the conviction of an accused under sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 

Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has directed the Secretary (Road) PWD and the Commissioner for State Excise to decide whether certain bars, hotels and permit rooms are covered under the Supreme Court’s highway liquor ban order.

The high court refused relief to a 26-week pregnant rape victim seeking permission for termination of pregnancy.

While hearing a PIL filed by the Quraishi’s Meat Traders Association, challenging the new rules notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court has issued notice to the Centre and state government of Goa, returnable in two weeks, seeking a reply on the contentions raised.

In a peculiar case, the high court has granted relief to an 80-year-old woman claiming inheritance in her father’s property and set aside two orders by a district judge and a civil judge who refused to accept her claim.

The court has granted one more mark to a highly meritorious student who sought relief with regard to one question from her Science paper of SSC Examination held in March 2016 by Mumbai Divisional Board, Vashi, of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & High Secondary Education.

The high court has restrained Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (GCMMF), which markets ice cream under brand name Amul, from broadcasting two television advertisements as they were disparaging towards plaintiff’s product, Kwality Walls.

The court recently ruled that the benefit of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act is available to an illegitimate child, who is born to parents who have undergone the rituals/formalities of performance of marriage which may be void or voidable.

Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has observed that if any sanction has been granted for prosecution on the same facts, the court has the power to add or alter the charge in respect of a specific offence, despite no specific sanction being there in respect of the offence for which charge is contemplated to be added/ altered.

The high court has held that the belief that marriage must be within the same religion is superstitious. 

Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi recently refused to reduce the sentence awarded to a 45-year-old man convicted for raping and attempting to murder his ex-employer’s daughter-in-law, observing that showing undue sympathy and imposing inadequate sentence harms the justice system.

The high court has dismissed a review petition filed by four applicants, who claimed to be the sons of previous Mutawalli or caretakers of the dargah at Amir Khusro Park and, therefore, asserted their right to some construction inside the tikona graveyard park, also known as Amir Khusro park.

The high court has directed the Secretary, Legislative Department, to convene a meeting to discuss the suggestions of senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, who is amicus curiae, to improve online access to Indian legislations.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently held that the right to sanitation has been now virtually accepted as constitutional right as fundamental rights like right to water, right to health, right to healthy environment, right to education and right to dignity are directly related to right of sanitation. 

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has restrained the district collector of Rewa from taking any coercive action to remove hutment of 200 Tribals till their representation is not decided. 

Madras High Court

The High Court of Madras last week directed the government to file a status report on action taken on complaints against milk adulteration.

The court recently questioned the Additional Advocate General on the source of the power of the government to specify the percentage of disabilities for reservation in recruitment for various posts.

The Madurai Bench of the high court on Friday rapped a Jamaath (congregation of Muslims) for having issued a fatwa against a woman’s father for having approached the high court seeking an interim stay against triple talaq (divorce) pronounced by her estranged husband.

The high court has refused to ban the sale of a book on the history of Mangalanathar-Mangaleswari Temple at Uthirakosamangai in Ramanathapuram District.

The high court on Friday reportedly directed self-financing medical and dental colleges for Post Graduation courses of Pondicherry University to admit medical students under the State quota before June 19.

Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court on Monday issued several directions for rehabilitation of acid attack victims, and for prevention of such instances. These include measures such as monthly payments to the victims who have received third/fourth degree burn injuries, in addition to the ex-gratia lump-sum payment, and reservation in public employment in the category of physically challenged persons. It further directed all courts across Uttarakhand to conduct day-to-day hearing for concluding the trial in such matters within three months.

Walking down the streets of the Kelambakkam area in Chennai, one can surely get to see a cyclone relief centre, which is home to a few hundreds of refugees.

A recent news piece vividly highlights that these “stateless” people should be duly deported as they pose a national threat to the country’s security. Often being regarded as the “most persecuted people”, Rohingya refugees are perhaps the most undesired section of population on the Earth.

Rohingya refugees have been crossing the international border and coming to India for a long time now.

In 2012, Indian cities like Jammu, Delhi and Hyderabad, and the state of Mizoram witnessed an influx of Rohingya Muslims, with Chennai being the latest entrant to the list.

In Kalandi Kunj locality of Delhi, around 200 Rohingyas - tortured and persecuted by the military junta and Buddhists - reside in a makeshift camp.

The low-lying camp area is surrounded by drainage and heaps of dirt and dust.

The unhealthy living conditions in and around the camp pose a question mark on the sanitation facilities of the city authorities itself.

During early monsoon showers when Delhi takes a sigh of relief from hot weather, Rohingyas bucket out water from the tapered passages of the camp.

The windy weather might bring a tear of joy in the eyes of Delhiites, but for these people, it brings eminent fear.

The houses have boulder-like structures to act as weight for rooftop, thereby, keeping a check on light sheds from being dismantled or being flown away.

It was only last year that Khudaai Khidmatgaar (Volunteers for Change), under the leadership of Anjum Amir Khan, constructed a few toilets for the camp area.

Struggling with his tears, Abid Qayum, 27, narrates horrifying accounts of genocide unleashed in Myanmar.

By virtue of being born to a Myanmarese couple, who crossed over to India, he does not have birth certificate, despite being born here.

The Border Security Force (BSF), which guards the Indian-Pakistan and the Indian-Bangladesh borders, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBPF), which is deployed along the India-Tibet (China) border; and the Assam Rifles (AR), which is deployed along the India-Myanmar border, are usually the first representatives of the Indian system which refugees may encounter when they enter or exit India by land routes.

Mohammad Salim, son of Abdul Salim, talks with pain in his eyes, remembering those that were left behind. In the pursuit of a safe haven, he has lost half of his family. Salim, in a melancholic voice, asserted, “Every time, a family tried crossing border, we were asked to give our belongings and the little money we had. But, ma’am this does not satisfy them. The Border Security Forces would keep any one woman from the family to let the others pass across.”

