Jump to content
Sajib Nandi

Humane SC Judgment Follows the Principle of Natural Justice: Soli J Sorabjee

Recommended Posts

Sajib Nandi

Reported by Newindianexpress.com on 31st May, 2015

Humane SC Judgment Follows the Principle of Natural Justice - The New Indian Express

 

In our constitutional jurisprudence, neither a prisoner who is un-convicted nor a person who is convicted is denuded of basic human rights. Keeping this principle in mind, a bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices A K Sikri and U R Lalit reaffirmed that condemned prisoners have a right to dignity. Consequently, “execution of death sentence cannot be carried out in an arbitrary, hurried and secret manner without allowing convicts to exhaust all legal remedies and to meet family members”. The court quashed the execution warrants of a young woman and her lover convicted for killing seven members of her family. It observed that “death warrant was signed by the sessions judge in haste without waiting for the convict to exhaust all legal remedies”. The court further pointed out that the condemned prisoners could file a review petition before the Supreme Court and can also seek mercy from the President or the Governor. It ruled that principles of natural justice must be followed and sufficient notice should be given to the convict before the issuance of death warrant to enable him/her to pursue legal remedies and to have a final meeting with family members, and in case where a convict is not in a position to get legal assistance, legal aid must be provided. That is the essence of the judgment. To some, this commendable Supreme Court judgment appears to be soft on convicts and to accord them wide indulgence. This criticism overlooks that the court was dealing with human life. And remember that one test of belief in principles is that you apply them in cases with which you have the least sympathy.

The Strange World of Politics: Strange events happen in the world of politics. Cuba, which at one time was regarded by the US as the epicentre of communism and source of terrorism, is now out of its terror list. There are clear signs of cordial relations developing between the two countries. It is said that Pope Francis was in a way instrumental in effecting rapprochement between the US and Cuba. This would have been previously unimaginable in view of the deep-seated opposition of the Catholic Church to the authoritarian Cuban regime. Nearer home, we have the spectacle of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh having a meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi which reportedly was marked with cordiality. To my mind, this is a welcome development which should be the healthy norm of democracy. An editorial (Saturday, May 30) in a national daily rightly states that “once the heat and hostilities of an election end, governance should be a cooperative enterprise, with the incumbent seeking advice or information from the one he succeeds”. Prime Minister Vajpayee maintained cordial relations with Congress leaders. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley keeps in touch with his predecessor, P Chidambaram, on economic matters. This healthy practice should be encouraged. If both the former and the present Prime Ministers discussed issues mainly relating to the economy, then Modi should be commended for reaching out to his predecessor in office, who is a renowned economist. The quip of Rahul Gandhi that Singh during the meeting gave lessons in economics to PM Modi was a childish jibe, betraying immaturity in the future President of the Congress party from whom one expects sense and substance.

 

Disquieting Trends in Government: There are some disquieting features in the running of the present government. For example, unfilled vacancies in important posts like the Chief Commissioner under Right to Information Act and posts of two members of the Competition Tribunal, where at present former Supreme Court Judge L M Singhvi is the sole member. There is no apparent reason why these vacancies which are known in advance are not filled up in time.

But what is most distressing is that in this day and age of vibrant shining democracy that India professes to be, nearly 2,000 of our citizens have died because of the heat wave across the country. Surely, the top most priority should be to provide shelters to these marginalised groups and equip them with necessary tools to prevent their death from India shining too hot for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

The Controller of the modern Islamic terrorism is Al Quaida. USA is father of this terrorism. By knowing the history behind the birth of Al Quaida, we can come to know why and how the Government of USA is responsible for its creation.

From the seventies in the last century the Government of America had left no stones unturned to uproot the Russian rule in Afghatistan. The ‘democratic government’ of Afghanistan was totally dependent on the Russian army. And the strongly fundamentalist Muslim clan there was the ‘Taliban’. The two neighboring countries of Afghanistan were Russia on one hand and Pakistan, a friend nation of America on the other. So the location of Afghanistan was strategically important to America. Hence the need for political transition in Afghanistan was important for faraway USA.

The Government of America started helping the Taliban group in various ways. – In 1985 a regular office was opened in Rawalpindi of Pakistan with specialists from the CIA and Pentagon. The rugged Taliban fundamentalists were trained in sophisticated modern warfar and thus......

 

In a country of 125 crores population how it is possible for government without ample money to provide facilities to victimized people from natural calamities e.g. heat wave?

