'JUSTICE' HAS BECOME 'COMMODITY' IN INDIA !

'

'JUSTICE' has become 'COMMODITY' in INDIA ! AND the judges and politicians are biggest 'suppliers and buyers' of the system. Perhaps, it is only because of that both the Supreme Court and Union Government want 'Supremacy and hegemony" in the appointment of judges for both the Supreme Court and high courts for their 'smooth sail' of their 'nefarious activities' to bend or destroy the system for their 'enlightened self-interest'. And the poor people are crying for justice in India. Moot point appears that both the Supreme Court collegium and Union Government have become funniest in one aspect at least-that is to accommodate the relatives , and kith and kin of  of both judges and politicians, solely to subvert the Judicial System in the country.

Following the revival of the collegium system after scrapping NJAC,, enacted by the Parliament,of the Supreme Court to appoint judges, the Chief Justice of India Justice Thakur is crying for the approval of the appointment of judges to fill up la huge vacancies of judges in the Supreme Court as well as high courts by the Union Government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. On the other hand, Union Government is crying wolf that recommendations of the Supreme Court's collegium are binding on the government only if they are backed by consensus among the  collegium members.

Amid such controversy, there are sharp differences among the member -judges of the collegium of the Supreme Court over the question in public the lack of transparency in the functioning of  the collegium. Recently, one of the members of the collegium Justice Jasti Chelameswar of the Supreme Court became the first sitting judge and member of the Supreme Court's collegium to question in public the lack of transparency in the functioning of the collegium. In a letter to the Chief Justice of India  Justice Thakur, Justice Chelameswar refused to take part in the collegium meetings until it evolved a proper procedure to records its minutes. However, in three-page letter, he suggested to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) that the record recommendations of the colleagues be sent to him in writing so that he could record his views and return them to him for onward submission to the government. With such development, Justice Chelameswar's protest against collegium's style of functioning has brought to the surface the resentment within the collegium to the absence of any semblance of transparency and openness in its its decision -making process. 

On the other hand, the Union Government is disputing the Memorandum of Understanding for implementing the appointment and transfer of judges of the SC and high courts. The union Law ministry is harping that recommendations of the collegium are binding on the government only if they are backed by consensus. If there is any dissent within the collegium, the CJI is expected to communicate such dissenting views, along with the recommendations to the government. If there is dissent in the collegium regarding a recommendation, the government can ask the collegium to reconsider it in the light of reservations expressed by the dissenting member. The collegium has to reiterate the recommendation by consensus; only then it is binding on the government. In the light of Justice Chelameswar's protest, the union Law ministry is flexing its muscles for confrontation with CJI, resulting into deadlock over the functioning of the collegium.

 However, CJI has promised that Justice's Chelameswar's views will be thrashed out. In the process CJI, who is expressing anger over the stand of the Union Law Ministry, has warned the centre that court would consider withdrawing judicial in some cases , at least !

In the meantime, huge number of vacancies of judges is hampering the already worrisome backlog cases. According to the "State of Indian Judiciary:A Report", brought out by Dakash, A Banglore-based non-governmental organisation, there are currently 17,95,036 pending cases in the high courts. Judicial observers compliment Justice Chelameswar for his boldness in seeking the reform of the collegium even while serving on the bench and interacting with the colleagues on a daily basis although they may have been unhappy with him. One reason, surprisingly, mentioned in the collegium that recording the minutes of the collegium meetings is that the grounds for rejecting a candidate should not be made public. Is it not funniest ?

V Venkatesan has written in the Frontline " the collegium system has certain aberrations which have so far evaded public scrutiny. One such aberration came to light when a former CJI, during his term in office, wrote to all the high court chief justices to ensure that when they recommended district judges for high courts, their performances during the previous three years was assessed by a committee of judges other than members of high court judges......."

There are only three vacancies in the Supreme Court with an approval strength of 31, the number of vacancies in the high courts as on September 1 is alarming. The combined approved strength in the 24 high courts is 1,079, which is inclusive of 771 permanent judges and 308 additional judges. Of these, 485 positions are vacant. The number of vacancies include the posts of 268 permanent judges and 217 additional judges. Additional judges not be appointed in a high courts that has vacancies of permanent judges. Currently  all the high courts, except that of Meghalaya, have vacancies of permanent judges. The Karnataka and Calcutta high courts have the highest number of vacancies of permanent judges-25 each. The Punjab and Hrayana high courts and the Hyderabad high court have 22 vacancies of permanent judges each. The Allahabad and Bombay high courts have 16 such vacancies each, while the madhya Pradesh and Madras high courts show 19 and 18 vacancies respectively. The collegium system is itself violating its norms, One case is that in Patna High , a few months back that additional judges have been appointed when there is already existence of  vacancies of permanent judges!