But, the situation in the Kelambakkam area of Chennai seems a contrast. With permanent roof tops, basic sanitation facilities and adequate water supply, it is like ‘Heaven on Earth’ for these Rohingya refugees. Unlike, their distant relatives in Delhi, they appear to be living a life of ease.

Tasmina Bibi, 20, shows her refugee card issued way back in 2013, which has a picture of her early teenage.

Today, she is a rag picker and earns about Rs. 50-70 a day in Chennai. On being asked as to how she landed up in Chennai, she starts with a frown on her face. Probably, she has seen more anyone would have, the lessons of life and learning have been very harsh on her. On recollecting a few memories of her village, she tells as to how random people would barge in their village, pulling women by hair and torturing the men in the house.

After a jinx in her voice, she sparks up; gather all strength, like a phoenix rising from its ashes. Tasmina says, “Madam, I have faith in Allah, Chennai is my home, it gives me love and food, I want my children to study, if only that was possible.”

Most of the refugees work as daily-wage labourers, rickshaw pullers, factory workers, and vegetable hawkers and rag pickers. Around 30 of them have so far received temporary refugee cards from the UNHCR which provides them with subsistence allowance of Rs. 1,000 to each employed family. However, this allowance has not touched the most vulnerable section, i.e., the destitute and handicapped.

On their expectations from the UNHCR, they contend that it has been satisfactory.

“Though nobody from the government has visited us, yet a lot of help has been rendered by people in Chennai. We can very well practice our religion and be at harmony with others at the same time,” says Mohammad Salim. Reshma Abidi, a lean middle-aged woman with a scar on her cheek, joyfully interrupts and remarks, “I feel so connected here. They eat rice and fish, as we do. Without food, no one can survive and we catch fishes, the sea welcomes us.”

Therefore, Chennai seems to simply provide a temporary shelter to these Refugees. And on general introspection, one can find out how eating habits and religious assimilation in the area is acting as a ground for their stay.

Refugee populations from Sri Lanka and Tibet fall under the mandate of the Government of India and, through it, the various state governments where these refugees are resident. All Sri Lankan refugees in Tamil Nadu have access to most of the socio-economic schemes available to citizens.

Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddy Maternity Financial Assistance scheme for pregnant women is one such example.

The Public Distribution Scheme (PDS) for free supply of rice and essential food commodities has been extended to Sri Lankan refugees in camps. Sri Lankan refugees are entitled to other social schemes, such as pension scheme of Rs. 1,000, Girl Child Protection Scheme of Rs. 25,000 for each female child (up to a maximum of two female children per family), Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Memorial Marriage Assistance Scheme of upto Rs. 50,000 per refugee woman and the Janani Suraksha Scheme.

This model can surely be a living piece of evidence for both the Centre and States to come up with certain policies of like nature for the Rohingyas as well.

If seen in the context of the arrival of some Hindus from Pakistan, it becomes clear that the standard varies as how to treat asylum-seekers and refugees.

In Rajasthan, the state government met all of them. The right-winged people hijacked this issue and shed brotherly tears for the Hindus. It highlights that our response to refugees is moulded by religion and ethnicities, an abhorrent practice which runs completely opposite to the international humanitarian law.

Though India is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, it does not exempt us from the international obligations towards the refugees. The Constitution, in archaic terms, has highlighted that rights declared in Articles 21 and 14, among other constitutional rights, are applicable to “all persons” residing in India. Judicial intervention notwithstanding, the government’s stubbornness to frame a law is incomprehensible. The refugee issue has always been an area of bewilderment to us, and Rohingyas, in specific, have been a “slippery slope”.

The UN appointed Indian Supreme Court advocate Indira Jaising, Harvard-trained Sri Lankan lawyer Radhika Coomaraswamy and Australian consultant Christopher Dominic to a fact-finding mission investigating alleged killings, rape and torture by security forces against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar’s Rakhine state.

This gives us a glimpse of light at the other end of the dark tunnel of torture and repression.

The friendly Indo-Myanmar card, Indian democratic model, minority schemes can surely be a guideline to Myanmar for its march towards a realistic democracy. A dialogue of peace and actionable policy making needs an immediate address. Otherwise, like any other June 20, this year too, World Refugee Day would pass off as a mere itch in the eyes of the government.

Nabeela Siddiqui is pursuing her Master’s in Law, with specialisation in Constitutional Law and Legal Order, from the University of Madras, Chennai. She is currently working as a legal research internee at the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organisation (AALCO), with her research on ‘Access to Health Care: with Reference to Rohingya Refugees in Delhi’. She is also a member of the All-India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) and South-Asian Society of Criminology and Victimology (SASCV). She interned under senior advocate Imteyaz Ahmed at the Supreme Court of India and is a peer reviewer to a few international journals.

[The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of LiveLaw and LiveLaw does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same]

Two lovers, Satish Nirankari and Pooja, belonging to different castes, decided to end their lives by consuming poison, because of parental opposition to their marriage. While Nirankari survived in the suicide attempt, Pooja died. Both the trial court and the High Court found Nirankari guilty of murdering Pooja, on the assumption, that Pooja had changed her mind to marry him, and it was he who forced her to commit suicide. Besides, the act of Pooja hanging herself, after consuming poison, led the courts below to find Nirankari guilty of murder.

The Supreme Court, however, found him not guilty because it felt that the threat of honour crime by their families could force lovers to choose suicide as an option. If, in the process, one survived, and tried to seek medical help for himself and the deceased, as in the instant case, he could not be held guilty of murder, the SC has held.

The criminal appeal filed in 2007 by Nirankari against his conviction and sentence was finally allowed by the Supreme Court bench of Justices A.K.Sikri and Ashok Bhushan on June 9.

