Sahara owes 24,000 crore rupees to investors. It is trying to avoid making those payments. Sahara came out with full page ads on 1/9/2012 claiming they have done lot of good work but instead of getting a pat on their back faced injustice from a faulty system. Sahara blamed Income Tax Department, Reserve Bank of India and the machinery (SEBI?) that presented the facts incorrectly before the Respected Judges of Honâ€™ble Courts. Sahara did not say they will honour the Supreme Court judgment and refund the amounts to investors. Instead of spending crores of rupees on ads it would have been better for Sahara to use that money to refund the investors.
On 30/9/2012 Arun Jaitley spoke at a BJP legal cell conference. He said there are two types of judges. Those who know the law and those who know the law minister. Best lawyers do not want to become judges. There is clamour for post-retirement jobs which is adversely affecting the impartiality of the judiciary. Through judicial verdicts post-retirement jobs are being created. When he was law minister he was wary of meeting retiring judges for the fear that they would hand him their bio-data.
The Supreme Court judgment on the composition of information commissions is a new milestone in judicial overreach. The judges have said information commissions are judicial tribunals, only retired or serving justices of Supreme Court or chief justices of High Courts can head information commissions. The benches of information commissions should have two members, one of them a judicial member. Lawyers with 20 years experience are also eligible as judicial members. The bench comprising Justices A. K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar directed the central government to amend the RTI Act. Some busybody had challenged the qualifications in RTI Act. The judges qualified themselves.
Mamata Banerjeeâ€™s statement that court orders can be bought has evoked various reactions, most of them against her. Her statement was taken in the context of West Bengal Human Rights Commission slapping a fine of 50,000 rupees for the arrest of a professor who had sent her cartoons through e-mail. Her critics said her statement was unacceptable and irresponsible; she was dictatorial, intolerant and does not have a sense of humour.
On 9/4/2012 Supreme Court granted bail to Khalil Chisti, a man sentenced to life for murder of one person. It had referred to the goodwill generated by Asif Ali Zardariâ€™s visit the previous day and hoped it would continue. The event makes one wonder whether India is governed by rule of law.
It is immaterial that Khalil Chisti is a Pakistani and the victim is an Indian. It is immaterial that Khalil Chisti is 80 years old and not in good health. What is material is that he is convicted of murder and serves life sentence.
There are people who say what consenting adults do in private should not be covered by law. This is mainly in reference to Section 377 of IPC which is under litigation in Supreme Court.
By that logic prostitution, sale and purchase of narcotics and psychotropic substances and illicit liquor, corruption, polygamy, transmission of pornographic material and many others matters that take place between consulting adults will be out of the scope of law. Drug traffickers can claim they have right to life and liberty to sell heroin, marijuana and such things to consenting adults in private and they have right to equality. The state will have no right to legislate on marriage, divorce, alimony and child custody. Also concubinage, live-in relationship and palimony will be out of the legal purview.
India needs judicial reforms. Cases drag on for years from lower courts to Sessions Courts to High Courts to Supreme Court. Adjournments and stay orders delay justice. Appeals are allowed long after the expiry of the period granted for appeal. Cases decided by arbitration are appealed in High Courts. There are various tribunals whose judgments can be appealed.
Cases of murder, rape, abduction, hijacking and such high crimes must be tried by a court having three judges and the decision should be first and last. There should be no appeal, only mercy petition in case there is punishment. Minor crimes may be tried by one judge. Civil matters may be tried by one judge or three judges depending on the amount involved and there should be no appeal.
There were reports that CBI will not oppose Kanimozhi â€˜s bail plea. The Supreme Court questioned CBI on the reports and CBIâ€™s lawyer Harin Raval said it would certainly oppose Kanimozhi â€˜s bail plea.
Karunanidhi came to Delhi and met Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh on 22/10/2011. On 24/10/2011 CBI did not oppose bail for Kanimozhi, Asif Balwa, Rajiv Aggarwal, Karim Morani and Sharad Kumar. It opposed bail for R. K. Chandolia and Shahid Balwa. On 31/10/2011 Supreme Court judges G. S. Singhvi and H. L. Dattu questioned Harin Raval â€œIs is true that during the hearing the CBI counsel said that he has no objection to bail for five out of the 14 accused?â€ and directed him to confirm the next day. On 1/11/2011 Harin Raval confirmed that U. U. Lalit representing CBI had not opposed bail for five accused.
Tamil Nadu is a fit case for imposition of Presidentâ€™s Rule as it is not run as per constitution and its Legislative Assembly passed a resolution asking for mercy to criminals whose petitions had been rejected by the President. Omar Abdullah was right in questioning whether the reaction would have been as muted if Jammu & Kashmir had passed a similar resolution in favour of Afzal Guru. In that case BJP and many other parties would have gone ballistic. There is hypocrisy in Tamil Nadu. Some years back Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had passed a resolution favouring death penalty for the criminals. Parties headed by Karunanidhi and Vaiko were part of NDA which rejected mercy petitions. Ram Jethmalani was member of BJP and did not oppose death penalty then. Madras High Court should not have entertained the petitions and stayed the executions for eight weeks and when that happened Supreme Court should have intervened and vacated the stay. If waiting for death penalty is cruel why extend it by eight weeks? That shows the falsehood of the claim that waiting for death penalty is cruel and an excuse to get death penalty commuted to life imprisonment. What happens in India puts banana republics to shame and there should be a new phrase to describe India.
It is a shame that some politicians want mercy for criminals whose mercy petitions are rejected by the President. Some months back a Sikh terroristâ€™s petition was rejected and Akali and Congress politicians from Punjab wanted mercy for him. The terrorist had gone to Supreme Court and wanted his petition to be settled one way or other and after the rejection he has gone to court challenging the dismissal.
Now some politicians from Tamil Nadu want mercy for three Tamil terrorists. It is perverse for Karunanidhi to ask mercy for Rajiv Gandhiâ€™s killers claiming Rajiv Gandhi would have shown mercy under similar circumstances. Rajiv Gandhi did not die alone. Fifteen innocent people, including nine policemen on duty, died in the blast. No thought is given to them. The terrorists have appealed to Madras High Court on the ground of delay in decision. Karunanidhi, Vaiko and other politicians who oppose death penalty had lost elections.