 

A leadership of ruling government is boasting only and during campaign of election so many promises were given to people but not a single promise is full filled by the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • tusharcosmic
      By tusharcosmic
      We go to the courts for justice and they give us next dates of hearing.
      Can we ask the Govt. through RTI that under which constitutional law they go on evading justice to its people?
      If yes please tell me the procedure in details.
    • karira
      By karira
      From an email received from Mr Venkatesh Nayak:
       
      Dear all,
       
      The Government of India has published in the Official Gazette the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Special Investigation Team it has set up to investigate the issue of black money stashed abroad by Indians (2nd attachment). The setting up of the SIT amounts to a welcome reversal of previous government policy on this subject. The previous Government had opposed this direction despite a clear order from the Supreme Court in 2011. The SIT will be headed by Justice (Retd.) M B Shah with Justice Arijit Pasayat as Vice-Chair. The rest of the members are the same ex officio senior bureaucrats who were part of the High Level Committee set up by the previous Government to look into the cases of persons who were said to have stashed away money in foreign banks abroad. The Joint Secy. (Revenue) has been added to this list as Member Secretary of the SIT. This SIT is an outcome of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Ram Jethmalani and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 1- judgement delivered in July 2011. It is also interesting to note that with the exception of the retired judges and bureaucrats of the Finance Ministry, all other members are representatives of organisations notified under the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) which are not required to furnish any information other than that pertaining to allegations of corruption or violation of human rights.However, in my opinion, as the SIT has been set up by a notification of the Central Government and as it will be wholly financed by the same Government, it will be a public authority under the RTI Act.
       
      Terms of Reference seemingly omit an important Court direction:
       
      While going through the ToR, I found that a crucial direction given by the Supreme Court in July 2011 is missing form the Gazette notification published by the Central Government. On page 66 of its judgement the Apex Court had ordered two more things to be done by the SIT in addition to what it said on pages 38-42 (1st attachment):
      1) that the SIT must take over the investigation of individuals with bank accounts in Liechtenstein as disclosed by Germany to India and expeditiously conduct the same; and
       
      2) SIT should review concluded matters also to assess whether investigations have been thoroughly and properly conducted or not and if they conclude that there is scope for further investigation they should proceed further.
       
      On 01 May this year the Central Government had said that investigations had been concluded against 18 of the 26 individuals that had bank accounts in Liechtenstein. These names were received from Germany and investigation had concluded in 17 cases. No evidence was found against 8 individuals and the investigation had been concluded against them. You will find this information in the daily order of the Apex Court at: http://judis.nic.in/temp/17620093152014p.txt
       
      So technically the ToR should have included reopening of these cases also to assess whether everything was properly done and if there is any need to proceed further. The current ToR published in the Gazette do not explicitly refer to these two directions. However I hope the SIT in its wisdom will interpret its mandate broadly to cover these directions as well and make up for what probably is an omission due to oversight.
       
      Importance of this case to RTI
       
      Readers who have gone through the Supreme Court's judgement and those who may like to read it now, will notice that this appeal case arose from an RTI application made by the Petitioners to disclose the names of the bank accountholders that Germany handed over to the Central Government. The previous Government adamantly refused to follow the directions of the Court to hand over to the Petitioners the names of individuals against whom investigations had been completed wholly or partially. Last month the Government handed over two sealed envelopes containing the names of the accountholders to the Court. The Court again directed that the names be handed over to the Petitioners. These names have not been made public by the Government, officially, till date. There is no reference to this direction in the ToR of the SIT either. The NDA Government could change policy in this regard as well and publicise the names contained in the sealed envelopes, as it would only be dutifully following the directions of the Court. Such a step would demonstrate the NDA Government's commitment to transparency as a real one going beyond mere public relations exercises.
       
      This case is also of great use for all RTI users and activists who receive rejection orders from Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities on the ground that contracts with private parties contain confidentiality clauses and cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act. In this case also the Government of India, under the United Progressive Alliance, refused to make the names of the accountholders public saying that Germany had handed over their names to Indian authorities under a tax agreement that contains a 'confidentiality' clause. The Apex Court examined the relevant clause of the treaty and came to the following conclusion:
       
      1) that the tax agreement did not prohibit disclosure of information provided by one signatory to another if it was required in a judicial proceeding; and
       
      2) that confidentiality clauses contained in international treaties and agreements are not to be interpreted as set in stone. Instead they must be tested against the concept and practice of the rule of law guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and most importantly the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) and the right to seek redress for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The confidentiality clause would be tolerated only if it matched any of the grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) for imposing reasonable restrictions on the citizens' right to freedom of speech and expression. As RTI is a deemed fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), it can also be restricted only on grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) and the RTI Act but no other ground would be valid.
       
      Readers will recognise that the Indian Government signs bilateral or multilateral treaties and agreements in exercise of its sovereign functions. When confidentiality clauses contained in such agreements are subject to the fundamental right to free speech and expression and consequently RTI, confidentilaity clauses contained in commercial agreements with private parties that public authorities enter into during the routine course of government business must also be interpreted along the same lines. The mere existence of a 'confidentiality' clause in a contract with one or more private parties is not enough to reject a request for copies of the contract under the RTI Act. This is a landmark interpretation of the Apex Court and if applied in letter and spirit can open up to public scrutiny a whole range of contracts and agreements that the Government signs with private parties. Public-Private Partnership (PPPs) agreements would have to meet this test before the public authority concerned can refuse access to such agreements.
       
      I hope readers will watch with great interest how transparently the SIT will be functioning in the days to come.
       
      Kindly circulate this email widely.
      Thanks
       
      RamJethmalni-v-UnionofIndia-SCI-Jul11.pdf
      BlackMoney-SIT-ToR-May14.pdf

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy