Supreme Court verdict raises a vital issue of bearing of Morality on Law

A Bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a verdict on 29th September has rightly ruled that people’s right to own property fell very much with in the domain of human rights. However, it also raises a vital issue of bearing of morality on law. It is no gainsaid to emphasize that law of adverse possession under which any person in illegal possession of a property for 12 years could claim legal ownership of it in preference to real owner, if certain other requisite legal imperatives are satisfied, is immoral per se.
Does law and morality not have any nexus with each other? Can a law be formulated in total oblivion of moral considerations? If a law is bereft of morality, can it be enforced efficaciously? Is Law in force in India has underpinnings of morality in it? A bird’s eye view of various laws in force in India will bear out that it is not entirely devoid of morality viz. Law against immoral trafficking including Prostitution, Child Labour; Exemption of certain movable and immovable property from attachment and sale in execution of a decree; Complete exoneration of criminal acts of a child under seven years of age; Plethora of social welfare Legislations; Special provisions for Women, Children and other Vulnerable sections of the Society; Quota based Reservation Policy as a part of Affirmative Action are worth mentioning in a ocean that abounds with such provision.
However, human rights as appendages of “fundamental right of life and personal liberty” as enshrined in the Indian Constitution are inalienable. Going by that yardstick, once Supreme Court holds that right to property is one of the human rights, shouldn’t the law of adverse possession become ultra vire the Constitution of India and hence, a dead letter.
As a Corollary, doesn’t the law that declare a debt as time barred if no legal proceedings initiated for recovery with in three year from the time when it became due also deserves the protective cover of human rights? Doesn’t every rigor of law of limitation impinge on one or other human right?

National Judicial Oversight Committee

THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, SEPT 09, 2011, P.8
Oversight committee
This refers to the news report “Judicial Accountability: Legal community divided on inclusion of MPs in oversight committee” (September 5). I want to point out that this report has wrongly stated, “Under the provisions of the Bill introduced in Parliament, all the members of the oversight committee would be nominated by the Chief Justice of India”.
On the contrary, Section 18 of the Judicial Standard and Accountability Bill, 2010, says:
(1) The National Judicial Oversight Committee shall consist of the following, namely:
(a) a retired Chief Justice of India appointed by the President, after ascertaining the views of the Chief Justice of India-- Chairperson;
(b) a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice of
India-- Member;
(c) the Chief Justice of a High Court nominated by the Chief Justice of India-- Member ex-officio;
(d) the Attorney General for India—ex-officio Member;
(e) an eminent person nominated by the President-- Member
Hence, it can be culled out that all the members of the oversight committee are not envisaged to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India. Kindly put the record straight accordingly.
Dr RAJENDER GOYAL, Advocate,
Bahadurgarh

The Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice and Personnel on the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010

The Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice and Personnel on the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, has rightly clamored for a better system of appointment of judges. The report in most unequivocal terms intones that “the law formulated by the government for maintaining judicial accountability would have “limited success ” till the “most significant lacunae” related to the present method of appointment of judges are removed at the earliest”.
It is trite to say that concept of Independence of Higher is of colossal significance in a Democratic Republic Federal State. The “scheme and procedure of selection and appointment, transfer and removal of Judges in Higher Judiciary” is having an unexceptionally indispensable role in establishing, asserting and perpetuating the Independence of Higher Judiciary. Only competent, meritorious and qualified persons of great legal caliber, expertise, meticulousness, precision, immaculate honesty, impeccable integrity, unimpeachable character, undaunting courage and unwavering determination selected through a transparent, merit-oriented, efficacious and holistic methodology having security of tenure and necessary safeguards in place against unregulated and arbitrary transfer and removal, and discharging their duties and functions without fear or favour, and sufficiently protected against Executive’s interferences and prejudices can bring home the most cherished constitutional ideal of the ”Independence of Higher Judiciary.”
Whereas the Bill of 2010 provides for setting up of a ‘broad based’ “National Judicial Oversight Committee”(NJOC) and an ‘all Judges’ “Scrutiny Committee”, the Parliamentary Standing Committee has recommended that composition of NJOC should be broadened further representing all the three organs of the State namely, Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, and that Scrutiny Panel should also include non-judicial members.
However, needless to emphasize that Judicial accountability, transparency and independence are interwoven. To protect the sacrosanct “Independence of Higher Judiciary”, the final decision making body i.e. NJOC should comprise of ‘all judges’. Conversely, the Scrutiny Committee should be broad based as much as possible. Moreover, the matter of appointment of the judges in higher judiciary could also be entrusted to a wider body with representation from the judiciary, the executive and legislature and civil society than the present ‘Judicial Collegium’. It is suggested that it could be entrusted to the broad based "Scrutiny Committee" as proposed above which could initially screen the names and thereafter, refer the same to the NJOC for final recommendation. The matter of the transfer of the Judges/Chief Justices of the High Courts should be entrusted to the NJOC only without any interference of the Scrutiny Committee and its decision should be final. The Constitution of India may be amended appropriately, if need arises, to legally put in the place the mechanism as above enumerated.
Under the proposed law, the Higher Judiciary including the office of the Chief Justice of India should specifically be made amenable to the command of the Right to Information Act.

UNDESIRABILITY OF INCLUSION OF HIGHER JUDICIARY WITHIN LOKPAL's NET

THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, AUGUST 2, 2011, P. 8
Judicial Bill
This refers to the report, “UPA keeps PM, judiciary out of Lokpal purview; Anna cries foul” (July 29), and subsequent editorial, “Countdown to Lokpal: Eradicating corruption will be a tall order” (July 30).
I hold the view that bringing the higher judiciary within the purview of the Lokpal would spell doom for the much-cherished judicial independence. The demand from various quarters, including the civil society group led by Anna Hazare for including the higher judiciary within the purview of the Lokpal, is undesirable.
It would be right to have a mechanism for effective judicial oversight of senior judges by their peers, assisted by a body reflecting the inclusion of the concerns of other stakeholders. Independence of the higher judiciary is sacrosanct. The judiciary commands a special constitutional position in the task of delivering all-encompassing justice to “We, the people”, and in bringing home the numerous other ideals enshrined in the Constitution of India.
The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill is hanging fire for some time. It should be made into a law without any further delay.
Dr RAJENDER GOYAL, Bahadurgarh

The mounting unfilled vacancies in judiciary also negates constitutional mandate

Echoing concern over the prevailing delay in disposal of Civil litigations, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the procedures to be followed by the trial courts as well to curb frivolous litigation. A Bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma in a judgment rendered on 04-07-2011 in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi, pronounced: "The courts have to ensure that there is no incentive to uncalled-for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that the court’s otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of uncalled-for cases."
The scourge of frivolous litigation is a colossal menace for efficient administration of justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has struck the hammer right on its head. Frivolous litigations take heavy toll on judicial resource and time. Besides, the Constitution of India mandates, inter alia, that the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on the basis of equal opportunity.
Referring to a study, the Apex Court observed: “Ninety per cent of our court time and resources are consumed in attending to uncalled-for litigation, which is created only because our current procedures and practices hold out an incentive to the wrongdoer. Those involved receive less than full justice and there are many more in the country, in fact, a greater number than those involved who suffer injustice because they have little access to justice, in fact, lack of awareness and confidence in the justice system.”
The Judgment further records that "as civil litigation was largely based on documents, it would be the bounden duty and obligation of the trial judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the peadings and documents filed by the parties. The court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Civil Procedure Code. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency on the litigants to introduce false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments". "In appropriate cases, the courts may consider ordering prosecution, otherwise it may not be possible to maintain the purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings."
It further says: "Courts have to be extremely careful in granting ad-interim ex-parte injunction. If injunction has been granted on the basis of false pleadings or forged documents, then the concerned court must impose costs, grant realistic or actual mesne profits and/or order prosecution. This must be done to discourage the dishonest and unscrupulous litigants from abusing the judicial system. In substance, we have to remove the incentive or profit for the wrongdoer."
It, in essence, intones that "Litigation should not be permitted to turn into a fruitful industry so that the unscruplous litigants are encouraged to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. No litigant should be allowed to derive benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a court of law and no party can take any benefit of his own wrongs. The institution of litigation can not be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by delayed action of courts. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the court to neutralise any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by any party by invoking the jurisdiction of the court. When a party applies and gets a stay or injunction from the court, it is always at the risk and responsibility of the party applying. An order of stay can not be permitted to be conferment of additional right upon the litigating party.The persons in wrongful possession should not only be removed from the place of wrongful possession as early as possible but also be compelled to pay for wrongful use by way of fine, penalty and cost".
Giving an example of the problem, the Bench said: “It is a matter of common knowledge that lakhs of flats and houses are kept locked for years, particularly in big cities, because the owners are not certain that even after the expiry of the lease or licence period, the house, flat or the apartment would be vacated. It takes decades for the final determination of the controversy and wrongdoers are never adequately punished. Pragmatic approach of the courts would partly solve the housing problem.”
Some time back, Andhra Pradesh High Court Judge Justice V V Rao said, "If one considers the total pendency of cases in the Indian judicial system, every judge in the country will have an average load of about 2,147 cases. Indian judiciary would take 320 years to clear the backlog of 31.28 million cases pending in various courts including High courts in the country”.
About 55,000 cases are currently pending with the Supreme Court, 42 lakh with High Courts and 2.8 crore with subordinate courts. Pendency has increased by 148% in the Supreme Court, 53% in High Courts and 36% in subordinate courts in the last 10 years.
However, we can choose to lose sight of the fact at our own peril that awesome pendency of cases and consequent denial of justice to the teeming litigants also have close and inextricable nexus with the mounting unfilled vacancies in judiciary. The sanctioned strength of judges is 31 for the Supreme Court, 895 for the High Courts and 17,151 for the subordinate judges. 33% of the sanctioned positions in High Courts are currently vacant. Among High Courts, the highest number of vacancies are in the Allahabad High Court (60%), followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court (38%) and the Calcutta High Court (28%). Vacancies in subordinate courts equal 18% of the total sanctioned strength. The corresponding figure for the Supreme Court is 6%. What adds to the woes is that the vacancies are not filled timely and adequately notwithstanding the numerous judgments of the Apex Court on this score.

Higher judiciary should be out side of the purview of the Lokpal

Independence of Higher Judiciary is sacrosanct. Each and every institution and individual in India have profound stakes in the independence of higher judiciary. Judiciary commands a special constitutional position in the task of delivering all-encompassing, comprehensive and holistic justice to “We, the People”, and in bringing home the numerous other ideals enshrined in the Constitution of India. It is the only Institution which has paid some respect to the “Constitutional tryst with destiny”. Hence, the judiciary is cornerstone of the magnificent edifice of the Constitution of India.
The demand from various quarters including the Civil Society Group led by Sh. Anna Hazare for including the Higher Judiciary within the purview of Lokpal is undesirable. For a democratic government, the rule of law is a basic requirement, and for the maintenance of the rule of law, there must be an independent and impartial judiciary. It is the first condition to protect and safeguard the inalienable & indefeasible constitutional liberties and other rights of the citizens. In a federal Constitution, it plays another important role: it determines the limits of the power of the Centre and State.
However, it is nobody’s case that Higher Judiciary should be left unchecked. The not so uncommon reports of the impropriety, misconduct and corruption in the Higher Judiciary is highly perturbing and is subliminally undermining the faith and confidence of the People in the Institution of Higher Judiciary. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill is hanging fire for some time in its various rechristened variants. The grim situation brooks no delay for the bill to be made into law forthwith. The Bill envisages a broad based “National Judicial Oversight Committee” (NJOC) and an all Judges “Scrutiny Committee”. However, it is urged upon that to preserve the sacrosanct “Independence of Higher Judiciary”, the final decision body i.e. “National Judicial Oversight Committee” (NJOC) should consist of Judges only and conversely to usher in judicial accountability the proposed “Scrutiny Committee” should be broad based.

THE RIGHT TO FREE EDUCATION

THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, APRIL 18, 2011, P. 8
Right to free education
The RTE Act, 2009, which guarantees free and compulsory elementary education to the children between the age of 6 and 14 is unprecedented. Now the onus lies on the parents or guardians of the children to enroll them in a suitable neighbourhood school. The governments, local authorities and prominent members of civil society are under an obligation to sensitise every stakeholder to make the best out of this coveted opportunity. Some knotty challenges like defining, identifying and notifying the neighbourhood schools; modalities for enrolments towards a 25% quota in private unaided schools (specifically considering that the screening test in any form is forbidden); furnishing of infrastructure; skepticism about the replacement of the admission criterion of ‘skill-appropriate class’ with ‘age-appropriate class’; repercussions of opening admissions round the year, etc, need to be addressed immediately after eliciting the views of all stakeholders. However, going beyond the realm of the said law, the moot point is to bring home the realisation about the wholesome impact of the ‘holistic education’ in the life of a human being.
RAJENDER GOYAL, Bahadurgarh

Reference is salutary

The reference by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court to the Chief Justice of India -a PIL entitled Suraz India Trust vs Union of India and Anr- to constitute an appropriate larger bench to revisit the extant collegium system of appointment of judges in higher judiciary is apt and laudable. The present collegium system was put in place in the year 1993 through a ruling of nine-judge Bench in a case titled SC Advocates on Record Association versus Union of India and it was further reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Special Reference No.1 of 1998. However, it has raised the hackles of different sections of the civil society from its very inception. More importantly, the Law Commission of India in its 214th and 230th Reports has also recommended the reconsideration of the collegium system. It has suggested two alternatives. One is to seek a reconsideration of the abovee cited cases before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Other is to enact a law to restore the primacy of Chief Justice of India and power of the executive to make the appointments.
However, it is no gainsaid to emphasize that every individual and institution in the country has heavy stakes in the well being and wholesomeness of the higher judiciary – the custodian of the Indian Constitution. Hence, it will be desirable to evolve a system which is all-inclusive and reflective of various facets of our ‘the body politic’ while keeping at the helm the “Independence of Judiciary”.
It is strongly felt that there is a need for a all-judges National Judicial Commission (NJC) to undertake the work of appointment of the Judges of the Higher Judiciary- consisting of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four senior most Supreme Court judges in the case of appointments in the Supreme Court, and of the CJI, two senior most Supreme Court judges and two senior most High Court Chief Justices in the case of High Court. The Chief Justice of India should be the Chairman of the Commission. In case of appointment of judges in the High Court, the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court and the Chief Minister of the State where that High Court is situated shall also be the Members. It is suggested that there should be another broad based authority juxtaposed with the NJC. The authority being suggested here will be in addition to the NJC that shall be performing the work of a screening committee and thereafter, refer the same to the NJC for final recommendations. This Committee could be named as "Empowered Committee". It could have one member as a Chief Justice of India or his nominee, two Members as the Speaker, Lok Sabha and Chairman, Rajya Sabha or their nominees. There could be one nominated representative of the Prime Minister and one representative of the Bar Council of India. An outstanding law academician would also be the member. He shall be elected by the confederation of Law institutes, the department of Laws of various Universities, the specialized Law Universities like National Law Schools and deemed Law Universities like Indian Law Institutes.

Karnataka Imbroglio: propriety of Governor’s decision

It is one of the fundamental postulates of the administration of criminal justice that anyone can set the criminal law into motion unless the statute enacting the offence makes a special provision to the contrary. Purity of public life is one of the cardinal principles which must be upheld as a matter of public policy. No man is above the law. The question for consideration is whether a Governor can act in his discretion and against the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in a matter of grant of sanction for prosecution of Chief Minister/Ministers for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and/or under the Indian Penal Code.
Under Article 163 of the Indian Constitution, normally the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in the cases where the Governor is by or under the Constitution required to exercise his function or any of them in his discretion. If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.
It is against all canons of justice to make a man judge in his own cause. Sometimes bias is likely to operate in a subtle manner. Decision makers may not even be aware of the extent to which their opinion gets influenced. It is possible to contend that a Council of Ministers may not take a fair and impartial decision when his Chief Minister or other members of the Council face prosecution. Hence, when there is to be a prosecution of the Chief Minister, the Governor should, while determining whether sanction for such prosecution should be granted or not, as a matter of propriety, necessarily act in his own discretion and not on the advice of the Council of Ministers. For the interest of democratic Government and its functioning, the Governor must act in such a case on his own without being motivated by extraneous political considerations. Otherwise, he will become an instrument for serving the personal and selfish interests of some other person(s) and in turn, will be seen protecting his/her own vested interest.

Rejoinder to my comment entitled "Regulating Research" (January 14) apropos Ramesh Gupta's Article "Improving the quality of PhD research" (Jan 4)

THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, 02.02.2011, P. 12
Research quality
The article “Improving the quality of PhD research” (Jan 4) by Ramesh Gupta and subsequent letters “Regulating research” by Rajender Goyal and “Quality of research is more vital’ by Sanjeev Trikha, caught my attention. If Indians really want to move forward in frontier areas not only of scientific research, but also of social sciences with new vision, the quality of PhD theses that students produce (its number is more than 8,500 per year in India) year-after-year under the so-called active guidance of their peers, they have to really be honest and sincere.
For the poor quality of PhD research, only the non-innovative, dishonest, lazy and greedy guide is responsible and not the student who is malleable and can be given any shape by a master craftsman.
RANBIR SINGH, New Delhi

Rejoinder to my comment entitled "Regulating Research" (January 14) apropos Ramesh Gupta's Article "Improving the quality of PhD research" (Jan 4)

THE TRIBUNE, JANUARY 19, 2011, P. 10
Quality of research is more vital
Ramesh Gupta’s article “Improving the quality of PhD research” (Jan 4) and comments by Rajender Goyal (Jan 14), highlighted the need for streamlining and regulating research process and subsequent effective evaluation procedures by the universities and institutions conducting various research pursuit. However, I would like to add that the writer seems to be obsessed with the need to develop such a system which would restrict the registration of the topic on which work has already been done. If authorities or people at the helm of academic affairs of various institutions handling research activities become rigid about not allowing any topic to be re-registered, this would no doubt fail the basic aim and spirit of the ‘re-search’. Various academic pursuits have clearly shown that social and economic results tend to vary with time and changing circumstances. New research with new and better means evolves new visions, new outlooks on which fresh destinations can be targeted. Research based on fresh topics, if done only to gain or earn degree tags, to cross hurdles of point system to reach higher pay bands would surely not serve the basic objective of the research programme.
Contrary to the viewpoint expressed by the writer and supported by Mr Goyal, I am of the view that fresh research pursuits should be equally encouraged on topics on which work has already been done. The work already done with constraints and limitations of limited availability of means and limited access to information and data in comparison to the improved information technology scenario of today undoubtedly asks for fresh effort. Hence research conducted even on old topics can give better and more effective results in the changing social and economic scenario. Let the old topics be reopened and researched. Remarkable and astonishing results are bound to flow.
Research committees approving research topics should give due weightage to the effectiveness and relevance of the topic to the present-day and prospective problems confronting the nation. PhD registrations by the universities to earn better accreditation grades, writing PhD theses by the researchers just to scale the pay grade ladder, evaluating PhD theses by the ‘academic dons,’ just to unload the obligation would not serve the basic purpose of academic research.
PhD theses which do not confine themselves to the library shelves, which are helpful in evolving new line of thinking, developing new visions, exploring new paths and destinations should be encouraged, initiated and suitably rewarded.
SANJEEV TRIKHA, Associate Professor, M.M.(PG) College, Fatehabad