Apart from that, Poor are left ti fend to get justice while rich and the highest get justice according to their wishes or will. Shall the system survive in the present circumstances in India ? Is it not million dollar question ?




REFERENCESS: THE FRONTLINE FORTNIGHTLY MAGAZINE

SEDITION LAW IN INDIA : MISUSE BY SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS !

MUCH TALKED ABOUT use or misuse of sedition law is making headlines these days in India! IN fact sedition law and its incorporation in ( Indian Penal Code ) IPC Section-124-A was first enacted by British Parliament in 1860s for India especially when India was enslaved by Britishers. And successive India governments, after independence, have used and misused the law  for enlightened self-interest, mainly to stifle the voices of dissent !

Before I discuss in detail the sedition law, enacted by British Parliament and its fall-out in India, I want to mention that the first person to be convicted under Section-124A was a prominent Nationalist leader, Bal Gangadhar Tilak. His newspaper--Kesari-- had carried a report on Shivaji......Tilak was charged with sedition before Bombay High Court in Queen Empress vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1897). Tilak was imprisoned in Burma jail from where it became a boon for Tilak as he authored the famous book---Geeeta Rahashaya---, a critical appreciation of Bhagwad Geeta.

Since than much hue and cry was raised over sedition law. After the independence of India from foreign yoke, the framers of the Constitution decided to adopt the model of the Irish Constitution in specifically enumerating exceptions to the right to free speech. In early draft of the Constitution that were circulated within the Constituent Assembly(CA) 'sedition' was set out as one such exception to the right of free speech. During debate on the floor of the CA, a champion of the 'free speech" K M Munshi moved an 'amendment' to remove the word 'sedition; from the exceptions. Abhinava Chandrachud, in an essay in The Frontline, has written, although the historian Granville considered Munshi to be one of the 'strongest advocates' on the 'limitation of rights', Munshi by contrast, mounted one of the greatest defence of the right of free speech. He argued  in the CA that the view taken by the Federal Court ion Majumdar's case was the correct one. It was partly because of his 'efforts' that  'sedition' was finally deleted as an exception to the right to free speech in what would become Article 19(2) of the Constitution. 

"....Shortly after the Constitution came into being, in November 1950, The Punjab High Court held Section 124-A to be unconstitutinal. However , thereafter the first amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1951 and the words 'public order' were inserted as an exception to the right to free speech. Soon , in Kedar Nath vs state of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955) the Supreme Court held that Section 124-A was vakid restriction on the fundamental rights to free speech.Even so, the court accepted the view adopted by Chief Justice Gawyer in Majumdar's case. Kedar Nath was a communist, who had made a fiery speech in Bihar in which he said, among other things: We believe in that revolution....which will come and in the flames of which the capitalists, zamindars and the Congress leaders of India, who have made it profession  to loot the country, will be reduced to ashes."

The SC  had held that Section 124-A was aimed at 'rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbances of public peace by resort to violence.' Merely arousing 'bad feelings or feelings of enmity or hatred towards government would not be considered sedition.

Chandrachud has further written, "In 1941, the Federal Court in India attempted to bring the Indian law of sedition in the lines with Enlgish counterparts. A case was brought befire it by Niharendu Dutta Mazumdar, a member of the Bengal legislature, who had, in the words of the Federal Court, made a 'violent' forthy and irresponsible' speech criticizing the Governor and Ministry of Bengal for their inaction during the Dacca riots. Chief Justice Maurice Gwyer sdopted the post -1832 English law of sedition libel in order to interpreet Section 124-A of the IPC.'The act or words complained of must either incite to disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that their intention or tendency.' Mazumdar was, however, let off as the court did nit consider his speech 'as inciting those who heard it...to attempt by violence or by public disorder to subvert the government.'"

The court had considered the intention and tendency of speech for framing anybody under sedition law.  Under the present circumstances of imposing sedition law in indiscriminately in India Chandrachud has aptly written, " policemen who investigate complaints of sedition must therefore ask themselves a simple question: Does the speech which has been called into question merely express hatred, contempt or illwill against the government, or does it incite others to commit acts of insurrection, rebellion or public disorder? It is only when a speech falls in the latter category that it can be considered as constituting the offence of sedition. Merely raising anti-India slogans, reprehensible though this may be, would by itself be insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section-124A. A public interest petition has been filed in the Supreme Court by non-governmental organisation--Common Cause--, seeking, among other things that before any FIR is filed or arrest made by the police under Section 124-A, the Commissioner of Police or Director General of Police must certify that the test in Kedarnath has been satisfied."