The judgment, authored by Justice Sikri, conceded that the phenomenon of a girl sacrificing her love and accepting a decision of her parents, even though unwillingly, is common in this country. “It also happens in love that when a man is not able to get a girl which he wants, he may go to the extent of killing her as he does not want to see her alliance with any other person. This might be the motive in the mind of appellant. However, whether events turned in this way is anybody’s guess as no evidence of this nature has surfaced. It is not even possible for the prosecution to state any such things as whatever actually happened was only known to two persons, one of whom is dead and other is in dock”, the bench concluded.

The Constitution of India in Article 21 guaranteed right to life and personal liberty. Supreme Court said if Government caused wrongful detention it is liable to pay compensation to that citizen. But the Government has no policy.

Justice Bhagwati’s Jurisprudence

A great Justice P N Bhagwati, who died on June 15, 2017 urged not to convert Article 21 a mere a rope of sand. And created a new jurisprudence  in Khatri’s [1981 SCC (1) 627] case, created the jurisdiction of payment of monetary compensation under Public Interest Litigation to the victims on violation of their life and personal liberty. Bhagwathi J., speaking for the court observed: “the court can certainly inject the state for depriving a person of his life or Personal Liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law but, if life or Personal Liberty is violated otherwise than in accordance with such procedure, is the court helpless to grant relief to the person who has suffered such deprivation? Why should the court not be prepared to forge new and devise new remedies for the purpose of vindicating the most precious Fundamental Right to life and Personal Liberty? Otherwise Article 21 would be reduced to a nullity, a “mere rope of sand”. The court described this issue as of gravest Constitutional importance involving exploration of new dimension of the Right to Life and personal liberty. (at page 930 Para 3)

But when a prisoner asked for compensation for the extra detention in Tihar Jail though he was eligible for early release, the Tihar Jail authorities said that the Government has no policy to pay such damages.

An ordinary person, Om Parkash Gandhi was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds. He was detained from 23^rd November 2010 until he was granted bail on 24^th December 2010. The trial went on for 3 years resulting in sentencing on 26^th November 2013 for a period of one-year simple imprisonment and fine. The appellant has collected the information on remission  that 83 days of remission was given to him through 36 RTI applications and based on that contended that he should have been released on 2^nd August 2014. The following table explains the remission details.

OP Gandhi’s son sought to know the date of release from the Jail authorities much before the release but he was not responded. He wrote again on 4^th August 2014. The Jail authorities gave different answers to the question why was he not released earlier and tried to justify the date of release. They said that they did not inquire about the appellant’s bail status in one of the on-going cases before Judicial Magistrate 1^stClass, Faridabad, Haryana.

The question for consideration was ‘other detriment’ of extra-detention, and compensation. The appellant prayed for Rs 1000 as costs and compensation for extra-detention of 14 days.

The PIO of Tihar Jail says that the information sought is not covered by definition of ‘information’ under section 2 (f) of RTI Act. First appeal was filed, the appellate authority noted: “Now he has filed an appeal mentioning that he was illegally detained for 18 days in the Jail and SCJ-5 has given his report to the Commission on the appeal filed by the appellant vide order no. 431 and 432, dated 04.07.2015, then why the reply is not given to him. The PIO, CJ-5 was directed to send reply to the appellant within 10 days of time. Therefore, the present appeal be treated as MOST URGENT since under section 19, sub-section (i) or section 2 of the RTI Act, we are bound to dispose of the appeal within the specified time, failing to furnish the information asked for under the Act within the time specified is liable for penalty”. However, the warning given by their FAA was ignored.

The CIC directed the jail authorities, and the Government to explain why they should not be ordered to pay suitable compensation for causing loss or for other detriment caused by denial of information, besides Rs. 1,000 as costs.  to the appellant for reaching the Commission as hearing was postponed due to absence of the public authority. In addition, CIC issued show cause notice to PIO for punishment.

The GNCTD has to declare their policy in the form of citizen charter under Section 4(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Right to Information Act, 2005 explaining rights of a prisoner in the jail especially with regard to ‘remission and remedy’ for wrongful extra detention like this, the amount of compensation and procedure to claim, to be placed on their website as that was required to be disclosed voluntarily under Section 4 of Right to Information Act. It was not complied with. When another chance was given, none came from Jail. However they personally met the Commissioner in the evening explaining their absence and requested to take written representation. They have not sent that representation at all.

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Assistant Superintendent of Tihar Jail, stated that the announcement of remission was made on 15^thAugust itself, and hence the appellant could not get the full benefit of 15 days but got only one-day benefit and released on 15^th August, 2014. He explained that a prisoner cannot be released on the assumption of remission in advance. He could not show any proof for date of declaration of remission as 15^th August, 2014.  As the order of remission was issued on 11^th August, 2014, the appellant should have been released on that day itself. The authorities knew that the appellant has to be released on that day as per the remission order, yet he was detained till 15.08.2014.  Article 21 of Indian Constitution says: Protection of life and personal liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Government did not provide any remedy for such extra detention and said unless court orders compensation they cannot pay. While the Constitution laid down the right, the Supreme Court created remedy through their decisions to compensate for illegal detention. Section 19(8)(b) of RTI says S 19(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to,— require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;   Hence the CIC directed the Jail Authorities to pay Rs 10,000 for four days of extra detention and Rs 1000 as costs.

Under Section 19(8) (a) (iii) the CIC required to publish the information about policy as per law to compensate the prisoners who unfortunately detained beyond date of release. That information has to be framed and disclosed suo motu under Section 4(1) (b), (c) and also (d) of the RTI Act. Prisoners like the appellant are persons affected by the ‘administrative’ (deciding the benefit of remission) or ‘quasi-judicial’ (interpreting it or deciding the date of according that benefit) and hence they have the right to know about such policy. [O. P. Gandhi v. Tihar Jail CIC/SA/A/2016/000884 Dated 29.09.2016]

Stay by Delhi High Court

Instead of paying Rs 11,000, the Government of Delhi spent more than that amount to file a writ petition before Delhi High Court challenging the order of the CIC as unconstitutional and Hon’ble Court granted stay. “Prima facie, this power does not vest in the CIC,” Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said while staying operation of the September 29, 2016 decision of the Commission asking Tihar Jail authorities to frame a policy to resolve disputes regarding remission and paying compensation to prisoners who lost their personal liberty due to detention beyond the sentence awarded to them. The court’s order came on a plea by jail authorities who contended that the transparency panel has exceeded its jurisdiction under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 and appeared to have exercised the powers of a court. [Public Information Officer, Tihar Jail v. Om Prakash Gandhi, Writ Petition No. 621 of 2017, decided on January 24, 2017]

Professor Madabhushi Sridhar is a Columnist, Media Law Researcher and Central Information Commissioner.