UGC Regulation- 2009 can go a long way in improving the quality of Ph.D. Research

The Tribune, New Delhi, January 14, 2011, P. 10
Regulating Research
Ramesh Gupta’s article “Improving the quality of PhD research” (Jan 4) was timely. The writer has rightly batted for the establishment of “Central Registration Agency” which can provide data before registration of a particular topic and show whether same topic or in a modified form is being pursued at some other university or not.
However, the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulation, 2009 provides for a “Depository with UGC” where following the successful completion of the evaluation process and announcements of the award of M.Phil/Ph.D. the university has to submit a soft copy of the M.Phil /Ph.D thesis to the UGC within a period of 30 days. The judicious use of this provision can eliminate the chances of the same or modified topic registered at two or more universities at the same time.
Further, not only the examiners but also the supervisors of the Ph.D. thesis should be related to their field of specialisation. The said regulation of 2009 mandates that the allocation of the supervisor for a selected student shall be decided by the department in a formal manner depending on the number of students per faculty member, the available specialisation among the faculty supervisors, and the research interest of the student. The allotment/allocation of supervisor shall not be left to the individual student or teacher.
Moreover, to emphasise that while sending PhD thesis/M.Phil dissertation for evaluation to external examiners, the identity of both supervisors as well as candidates should be kept a closely guarded secret.
RAJENDER GOYAL, Bahadurgarh

OVERBEARING BAR BROWBEATING THE JUDICIARY

A special CBI judge, hearing a bribery case against a member of Bar Council of India, was allegedly held hostage inside his court in Patiala House, New Delhi on December 23 by a group of unruly lawyers for over an hour. Official sources said judge OP Saini was also verbally abused by some 40-50 lawyers, who had gathered in the Patiala House courts in support of the accused who was allegedly caught while taking bribe for granting affiliation to a law college in Ghaziabad. Honesty and integrity of both lawyers and judges are indispensable for the wholesomeness of the justice delivery system. The legal practice has traditionally been looked as a “noble profession” and judges considered the personification of justice and addressed as “Your Honour” or “My Lords”.
However, over the years, undesirable elements among the lawyers have come to be as an intolerable menace for administration of justice. The unruly conduct of the lawyers (i.e. officers of the court) brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect and hence, undermines the very foundation of the judiciary by shaking the confidence of the people in the ability of the court to deliver free and fair justice.
The lawyer’s bodies have a definite role to play in dispensing unadulterated justice without fear or favour and hence, they should go all out after the unscrupulous, rowdy and overbearing mavericks who are blot on the noble profession and try to pollute the stream of justice through their coercive tactics for their own vested interests and thereby, brings whole lawyers fraternity to disrepute and public censure. The lawyer community owes an abiding duty in bringing home the immortal words of Chief Justice Coke that “Be you ever so high, the law is above you”. However, what is sauce for goose is the sauce for gander. The judges should also come out of ivory towers and be considerate enough to the real world problems of the lawyers and litigants. The increasing cases of judicial apathy and corruption are a colossal menace for the justice delivery system.

VICTIM COMPENSATION SCHEME

The rights of the victims of the crimes in the extant criminal justice system specifically regarding the monetary compensation and rehabilitation of them are quite crucial from the perspective of human rights. The basic Code of criminal procedure i.e. CrPC, 1973 has ample provisions to provide succour to the victims. Section 357 of the said Code empowers the Courts to pass orders to pay monetary compensations to the victims. Unfortunately, owing to want of judicial wisdom and sensitivity, this provision is sparingly made use of. Moreover, the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 enforced w.e.f. 31-12-2009 has inserted a new section 357A envisioning a “Victim compensation scheme”. It mandates that:
(1) Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.
(2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1).
(3) If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied, that the compensation awarded under section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for compensation.
(4) Where the offender is not traced or identified, but the victim is identified, and where no trial takes place, the victim or his dependents may make an application to the State or the District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation.
(5) On receipt of such recommendations or on the application under sub-section (4), the State or the District Legal Services Authority shall, after due enquiry-award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two months.
(6) The State or the District Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, to alleviate the suffering of the victim, may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be made available free of cost on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the officer in charge of the police station or a Magistrate of the area concerned, or any other interim relief as the appropriate authority deems fit.
Hence, the need of the hour is to frame a scheme as envisaged in the aforesaid section 357A forthwith and to implement it in letter and spirit.

