Sunday, February 8, 2009

Historic Trail

The first ever historic trail took place in the International Criminal Court on 26th January 2009, it is a case relating to a child soldier. The significant features of this nascent organisation are the absence of sovereign immunity and to its representatives, formal proceedings relating to examination of witness. Countries like US, India has not submitted to the jurisdiction of ICC, because of its disagreements with the Rome Statute (ICC, was created as a result of the Rome statute).

The effective functioning of ICC is necessary in this era of genocide crimes. With Obama coming to power, there is an expectation that US would ratify the ICC rome statute, and India should also ratify the same and ensure that it is always a part of the world which loves and strives for a peaceful world.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Amendment to Section 41 of CrPc

By the way of Amendment to Section 41 of CrPC, even for non-cognizable offense, arrest can be made without warrent, but only after recording in writing the reasons for the arrest.

"notice of appearance" can be given if it is an offence punishable with seven years of imprisonment, instead of arrest, and arrest shall be made only he/she does not appear before the police in response to the notice.

it also provides for compensation in case of wrongful arrest.

these amendments are the outcome of the recommendations of Justice Malimoth Committee and various decsions of the Apex Court, to avoid overcrowding of jails in case of undertrails.

well thought and deliberated decision taken by the parliment and President also has given her assent, now soon it will come in to force.

good job parlimentarians......

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Judiciary above RTI?

High Court of Delhi stayed the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner asking the Supreme Court's Information officer to give an RTI applicant on whether judges have declared their assets to the Chief Justice of India.Supreme Court has filed a petition challenging the orders of the instant case RTI applicant has only asked whether the judges have declared their assets to the Chief Justice of India.

When judiciary interprets that it is citizens right to get information about the assets of their democratic representatives, why should it withhold its information?

Already it is made known that CJI office would not come under the purview of RTI. now all these would a raise a serious question as to the applicablity of RTI to the Judiciary.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Protector to tormentor through his Capricious act?

Cheif Election Commissioner Mr.Gopalswami recommended the removal of his successor Election Commissioner Navin Chawla. Art 324(5) provides that the election commissioner can be removed by the presidents on the recommendations of the Cheif Election Commissioner. Through its interpretation in Seshan's case the Apex Court has emphasised that the Cheif Election Commissioner's recommendations (for the removal of the Election Commisioner) must be based on cognate and intelligible considerations.
In this case it puzzles me whether the CEC recommendation is based on intelligble and cognate considerations. Many constitutional experts like Mr.Nariman, K.K Venugopal opines that CEC's such capricious act just way before general elections is neither constitutionally valid and fair.. Most significant point which has to be taken into consideration in this present regard is that CEC has Suo motto intiated this process. This kind of arbitrary act would ultimately send a wrong message that the Election Commissioners should function accoding to the whims and caprice of the CEC. An instant fear that a difference of opinion would result in their removal might prevail after this unfortunate situation. Indubitably, this event has set a wrong precedent.
The history of this recommendation, procedural infirmities and the time in which it is made raises a reasonable doubt, Has the protector turned into a tormentor through his capricious act?
Is his act coloured by political motives?

Monday, February 2, 2009

A Kneejerk reaction?

Following the terrorists attack in 26/11, the parliament had no solutions but to come out with two Bills. was it to satisfy the television watching middle class of India that parliament is still vigilant in combating terrorism? As the Home Minister has himself admitted the amendments brought to Unlawful Activities Prevention (Amendment) Bill 2008 has nothing to do with preventing terrorism, but expected to evolve a deterrent effect. The irony is that deterrent laws for terrorists who have no concern for lives even when it comes to the their lives.

The two Bills (Unlawful Activities Prevention (Amendment) Bill 2008, National Investigation Agency Bill 2008) was passed with in four days with out any due deliberations with such a haste. Section 43D of the bill provides that an accused may be detained up to one hundred and eighty days for the purpose of investigation( previously it was up to ninety days now it has been increased up to 180 days), such a draconian provision, a wide warm welcome to custodial deaths. In United States an accused cannot be detained for more than one day without the charge sheet being filed. A Bill to increase the detention period from twenty five to forty eight was rejected by House of Lords in England. only in India it is 90 long days, now it is just double of it... Presumption of Guilt as it is under Section 43E many and many draconian provision, which would often victimize innocents. In my view UAPA Bill 2008, IS MORE DRACONIAN than its predecessors(TADA, POTA)

Is draconian laws, passed with haste, only answer for terrorism?

Home minister has said that the Parliament would have a re look at these Bill in the month of February. These draconian provisions should be amended and suitable and realistic and fruitful solutions should be reached... pinning my hopes...