[The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of LiveLaw and LiveLaw does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same]

The Cabinet Secretariat has ordered the chief and additional chief secretaries of the States and Union Territories to digitise land records, mutation records, sale and purchase records from 1950 onwards of all immovable property, including agricultural land and houses by 14th August 2017

The government is also considering the linking Aadhaar numbers with the ownership of the said properties.

The properties, which are not linked, shall be considered for appropriate action under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act 2016.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has put 62 Judicial Officers on notice, on an application in a Petition demanding setting aside of the selection and appointments of Civil Judges (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrates in a reserved category for Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) for 2013-14 vide selection list dated April 1, 2014.

The Bench comprising Justice Mahesh Grover and Justice Shekher Dhawan is hearing a Petition filed by Gurkirat Singh Dhillon, who had demanded that his viva voce/ interview be re-conducted, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the State.

The Advertisement inviting applications for 71 posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate in the State of Punjab was published by the PPSC on March 8, 2013. Out of the total, 10 posts were reserved for ex-servicemen/lineal descendants of ex-servicemen-general. The Petitioner had applied in this category. Two posts in the category, however, remained vacant.

Mr. Dhillon has now contended that the State had ignored Rule 4 of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 while preparing the list of selected candidates. He submitted that in the absence of an ex-serviceman, the descendant child of an ex-serviceman, to whom the vacancy could be given, had to be dependent on the ex-serviceman.

The selected candidates, however, had been practicing in different Courts as Advocates or were otherwise employed, at the time of their selection. “Such advocates could not be treated as dependents of ex-servicemen father for earning livelihood. They must be treated as gainfully employed,” he has, therefore, submitted.

Mr. Dhillon has, further, emphasized on the fact that, in violation of the selection agenda approved by the Cabinet of Ministers, the Punjab Public Service Commission Chairman was not present for the interviews. This, he has claimed, was a “serious irregularity” and had the effect of vitiating the entire recruitment process.

He had initially impleaded eight candidates selected in the reserved category of ex-servicemen/lineal descendants of ex-servicemen-general, to which he belonged. He has now, however, moved an application to make other selected candidates parties as well, submitting that the Chairman’s absence and failure to constitute the necessary quorum of the selection committee affected the selection of all other selected candidates as well.

With the objective of ensuring smooth rollout of GST and taking into account concerns expressed by the trade industry regarding filing of the returns in GST regime, it has been decided that, for the first two months of GST implementation, tax would be payable based on a simple return (Form GSTR-3B) containing summary of outward and inward supplies which will be submitted before the 20^th of the succeeding month.

However, the invoice-wise details in regular GSTR – 1 would have to be filed for July and August, 2017, as per the timelines given below:

* Facility for uploading of outward supplies for July 2017, will be available from 15^th July, 2017.

No late fees and penalty would be levied for the interim period. This is intended to provide a sense of comfort to the taxpayers and give them an elbow room to attune themselves with the requirements of the changed system.

India has decided to renominate Justice Dalveer Bhandari as a judge in the International Court of Justice, The Wire has reported.

The report stated that the government had also considered the names of Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice Dipak Mishra.

Justice Dalveer Bhandari was appointed as a judge in ICJ on April 27, 2012, and his term will expire on February 5, 2018.

Earlier, Justice BN Rao (1950s), Dr Nagendra Singh (1970-80s) and Justice RS Pathak (1988-90) served as judges of International Court of Justice.

Former Chief Justice of India Justice Pathak, who was renominated, lost the election.

Justice Bhandari was a member of the bench that stayed the execution of former Indian Navy Officer Kulbhushan Jadhav, who was sentenced to death by a Pakistani Military Court on espionage charges.

The Centre has clarified that the letter attributed to the Cabinet Secretariat, regarding linking land records to Aadhaar, is “fake and mischievous”.

Mr. Frank Noronha, the Principal Spokesperson of Government of India and Principal Director General of Press Information Bureau, rubbished such claims. Taking notice of the purported letter from the Cabinet Secretariat dated June 15, 2017, complete with a signature of an under-Secretary, Mr. Noronha said that a police complaint has been lodged and the matter is under investigation.

The statement was issued by the Government after reports doing the rounds that the Centre was planning to link all land records with the Aadhaar number under the Digital India Land Records Modernization Program (DILRMP).

The letter, with the subject of ‘digitization of land records since 1950’ had claimed that the Centre  is planning to bring a law making it mandatory for such linkage, and that the properties not linked shall be considered for ‘appropriate action’ under the Benami Transactions (Amended) Act. It was issued on June 15, and was addressed to Chief Secretaries of States and UTs, Additional Chief Secretaries of State and UTs, Lt Governor Delhi, NITI Aayog and a copy was also sent to the Prime Minister's Office for record.

On 16th June, 2017 Justice P. N. Bhagwati, former Chief Justice of India, passed away at the age of 95. He was a great judge and a great human being who is rightly considered as father of the Public Interest Litigation movement in the country. He became the 17^th Chief Justice of India on 12 July 1985 and held this office till 20 December 1986. He was a great defender of human rights and dignity in the apex court of the country. He was a judge par excellence.

Mr. P. N. Bhagwati was born on 21 December 1921 at Ahmadabad in Gujarat in a family of judges and lawyers. His father Mr. N. H. Bhagwati has been a judge of the Supreme Court of India. He had six brothers who did very well in their life. One of his brothers namely Mr. Jagdish Bhagwati is an internationally-known economist who teaches at Columbia University. His father Justice Bhagwati was his role model in life. He was eldest among all his brothers.