Need to rework the compositions of the committees, and broaden the scope in/of the proposed law

The introduction of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 in the ongoing winter session of Parliament is laudable. The majesty and sanctity of the judiciary rest on the respect and confidence it enjoys among the people. The Bill seeks to ensure greater judicial accountability and transparency. It provides for provisions for declaration of assets and liabilities of judges of higher judiciary, and a mechanism to tame the judicial indiscipline and corruption even at the instance of an ordinary private person. It provides for setting up of a broad based “National Judicial Oversight Committee”(NJOC) and an all Judges “Scrutiny Committee”.The NJOC would consist of a retired Chief Justice of India (CJI), a Judge of the SC and the Chief Justice (CJ) of a HC. The Attorney General would be the ex-officio member and an eminent person would be nominated by the President as its member. The Scrutiny Committee for the SC would consist of a former CJI and two Judges of the SC. The Scrutiny Committee for the HCs would consist of a former CJ of that HC and two Judges of that HC.
The NJOC would first refer the complaints to the appropriate Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee would submit their reports to the NJOC within a maximum period of three months. The NJOC would constitute an investigation committee to go into the complaints recommended by the Scrutiny Committee. The NJOC and investigations committees would have the power to summon persons from any part of India and ask for any public record. The investigation committee would also have the power of “search and seizure.”
Under Clause 34 of the proposed Act, the NJOC would have the power to dismiss complaints or impose minor penalties such as warnings and advisories. If the charges were of the “serious nature warranting” removal, it could request the Judge to voluntarily resign “and if he fails to do so, then advise the President accordingly who shall refer the matter to the Parliament.”
However, needless to emphasize that Judicial accountability, transparency and independence are interwoven. To protect the sacrosanct “Independence of Judiciary”, the final decision making body i.e. NJOC should comprise of all judges. Hence, if a complaint is against a Supreme Court judge, the NJOC should consist of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four senior most Supreme Court judges. If the complaint is against a High Court judge, the NJOC should consist of the CJI, two senior most Supreme Court judges and two senior most High Court Chief Justices. The Chief Justice of India should be the Chairman of this Committee. Further, the Scrutiny Committee should be broad based and it could have one member as a Chief Justice of India or his nominee, two Members as the Speaker, Lok Sabha and Chairman, Rajya Sabha or their nominees. There could be one nominated representative of the Prime Minister and one representative of the Bar Council of India. An outstanding law academician could also be the member. He may be elected by the Confederation of Law Colleges, the department of Laws of various Universities (including private and deemed universities), the specialized Law Universities (National Law Schools) and deemed Law Universities like Indian Law Institute, Delhi.
Moreover, the matter of appointment of the judges in higher judiciary could also be entrusted to a wider body other than the present collegium with representation from the judiciary, the executive and legislature and civil society. It is suggested that it could be entrusted to the suggested restructured "Scrutiny Committee" which could initially screen the names and thereafter, refer the same to the NJOC for final recommendation (hitherto now recommendations are made by the Supreme Court Collegium. It is noteworthy that composition of the suggested restructured NJOC and the extant Supreme Court Collegium is mostly the same). In case of appointment of judges in the High Court, the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court and the Chief Minister of the State where that High Court is situated should also be the Members. The matter of the transfer of the Judges/Chief Justices of the High Courts should be entrusted to the NJOC only without any interference of the Scrutiny Committee and its decision should be final.
Under the proposed law, the Higher Judiciary including the office of the Chief Justice of India should specifically be made amenable to the command of the Right to Information Act.

Selections in the Selectors (PSCs)

The Supreme Court on November 12, 2010 gave the nod for the removal of suspended Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) Chairman and its suspended members for their failure to “maintain the required standards of integrity and rectitude in performance of their constitutional duties”. A three-member Bench headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia ruled that “There exist justifiable grounds” for their removal and “resultantly, the reference, made by the President of India to this court, is answered in the affirmative”. The other members of the Bench were Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar.
The Constitution mandates that as nearly as may be one-half of the members of every Public Service Commission (PSC) shall be persons who at the dates of their respective appointments have held office for at least ten years either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State. Further, the power vests with the President or the Governor as the case may be to determine the number of members of the Commission and their condition of service. However, the State Public Service Commissions, of the late, have become dumping grounds for pliable retired bureaucrats and the henchmen of the Chief Minister who can piously do his bidding.
The Selection of the Chairman and the Members of the PSC should be made by the President/Governor on the recommendation of a Committee comprising the Prime Minister/Chief Minister, Chief Justice of India/Chief Justice of the High Court of the State and the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha/Vidhan Sabha from a panel of outstanding retired civil servants and others with impeccable integrity as the case may be. The Article 319 enumerating certain prohibitions as to the holding of offices by the Ex-Chairman or Ex-Members of the Commission should be amended to bar such Chairman or Members to engage in active politics or to occupy a political post even in an honorary capacity after demitting the office.