Before 1832 the English law of sedition had provision that a person could be convicted for sedition for saying anything that brought the government into 'hatred or contempt' or even for merely raising 'discontent or disaffection' against the government. Later it was changed to some extend. The original draft of the IPC was drawn up in 1837 by the Indian Law Commission headed by T B Macaulay.Section 113 of this draft made it an offence to 'excite feelings of disaffection against the government................But it was not included in final draft version of the draft of the IPC in 1860.......they considered British India a  was a laboratory where they could test how a code would function.......Finally an amendment was introduced in British Parliament in 1870 and Section 113 of Macaulay's draft was inserted into code as Section 124-A. It appears that British government though t of revolution in India for independence and thus 'treacherous section was inserted to curb the freedom of speech in India that time.

Moreover, it has become a fact that India is yet to keep herself for from colonial rule and the pre-1832 English law of seditious libels now become the law of sedition in India. And Narendra Modi government is abusing the provisions to stifle people's voice

KASHMIR MAY BE AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY!

We Indians must exactly remember the splitting. of Unified Pakistan--East Pakistan and West Pakistan-- within 17 years of independence in 1947.Because of step-motherly treatment, torture and atrocity, committed by the elite political class of West Pakistan on East Pakistan brothers and sisters, A long agitation was launched by the people of East Pakistan under the leadership Sheikh Muzibur Rehman. And at last under the patronage of India led by the then prime minister Indira Gandhi, Bangladesh was created following bloody revolution. And a history was created in the South-East Asia !

Now history is expected to be repeated. Similar things are happening in Kashmir.Kashmir has long history of the 'so called foreign interference' and ignoring of the sentiments of the people of Kashmir. Kashmir was independent country! "Akbar was the first outsider, who destroyed in 1589 the independence of Kashmir. No body had succeeded in doing so before then"-(Nice Guys Finish Second, page 610) Freedom movement" began with the conquest of Kashmir by the Mughal Armies".Akbar's armies marched into Kashmir on June 28, 1586. Mughal rule lasted in Kashmir for 166 years until 1752, when a brutal reign of the Afghan began. In 1814, Maharaja Ranjit Singh invaded Kashmir The Lahore Darbar was betrayed by its Dogra feudatory. Gulab Singh of Jammu, who was in league with the British. He acquired Kashmir by the infamous Treaty of Amritsar, signed on March 16,1846, for Rs 75 lakh. It was aptly, called a 'deed of sale' And last but not the least, after independence, the India Government led by Prime minister Pundit Jawahar Lal Nehru and union Home minister Sardar Ballava Bhai Patel had forced and coerced Maharaja Hari Singh, son of late Maharaja Gulab Singh to merge the state with Indian Union. Kashmir became part of India despite opposition of Kashmiris.

Since than Kashmir is practically under seize by India government in the name pf restoring so called peace in the valley.Thousands of Indian security forces were deployed in the valley. In the process, over 25,000 Kashnmiri were killed and many injured and remained paralyzed . Women were raped; children were kidnapped. And in all theses nefarious acts, security forces were involved.. For over last two months, the Kashmir is boiling-unrest and agitation is there in entire Kashmir. And atrocity of security forces are going on. Kashmiris are crying for 'azadi' ! Even on Eid , all mosques and shrines were closed by J&K government, escalating further resentment.

KILLING THE SOUL OF KASHMIR:--Today the situation is getting grimmer and grimmer in Kashmir. Noted Columnist A G Noorani has written in The Frontline, "The Prime Minister Narendra Modi has decided to kill the soul of Kashmir and has provided ample warning that worst is yet to come. The people's revolt will be crushed by military force, deployed under a thick smokescreen of falsehoods to silence whatever little dissent there is in India on Kashmir,delude international public opinion and appease the United States in the name of combating terrorism.The door is shut on any real dialogue on Kashmir with Pakistan or with the people of Kashmir.The real agenda, which is viciously communal, has been laid bare.Worst of all ,Modi has decided, like his natural ally, the U S , to trample on international law.It is reckless game to play buttress power at home.The Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Mehbooba Mufti, is a willing accomplice, using her own brand of rhetoric to deceive her people."