Mr. Bhagwati got all his education in the city of Bombay. He studied at Elphinston College, received a degree in Mathematics (Hons.) from the University of Bombay in 1941 with distinction. Thereafter he earned his law degree from Bombay University, studying in Government Law College, Bombay in 1945. During his college life he also participated in the freedom movement. He was deeply associated with the Quit India movement in 1942. In other words, he was a true Gandhian who lived a patriotic life.

In 1946, Mr. Bhagwati started his legal journey by enrolling himself as an advocate of the High Court of Bombay. At that time, his father Mr. N. H. Bhagwati was a judge of that High Court. In 1960, when the state of Gujarat came into existence, Mr. P. N. Bhagwati was advised to shift to the Gujarat High Court but he refused and continued his practice at High Court of Bombay. At a very young age of 38, he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Gujarat High Court on 21 July 1960 and was confirmed as a permanent judge on 6 April 1961. At the age of 45, he was appointed as Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court on 16 September 1967. It was indeed a great achievement on his part. In July 1973, he was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court of India. He was appointed as Chief Justice of India in August 1985 and held this office for about two years. He turned out to be an activist judge who took his judicial assignment as an opportunity to serve the people and give them justice as intended in our Constitution.

Throughout his life Justice Bhagwati was deeply wedded to the cause of justice. Legal aid was very dear to his heart. He played a crucial role in promoting the legal aid movement. He was appointed chairman of the Legal Aid Committee established by the Government of Gujarat, and directed the first pilot project for free legal aid. Later he also served as chairman of the Gujarat Judicial Reforms Committee. In his many judgments delivered in the Supreme Court also he gave a visible space to the cause of legal aid through the unique tool of public interest litigation. Being a judge of the High Court of Gujarat, he was equally involved in many socio-cultural activities also. He was member of the Board of Studies of Universities of Bombay, Baroda, Gujarat and many others. He was also associated with Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Ahmedabad. During his chief justiceship in Gujarat, he also served as Acting Governor briefly in 1967 and 1973. He was a multi-faceted personality who graced many positions. Post-retirement, he held the office of the Chancellor of Sanskrit Vidyapeeth.

On 17th July 1973, Justice Bhagwati was sworn in as a judge of the Supreme Court of India during the Chief Justiceship of Justice A. N. Ray, a judge who was appointed as Chief Justice of India in April 1973 after supersession of three of his senior colleagues-Justices Shelat, Grover and Hegde. This is called the first judicial supersession in the judicial history of the country. In July 1985, Justice Bhagwati became the Chief Justice of India and was retired on 21 December 1986. Even post-retirement he was very active in arbitration and other social issues like education. He was also associated with many international human rights institutions.

Like other human beings Justice Bhagwati had also many ups and downs in his life. He delivered many judgments having far reaching impact on judicial system of the country. Some of his famous judgments are: Samsher Singh, Maneka Gandhi, Bachan Singh, ADM Jabalpur, Bandhua Mukti Morcha, E. P. Royappa, Hussainara Khatoon, Sunil Batra, Upendra Baxi, S. P. Gupta and so on. Some of his judgments gave him high name and fame not only in the country but overseas also while his judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case became a headache for him throughout his life. He was badly criticised by the media as well as the Bar for his anti-human rights judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case. After 35 years he apologised for his view in the ADM Jabalpur case. But it was a futile exercise. The judgment had already done an irreparable damage to our constitutional democracy.

It is pertinent to mention that the ADM Jabalpur judgment (Habeas Corpus case) is considered as a blot on the forehead of the Indian Supreme Court. Some people have labelled it a self-inflicted wound on the part of the Supreme Court of India. The judgment was delivered on 28 April 1976 when the National Emergency was in operation and the President of India had placed the Fundamental Rights of the people under suspension, on the advice of the Union Government headed by the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi as per Article 359 of the Constitution of India. It was only Justice H. R. Khanna who stood against the dictatorship and delivered a dissenting judgment for which he sacrificed the highest judicial office of the country. But his dissenting view made him a hero of the masses overnight. In that case the majority judges (Justices Ray, Beg, Chandrachud and Bhagwati) had held that during the operation of the Emergency no person can move a writ petition before a High Court or Supreme Court for Habeas Corpus on the ground that the order of detention is illegal or malafide. This judgment came as a weapon in the hands of government which crushed the human rights badly. It was a complete negation of the Rule of Law and human rights in a democratically governed country. The Supreme Court of India by a majority closed its door to the people and approved the anarchy and dictatorship. Later in a judgment (Bani Kant Das) even the Supreme Court of India itself criticised this judgment. Criticising the judgment renowned constitutional jurist Mr. H. M. Seervai said: “ The four judgments were delivered in the darkest hour of India’s history after independence, and they made the darkness complete...ordinary men and women would understand Satan saying ‘Evil be thou my good,’ but they were bewildered and perplexed to be told by four learned judges of the Supreme Court, that in substance, the founding fathers had written into the Emergency provisions of our Constitution ‘Lawlessness be thou our law’. Indeed, it is a highly justified criticism.