High time to keep the Speaker out of the loop in adjudicating over the question of disqualification on the score of defection

The anti-defection law has now become the handmaid of the vagaries of the Speaker of the House be it State or Union Legislature who in turn dances to the tune called by his political boss in ruling regime as seen, of the late, in Haryana and Karnataka. Hence, time brooks no delay in amending the Constitution suitably to keep the Speaker out of the loop in adjudicating the question of defection in a given case. The President and the Governor should be vested with the power to decide on disqualification of MPs and MLAs respectively on the score of defection on the binding advice of the Election Commission of India (ECI) a proposal mooted by the ECI and endorsed by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission.

Further, not all is bad with the anti-defection law. The whipping boy the para 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution enabling the merger of a political party, in fact, is highly democratic. It envisages a collaborative and participatory working between the political party concerned and its legislature party consisting of all members of the given House for the time being belonging to that political party in the State Legislature or Parliament whatever may be the case. The law tends to strike a fine balance between interests of political party and the aspirations of the Legislators (denoting the will of the people) comprising the legislature party concerned. The contents and intent of the said law lend emphatic credence to the inference that any decision for such merger can only be taken by the original political party in accordance with the rules thereto as embodied in the constitution of that political party, and to take it further to any logical conclusion must find favour with not less than two-thirds of the elected members of the legislature party concerned. Hence, the contention as being articulated from certain quarters that unilateral decision of the two-third members of the legislature party bypassing the political party ipso facto seals the fate of the latter is untenable. Since there is no direct authoritative ruling of the Apex Court on the para 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and the vacuum is being rampantly misused/abused by the unscrupulous political parties and politicians, hence, it will be in the fitness of the things to invoke Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court through a Presidential reference on the vexed question.

When should the justice retire?

Lawyers update, November, 2010, Letters to the Editor
“The Cover Story, “WHEN SHOULD THE JUSTICE RETIRE?” by HemRaj Singh in the September 2010 issue was timely. Amongst others, the retirement age of the Judges of higher judiciary has profound bearing on the independence of higher judiciary in India. The retired judges of the higher judiciary are offered government employment of some kind or other viz. chairmanship, membership of tribunals, statutory commissions, committees and so forth. The lure of such prospective offices and associated perks and pelf have ample potential to subject some of the serving judges to extraneous considerations in the discharge of their duties and it may undermine the independence of higher judiciary. The apprehension becomes more marked in view of the constitutional prohibition restraining the retired Supreme Court Judges and the retired High Court Judges to practice law before any court or authority in India and in the High Court(s) where they held office as a permanent judge respectively.
As pointed out in the story, in USA, a Judge of the Supreme Court holds office during good behaviour, which means that he can continue to occupy office for life. The secured judicial tenure leading virtually up to the last breath of the judge free of the post-retirement anxieties greatly subserves the independence of judiciary in the USA.
In India, the present position of difference in age of retirement has colossal potential to inveigle some of the High Court judges to curry favour with the Supreme Court’s collegium (entrusted with the function to make appointments and transfers in higher judiciary) to secure an extended tenure of three more years in the Supreme Court.
The Constitution Amendment Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha in the last monsoon session to raise the retirement age of High Court Judges from 62 to 65 is salutary but not adequate. In this matter, either the Indian Constitution should appropriately be amended on the line of the American Constitution or any how, the age of retirement of both the High Court and Supreme Court Judges be fixed at 70 years in line with the present normal life expectancy in India.
However, needless to emphasize that Judicial accountability, transparency and independence are interwoven. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill cleared by the Union Cabinet recently needs to be made into law forthwith. Moreover, the proposed Scrutiny Committee and Judicial Oversight Committee in the said Bill should also be involved along with the existing machinery of the present Collegium system in making judicial appointments and transfers in the higher judiciary. It will help tremendously in mitigating the scourge of “Judges appointing the Judges”.”
Rajender Goyal
Advocate, Bahadurgarh
(Haryana)

The Protection of Women Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010

THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, 11.11.2010, P. 10
Sexual harassment
Thirteen years after the Supreme Court delivered the Vishakha judgment detailing guidelines for the protection of women at workplaces, the Union Cabinet’s nod to the Protection of Women Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010 for introduction in the Parliament’s forthcoming winter session is heartening (editorial “Protecting career women: Bill to prevent sexual harassment at offices”, Nov 8).
The apex court had relied upon the Convention for Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which India had signed. As stated in the editorial, the Bill is broad-based in its nature and scope as it includes women working in all enterprises — public, private, organised and unorganised. It will apply even to establishments with less than 10 employees, but their complaints will be directed to a local complaints committee at the district level.
Moreover, any woman who enters the workplace as a client, customer, apprentice, daily wage earner or in an ad hoc capacity, students and research scholars in colleges and universities, patients in hospitals will have the right to complain against sexual harassment. However, it is rightly urged upon to bring the domestic help into the ambit of the present legislation in view of the increasing cases of exploitation and molestation of the domestic help in recent times.
RAJENDER GOYAL, Advocate, Bahadurgarh

