Bangalore lawyers had called for a day-long boycott of courts on 9/11/2009 in protest against Karnataka Chief Justice P. D. Dinakaran and disrupted court proceedings on that day. In Court Hall No. 1 of the High Court Justice Dinakaran and other Justices were hearing cases. Over 200 advocated barged in and ordered all lawyers to leave the hall. Dinakaran pleaded with the lawyers to allow him to do his work but was shouted down. The advocates attacked media persons who were present. Most of the judges quickly agreed to the demands of the lawyers. In Court Hall No. 2 Justice V. Gopal Gowda and Justice B. V. Nagarathna refused to leave. The lawyers shouted slogans, threw pens and paper, banged bookcases and raised chairs. They locked all four doors of the room. Gopal Gowda and Nagarathna were not allowed to leave for lunch. At 2.15 p.m. Dinakaran pleaded with the lawyers to allow the two judges to go. The judges were allowed to go. Some months back lawyers of Madras High Court had created a similar situation. The police went to restore order. The High Court delivered a judgment punishing the police. Lawyers have no right to disrupt court proceedings. Dinakaran should have been ordering them instead of pleading with them. Too bad most of the judges stopped hearings. If ordinary people had done this they would have been punished for contempt of law. Law must take its courts and lawyers who disrupted the proceedings must be punished. Those who locked Gopal Gowda and Nagarathna must be punished for illegal confinement. Corruption cases against Dinakaran have led to this stage. He would have been promoted to Supreme Court. Supreme Court should quickly decide on accusations against him. Article 124 of the constitution of India say that every judge of the Supreme Court, other than the Chief Justice, shall be appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Supreme Court judges through their judgment turned consultation into consent and talked of a collegium of five judges to appoint judges. This was an amendment of constitution through interpretation. Even when the President found a judge recommended by the collegium unsuitable the judges insisted on the appointment. Lawyers many times go on strike for days. That causes delays and inconvenience. Misbehaviour with judges should not be tolerated. The country should think of judicial system without lawyers. Judges can hear two sides and deliver judgments
Month: November 2009
Madhu Koda and Congress
Madhu Koda is under investigation for money laundering, hawala transactions, illegal investment abroad and property acquisition. His property is said to be worth more than Rs.4,000 crores. On 9/10/2009 Enforcement Directorate had filed an FIR against Madhu Koda and his associates under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
On 4/11/2009 Congress spokesperson Shakeel Ahmed said “The Congress is for transparency, accountability and zero tolerance against corruption. The Congress was supporting Koda government from outside. If our support for development and uplift of the people was misused, the law will take its own course.â€
It was Congress that had made Madhu Koda, an independent MLA, chief minister of Jharkhand and supported him for almost two years. An independent MLA becoming chief minister was unheard of. Congress did it to pull down NDA government in Jharkhand. Five independent MLAs headed by Madhu Koda were made to withdraw support to NDA government and Congress supported these MLAs to form the government. Corruption in Madhu Koda government was well known. In 2007 Congress persons in Jharkhand had served him a 60 day ultimatum to perform or perish. Ajay Maken, then AICC in-charge of Jharkhand, had recommended to Congress high command to withdraw support. Congress high command continued its support to Madhu Koda and asked its local leaders not to enforce the ultimatum.
Congress shares responsibility for corruption of Madhu Koda when it supported him. It could not dislodge NDA government in Jharkhand by hook and it dislodged NDA government in Jharkhand by crook. Its claim of zero tolerance against corruption is hollow.
Services team and Srinagar
On 3 November 2009 Services team did not turn up at Srinagar to play Ranji Trophy match against Jammu & Kashmir. This led to an uproar especially from Farooq Abdullah. He questioned when Kashmir is safe for Manmohan Singh and Chidambaram to come and to Sonia Gandhi to address people without bullet proof glass why it is not safe for Services team to play in Srinagar. Ambassadors of 22 countries have come and played golf. Services team would have been provided same level of security. For Farooq Abdullah Services team not playing was a sign of conspiracy not to allow Kashmir to return to normalcy.
BCCI banned Services team for the year. Services team apologised and sought new dates.
The decision not to send Services team was taken on the basis of intelligence reports. Ranji Trophy match is for four days. In Lahore cricketers were attacked. If the people in charge of taking decision about Services team thought it right for Services team not to play in Srinagar it would have been on the basis of sufficient reason.
Everything is not all right in Jammu and Kashmir. Pre-paid mobile service that was prevalent in J&K was banned from 1 November 2009. J&K government asked the centre to reconsider the ban. That shows the situation is not normal. However the reason given for banning pre-paid is not convincing. It is said that for pre-paid connection one document is required and for post-paid three documents are required. In that case the requirement for pre-paid should have been made three documents.
On 4/11/2009 Farooq Abdullah said “I am sure the Centre has taken this extreme step only to make sure the misuse is curbed. It will be curbed soon.â€
Same day Chidambaram said “It was a well considered decision of the central government, which was taken after the Union Home Ministry apprised its concern to the government. The decision was taken up keeping in view the security situations and the service providers were also apprised about the decision before the move of banning the pre-paid connections was taken.
The ban on the pre-paid connections was going to stay in Jammu and Kashmir at least for now. However, service providers were working out for alternate arrangements for the same to the people.â€
Chidambaram also expressed displeasure at Services team pulling out of Srinagar and promised to see that a match takes place there.
Pre-paid is more important than cricket. If Chidambaram has promised lifting the ban on pre-paid it would have sent a better signal than arranging a cricket match in Srinagar.
Farooq Abdullah should have protested publicly when pre-paid was banned in J&K. If he has protested privately it is immaterial. His criticism of Services team was public.