Mr. H. M. Seervai analyzed Justice Bhagwati’s judgments critically. He criticised many of his judgments particularly on constitutional issues. In his book titled Constitutional Law of India, Volume 2 at page no 2239-40, Mr. Seervai has badly exposed Justice Bhagwati’s judicial behaviour and practice. No human being is perfect, and can never be. So was Justice Bhagwati. His judgment in S. P. Gupta case was also criticised by the Bar. In this judgment he had given full power to the government to appoint judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court. After the judgment, the Indira Gandhi government did not accept even his recommendations and appointed judges as per their wish. Later, in 1993 and 1999, this judgment was overruled by the larger Bench of the Supreme Court and the collegium system came into operation. In 2014, the Supreme Court again reiterated its view in the NJAC case. Now the collegium system is in operation and the government has very limited say in the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India has the final authority to appoint the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Leaving aside his controversial judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case, Justice Bhagwati delivered many judgments that protected human rights of the masses. Many of his judgments got international recognition. He relaxed the technical formalities in getting access to justice by introducing the unique tool of public interest litigation. He treated post cards and letters as writ petitions and gave relief to those who had no resources to approach the Supreme Court. Part 3 of the Constitution was engraved on his heart. Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution were fully used for human welfare. The Directive Principles of State Policy were equally dear to his compassionate heart. Along with his colleague Justice Krishna Iyer he propounded a new school of jurisprudence based on human welfare. The path that he showed subsequently became a guiding factor for the entire judicial system of the country. The PIL has now become the part of our constitutional system. Thanks to our great justices like Mr. Bhagwati for devising this great tool of constitutional justice which has benefited millions of those who had no access to justice.

Judges come and go but Justice Bhagwati has left an indelible imprint on the judicial system of the country. He was a compassionate judge, a relief-giving judge having full compassion and commitment to the cause of justice. He was a strong supporter of judicial activism. He was truly a people’s judge. His judgments have made him immortal in the memory of legal fraternity. He had also been a member of U.N. Human Rights Committee. He was a religion-oriented judge who was deeply associated with Satya Saibaba Trust for a long time. Justice must reach all, was the lifetime mission of Justice Bhagwati. Let me sum up this tributary piece with the following scholarly words of Justice Krishna Iyer:

“Justice Bhagwati is not only a legal luminary but also a social activist spreading the glorious cultural heritage of our country. Justice Bhagwati’s writings reflect his deep sense of love and commitment to uphold the human rights as well as fundamental rights of the downtrodden and the underprivileged classes. His indepth knowledge of human rights stands him apart from other judges as a tower. He is a jewel among judges, lucid and excellent.”

Dr. Lokendra Malik  is practicing as an Advocate in the Supreme Court of India with former Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid. He did his Ph.D. in Indian Constitutional Law from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and also earned the LL.D. (Post-doctoral) degree from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore.

The SEBI-Sahara investors repayment case came up before the Supreme Court.

A bench of justices Dipak Misra and Ranjan Gogoi extended the bail of Sahara chief Subrata Roy till July 5 after granting him 10 more working days to deposit Rs 709.82 crore out of the promised Rs 1,500 crore.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Roy submitted that Rs 790.18 have been already been deposited with the SEBI-Sahara account and 10 more working days be granted for submission of the remainder. The bench considered the submissions.

Roy had earlier deposited two cheques of Rs 1,500 crore and Rs 552.22 crore to be paid to the Securities and Exchange Board of India on June 15 and July 15 respectively.

Irked over non-submission of money, the Supreme Court had on April 17 decided to sell property worth Rs 34,000 crore belonging to the Sahara group in Maharashtra's Aamby Valley and had sought Roy's presence before it.

The court had on November 28 last year asked Roy to deposit Rs 600 crore more by February 6 in the refund account to remain out of jail and warned that failure to do so would result in his return to prison. It had on May 6, 2016 granted Roy four-week parole to attend his mother's funeral. His parole has been extended by the court ever since. Roy was sent to Tihar jail on March 4, 2014. Besides Roy, two other directors, Ravi Shankar Dubey and Ashok Roy Choudhary, were also arrested for the failure of two group companies, Sahara India Real Estate Corporation (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corp Ltd (SHICL), to comply with the court's August 31, 2012 order to return Rs 24,000 crore to their investors. Director Vandana Bhargava was not taken into custody.

TOUGH STAND ON APR 27

Toughening its stance, an angry Supreme Court had on April 27 set a deadline of June 15 for Roy to pay the next instalment of Rs 1500 crore towards repayment to investors and sternly told the Sahara chief who had been summoned to court that he will be sent to jail in the event of non-payment of the money by that date.

“We are warning you if the amount does not come or your cheque gets dishonored you will be straight away sent to jail. We cannot give you endless time. That is a dream you are dreaming. There has been enough indulgence”, a bench headed by justice Dipak Misra had told Roy who stood with his hand folded in the second row of the courtroom dressed in a sandal colour safari suit.

Angry that its repeated warning had been ignored, the apex court had on April 17 ordered the sale of Sahara’s luxurious Aamby Valley, its prime property in Pune worth Rs 39,000 crore and directed the group chief Subrata Roy to appear before it on April 28.

The court cracked the whip as the last date for payment of an instalment of Rs 5,000 crore by the Sahara group expired.

Roy gave a cheque to the court of Rs 1,500 crore to be deposited in SEBI-Sahara account on or before June 15. He also furnished a post-dated cheque of Rs 552 crore to be realised by July 15.

Supreme Court’s Vacation Bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, on Monday, June 19 directed listing on June 22, of the Criminal Writ Petition filed by Babu @ Ketan and Sanni, seeking stay on their hanging, following the rejection of their mercy petitions by the President, Pranab Mukherjee. The President rejected their mercy petitions on May 25.

READ: President Rejects Mercy Petitions of Five Death Row Convicts In Two Days

Although the review petitions filed by one of the three convicts is pending before the Supreme Court, to be heard in the open court by a three-Judge bench, in the absence of a specific stay on their hanging, it is apprehended that the prison authorities may issue the necessary warrant for their hanging. Hence, the writ petitions seek a stay on the likely warrants.

Also, the writ petitions to be heard on Thursday challenge the validity of Supreme Court rules, which make it possible for in limine dismissals by the Court, of SLPs by the death-row convicts, without stating any reasons.

On Monday, senior advocate, Salman Khurshid appeared for the convicts, assisted by Rishad A. Chowdhury, AOR.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha, on Monday, June 19, held that the non-implementation or partial implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award by some newspaper establishments stemmed from the understanding of the concerned establishments in a particular manner. Therefore, they cannot be held to have wilfully disobeyed the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 7.2.2014.