Kashmir always remained an open question. But the India government is branding protesters as terrorists and using brute force to stifle dissent. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had said in the Lok Sabha on March 31, 1955 (Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Volume 28, page -318), "We must always remember that Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied between India and Pakistan. It has a soul of its own, it has an individuality of its own.We cannot, certainly much less can Pakistan, play with it as if it were something in the political game between the two countries.Nothing can be done without the goodwill of the people of Kashmir."

Many reports are pouring up on the present crisis in Kashmir. Well-informed journalist Shankarshan Thakur from New Delhi has written in The Telegraph on August 8, " This newspaper has been given to understand by those close to formulating the strategy in Kashmir that the Centre is inclined to move even further away from political engagement and deploy a stricter security across the Valley. Top army commanders based in the state met Mehbooba Mufti two days ago; they are meant to have discussed contingency plans to deploy the armed forces visibly across the valley and along the national highway to Jammu, a chronic militant ambush zone."Similar report has been published in The Asian Age, written by its Srinagar correspondent Yusuf Jameel, the same day,, which said, " The government is reported to have decided to assign the Army a "bigger and more useful role in resolving the crisis triggered by the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Muzaffar Wani on July 8."Again on August 9, The Telegraph published Imran Ahmed Siddique's report from New Delhi:" Sources in the Union Hiome Ministry said the government intended to act tough and would deploy more armed forces across the Valley to tackle the surge of protests."

NARENDRA MODI'S 'S INDIFFERENCE:-----Are these things giving any signal to solve Kashmir crisis by India government ? Narendra Modi spoke after one month of crisis in Kashmir, a month later on August 9 at Bhabra in Madhya Pradesh and said 'Gullible and simple youths" are being misguided. Statement of Modi is just contradictory to the reports on Kashmir situation in different newspapers of the country. Main question is Kashmir is its people's aspiration--neither about any other country nor about terrorism ! Only need of the hour is to "engage with the people of Kashmir and have a sustained dialogue on Kashmir." with Pakistan and other affected people in Kashmir itself..But these things are not happening ! Modi government is not permitting the U N High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'sad al-Hussein to permit his team access to Jammu and Kashmir and PoK, as he requested Pakistan !"India has very bad record of refusal to the U N 's Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights," commented A G Noorani.The Indian Express has written on August 8, "'Mehbooba Mufti's statement that the violent is senseless appears truly juxtaposition. It is senseless because a five-year-old Nasir Ahmed Khan is found on the street with a needle and sand pierced into his eyes---Kashmir has been independent and existed outside of the Indian nation--state for a long time now. Today, if there is a silver lining amid its time of bleeding and mourning, it is that it inches closer to standing independent of those forces that act, oppress and deceive from within........"

Worse situation is prevailing in Kashmir today since July 8. We must remember Bhagalpur blindings  and subsequent uproars and know that how the people of Kashmir are being blinded? People are shot at in order to kill them and not protesters alone. Police and security forces are raiding hospitals to arrest the agitating and injured people. A G Noorani has written, " This technique was tried out by Latin American dictators. It is being used in Kashmir by New Delhi in the name of democracy. This pattern of security forces' intrusion into hospitals was in evidence after July 8, 2016. Incidentally, we had the demolition of the Barbri Masjid  which L K Advani called' a political offence'; the Malegaon and Mecca Masjid blasts---all of them evaded accountability before the law." Veteran Economist Jean Dreze wrote in The Hindu, " on march 29,2002, " My initial purpose was to study the schooling situation but it turned out to be difficult not to focus on people's overwhelming concern; the endless zulum unleashed by the security  forces.The security forces were rarely out of sight, even in remote villages. As far as local population is concerned, Kashmir is occupied by a foreign army. Everywhere I went, there was sobering tales of harassment at the hands of Indian Army and paramilitary forces; curfews, searches, interrogation, killings of suspected militants and accidental as well as intentional killings of the innocent civilians, to name a few complaints."

Today pellets and bullets are being fired indiscriminately on Kashmiri. Sonia Gandhi has described "a grave danger to the country." The Indian express reported that being afraid of being harassed by security forces, parents are taking their boys with pellet wounds to Amritsar. Security forces are firing guns above the waist on protesters with intention to killing and maiming them.The CRPF admitted that it has fired 3,000 pellets cartridges, each containing 450 metallic balls between July 9 to August 14. Many more atrocities and harassment in Kashmir. Less said is better.

Under present circumstances History will repeat itself, And Kashmir will split from India like East Pakistan split from united Pakistan and Bangaladesh was created, Fight for 'azadi' and international support are  getting momentum and world will see how India lost Kashmir only because of tactless handling of situation by union government led by Narendra Modi.!