“At best, the default alleged has taken place on account of a wrong understanding of the Award as upheld by this Court. This would not amount to wilful default so as to attract the liability of civil contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The default alleged though is unmistakably evident to us, in the absence of any wilful or deliberate intention to commit the same cannot make any of the newspaper establishments liable for contempt. On the other hand, they are entitled to one more opportunity to implement the Award in its proper spirit and effect”, the bench held.

The Supreme Court conceded that the issues concerning (i)Clause 20(j) of the Award, (ii)whether the award applies to contractual employees, (iii)whether it includes variable pay and (iv) the extent of financial erosion that would justify withholding of payment of arrears has not been specific ally dealt with either in the Award or in the judgment of the Court.

On each of the above issues, however, the Court reiterated the scope and ambit of the Award afresh. On Clause 20(j), the Court the Act guarantees each newspaper employee entitlement to receive wages as recommended by the Wage Board and approved and notified by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Act. The wages notified, it said, supersedes all existing contracts governing wages as may be in force. However, it will always be open to the concerned employee to agree to and accept any benefits which is more favourable to him than what has been notified .

The Court clarified that the benefits of the Award are applicable to regular employees as well as contractual employees. On variable pay, the Court held that it aims to give fair and equitable treatment to employees of newspapers. “Therefore, no question of withholding the said benefit by taking any other view with regard to “variable pay” can arise, the bench observed.

In Paragraph 27, the bench held that henceforth all complaints with regard to non-implementation of the Award or otherwise be dealt with in terms of the mechanism provided under Section 17 of the Act. “It would be more appropriate to resolve such complaints and grievances by resort to enforcement and remedial machinery provided under the Act rather than by any future approaches to the Courts in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction of the Courts or otherwise”, the bench made it clear.

The Court asked the writ petitioners seeking interference with transfer/termination and other service conditions, to approach the appropriate authority under the Act or under cognate provisions of law (Industrial Disputes Act, 1947), as the case may be. The Court found that invoking Article 32 jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would not be justified for this purpose.

Practice of tolerance is a welcome sign in constitutional scheme, the court observed.

The Orissa High Court has observed that constitutional freedom of speech and expression is subjected to reasonable restraints, but it cannot be suppressed on the ground of convenience.

Justice SK Sahoo, while quashing a defamation case against a newspaper, remarked: ““Any attempt to destroy the fourth pillar of Indian democracy by any atheistic demon Hiranyakashipu and to control the fair and honest media reporting for ulterior motive can have a devastating effect and would give rise to Lord Narasimha Avatar. Therefore, practice of tolerance is a welcome sign in constitutional scheme.”

The court observed that what is published in newspaper Dharitri was only the summary of the contents of memorandum and it is not their individual opinion and it was in good faith without any intention to harm the reputation of the complainant.

The complainant had alleged that the accused and their supporters called a meeting and published defamatory news items in newspapers Dharitri, Pragativadi and Matrubhasa without any basis, to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant with malafide intention.

The Central Information Commission on Friday rapped the National Commission for Women, for its mishandling of a sexual harassment complaint and a subsequent RTI application filed by one of NCW’s female employees.

“When the right of woman is violated and rule of law does not work, she looks to National Commission for Women for support and sympathy. If men violate rights of woman in NCW office itself, and rule of law does not work, where should she go?”  Information Commissioner Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu lamented.

The Commission was hearing an Appeal filed by a Research Assistant employed at the NCW, who had claimed that her term was not extended to “harass her for daring to raise her voice” alleging sexual harassment by the Deputy Secretary. When the term was later extended, she complained that her performance was unjustly questioned in the extension letter. She had then filed an RTI application seeking file notings, correspondence regarding extension of employment contract, inquiry report and statement of witnesses. Her application was, however, denied on the ground that the information sought was ‘third-party information’. Notably, her first appeal was rejected by the same officer who was accused of sexual harassment as he was the designated First Appellate Authority under the Act.

Taking note of the fact situation, the Commission ruled that the First Appellate Authority had violated the provisions of the RTI Act, and had failed to follow the principles of natural justice, by omitting to conduct a proper hearing. The Commission opined that the accused should have recused from hearing the appeal in the first place.

Interestingly, the Commission took note of the fact that there was a “sudden increase” in the remuneration of contractual employees who were on the enquiry committee, concluding that such facts “strengthen the allegation of conspiracy to harass the appellant and strategic plan to remove her.”

A notice from the CIC was also left unanswered by the NCW officers. Terming such disregard as “surprising”, the CIC observed, “The submission of the appellant reflect unhealthy environment at workplace in the forum which supposed to protect the rights of women.  Her right to life, right to work and right to information were seriously endangered by sexual harassment by senior officer... If this is the fate of woman who is working as research assistant in National Commission for Women, what will be the plight of ordinary women outside the NCW?”

The Commission opined that the Internal Complaints Committee had not disposed of the complaint “in a judicious manner”. It then went on to “recommend” the NCW Chairperson to consider the Appellant’s second appeal as well as the Commission’s order as a complaint, “to save the credibility and reputation of NCW, within reasonable time and perform its duty to cleanse the RTI wing including the First Appellate Authority to make it objective and secure it from misconduct and breach by officers”.

A notice was also issued to the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority, asking them to show cause as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed on them. Further, the FAA was asked to explain as to “why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him for violating law in dealing with first appeal under RTI Act, in spite of being accused of sexual harassment of the complainant, which could be a clear case of conflict of interest”.

Furthermore, the NCW Member Secretary was asked to explain as to why the NCW should not be ordered to pay compensation to the Appellant for the harassment. The NCW was asked to conduct an inquiry into the allegations and submit a report before 14 August.

The Madras High Court has observed that tobacco is not a food product for the purpose of Food Safety and Standards Act and no proceedings can be initiated against the manufacturers under the Act.

Justice M. Duraiswamy referred to a decision of Madurai Bench of the High Court wherein it held that persons who are manufacturing Gutkha and Pan Masala cannot be proceeded under the FSSAI. Tobacco is covered under the COTA (Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003).

The High Court of Kerala has also ruled in the same lines. It had (in facts of that case) held as follows:

• Tobacco or tobacco products are not food as defined under Section 3(j) of the FSS Act and it is not a food product as specified in the Regulation 2.3.4 of the Regulations.
• Tobacco and tobacco products are to be manufactured and sold strictly in accordance with the provisions of the CTP Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
• The Food safety authorities have no right take any action against tobacco or tobacco products by virtue of Government Order dated 22.05.2012

A firm which has been manufacturing tobacco products since the year 1972, had assailed the action taken by Food Safety officer wherein, tobacco products manufactured by the petitioner was collected by the Food Safety Officer from their shop.

The High Court has set aside the proceedings against the firm. “The petitioner is manufacturing fine quality tobacco with prior licence obtained without violating any provisions of law, the ratio laid down by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court squarely applies to the present case.”, the Bench observed.

Bihar Governor Ram Nath Kovind named as ruling NDA’s candidate for the post of President yesterday is an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court since 1978.

According to the apex court website, his AoR code is 567.

If elected, Kovind, a known dalit figure in BJP circle will become the 14th President after the incumbent Pranab Mukherjee retires onJuly 24.

A commerce graduate and LLB from the Kanpur University in Uttar Pradesh, Kovind has been a successful lawyer.

He practised in the Delhi High Court from 1977 to 1979 and was the central government's standing counsel in the Supreme Court from 1980 to 1993. Kovind became an Advocate-on-Record of the Supreme Court of India in 1978.

He practised in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court for about 16 years until 1993. He was elected to the Rajya Sabha in April 1994 from Uttar Pradesh and served two consecutive terms till March, 2006. In Parliament, Kovind was a member of many important committees, especially the parliamentary committee on the welfare of scheduled castes/tribes, the parliamentary panel on social justice and empowerment and the committee on law and justice.

Kovind joined a stir by SC/ST employees when in 1997 certain orders were issued by the Centre which adversely affected their interests. These orders were later declared null and void after the passage of three amendments in the Constitution during the rule of the first NDA government led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

TOOK LEAD IN FREE LEGAL AID

As an advocate, Kovind took the lead in providing free legal aid to weaker sections, especially the SC/ST women, and poor and needy girls under the aegis of the Free Legal Aid Society in Delhi. Kovind is also known for his work in the field of education. He has served as member on the board of management of the Dr BR Ambedkar University, Lucknow.

He was also a member of the board of governors of the Indian Institute of Management, Kolkata. He has also represented India in the United Nations and addressed the UN General Assembly in October, 2002. As a member of Parliament, Kovind visited Thailand, Nepal, Pakistan, Singapore, Germany, Switzerland, France, United Kingdom and the USA. As an MP, Kovind emphasised on the development of basic infrastructure for education in rural areas and helped in construction of school buildings under the MPLAD scheme. Kovind was born on October 1, 1945 at Kanpur (rural) in Uttar Pradesh. He was married to Savita in 1974 and the couple have a son and a daughter.

The Taj Mahal Palace in Mumbai has become the first Indian building to be trademarked, under the Trademarks Act 1999, for its architectural design.

With this, the iconic 114-year-old building joins the small group of trademarked buildings like Eiffel Tower, Empire Estate Building and Sydney Opera House Building.

The building, which now serves as a hotel and was the target of devastating terrorist attacks in 2008, had served as a hospital during the First World War.

The move was motivated by the aim of protection of the distinctiveness of the building.

The trademark means that those using pictures of the Taj Mahal Palace will now have to pay a licencing fee.

The dastardly attack by Maoists on the Central Reserve Police Force personnel at Sukma in Chhattisgarh on April 24 led to concerns over violation of their human rights. Left-Wing Extremist groups carried out an attack on a team of 90 CRPF personnel,  who were on duty, sanitizing a stretch of public road being constructed in the Burkapal-Chintagufa area of Sukma district in Chhattisgarh. Twenty-five CRPF personnel died in the ambush, while scores of others were injured.

RTI activist, Venkatesh Nayak sought information relating to the attack from the CRPF under the RTI Act.  He asked the CRPF to provide a clear photocopy of the report of the inquiry conducted by it into the circumstances surrounding the attack, along with annexures, if any.

Nayak claimed in his application that the reports of the deaths of serving CRPF personnel prima facie constitute allegations of violation of their human rights.   Therefore, he persuaded the  CRPF to disclose information under the second proviso of Section 24 of the RTI Act, as it is a fit case.  He requested the CRPF to obtain the approval of the Central Information Commission prior to disclosing the information requested, as it is the statutory requirement  under the said proviso of the RTI Act.

To his surprise, Nayak received a reply from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), CRPF, denying that the murderous attack amounted to human rights violation.

Section 24 of the RTI Act exempts 26 intelligence and security organizations from ordinary obligations of transparency like other public authorities.  However, they are duty-bound to give information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

Nayak observed that exempt agencies like the CRPF simply do not provide any information at all, even if it is related to allegations of corruption or human rights violation.  “Often, they simply deny the existence of such allegations”, he said.

The CPIO OF CRPF’s reply to Nayak’s RTI application is reproduced below:

“In the instant matter, there appears to be no violations of Human Rights as well as facts of the case do not attract the allegations of corruption.  Moreover, your application does not make any reference to such allegations.  Hence, this department is not able to provide any information in this regard to you under the RTI Act, 2005.”

The CPIO of CRPF also said that the inquiry report into the incident contains various security and tactics related issues and cannot be shared under RTI Act because it might adversely affect CRPF’s strategic response.

Nayak has observed that the murderous attack on the CRPF personnel amounts to violation of their human rights by non-State actors.  By denying this reality, the CRPF may be doing injustice to its own personnel, he has said.