MOCKERY OF AN EXAMINATION

THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, PULL-OUT OF HARYANA PLUS, OCTOBER 26, 2010, P. 2
Mockery of an examination
An eerie sense of distrust, skepticism, unpredictability and dilly-dallying is generally seen to shroud the selection processes undertaken by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC). For appointments in HCS (Judicial Branch), the HPSC conducted preliminary examination on 11.07.2010. The result that was declared on 14.07.2010 wadded into troubled waters. Some unsuccessful candidates hauled up the HPSC and the selection committee of the Punjab and High Court over some grave errors in the question paper and answer key.
Justice Ajay Lamba then directed the Selection Committee and the HPSC to constitute an empowered committee to redraft the answer key and recheck the papers of all candidates. However, without doing so, the HPSC notified the schedule for main examinations (October 1 to October 3). While the aggrieved candidates grumbled at the indiscretion of the HPSC, the successful candidates were also on tenterhooks over the legal sanctity of the examination. Later, the answer key was rectified and the revised merit list was published on 27.09.2010. Consequently, it occasioned the induction of 45 more candidates. However, there was no deferment of the main examination which took place as per notified schedule. Will the authorities explain as to how it is feasible to brace up for an examination for the post of the Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrates in a short notice of four days? The disappointment further deepens because of the fact that High Court is also involved in the selection process.
Rajender Goyal
Bahadurgarh

FOOD CRISIS amidst GRAIN DRAIN

THE HINDUSTAN TIMES, NEW DELHI, October 25, 2010
Starved of compassion
With reference to Grain rot deeper than govt claim: SC (October 19), allowing millions of tonnes of foodgrain, procured at heavy cost to the State exchequer to rot, while millions starve in the country is nothing but inhuman. The prime minister owes a public apology to the nation on the emotive issue of the food crisis and grain drain.
RAJENDER GOYAL, DELHI

The policy of the appointment of Chief Justice of a High Court from outside is salutary

THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, October 20, 2010, P. 10
Debate on CJs’ appointment
I read The Tribune debate on the policy of appointment of High Court Chief Justice from outside the state (Sept 9, 13, 14 and Oct 6). The present policy is based on the decision to have one-third of the judges of a High Court from outside the state following serious deliberations in the Constituent Assembly, the States Reorganisation Commission, the Law Commission, the Administrative Reforms Commission, etc. The Supreme Court, in its various rulings, has also ratified it.
The common grouse against the present policy is that the Chief Justice from outside the state is not familiar with the local Bar, the practices and rules of the new High Court and the subordinate judiciary and that his tenure generally is too short to enable him find his feet in the new High Court. The Supreme Court in SC Advocates-On-Record Association v Union of India (1994) ruled: “It may be desirable to transfer in advance the seniormost Judge due for appointment as Chief Justice to the High Court where he is likely to be appointed Chief Justice, to enable him to take over as Chief Justice as soon as the vacancy arises and, in the meantime, acquaint himself with the new High Court”.
The recent transfer of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Acting Chief Justice of the Guwahati High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court is in line with the said decision of the Supreme Court and needs to be replicated invariably in every case. Moreover, while denouncing the present policy of transfer, we must not lose sight of the rampant scourge of “uncle judges” that is badly sullying the judiciary’s fair image.
RAJENDER GOYAL,
M.D. University, Rohtak

Judiciel Standards and Accountability Bill

The Union Cabinet’s nod for the introduction of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill in the coming winter session of the Parliament is laudable. The majesty and sanctity of the judiciary rest on the respect and confidence it enjoys among the people. The Bill provides for provisions for declaration of assets and liabilities of judges of higher judiciary, and a mechanism to tame the judicial indiscipline and corruption even at the instance of an ordinary private person. To weed out frivolous complaints, a scrutiny committee is envisaged to examine the authenticity of the complaint. Only thereafter, a broad based judicial oversight committee will look into the complaint, and take/recommend suitable action against errant judge. Hence, the Bill is a fine blend of judicial accountability, transparency and independence.
However, in the Bill, the Higher Judiciary including the office of the CJI should specifically be made amenable to the command of the RTI. Moreover, the proposed Scrutiny Committee and Judicial Oversight Committee should also be involved along with the present Supreme Court Collegium (that practically makes appointments and transfers of the judges in higher judiciary) in effecting judicial appointments and transfer in the higher judiciary.

My wife's olive branch on Ayodhya verdict

THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 12, 2010, P. 10
Ayodhya: Need to move beyond ruling
The Ayodhya verdict is getting mixed reactions. One set of views declares it a triumph of Indian ethos of secularism, pluralism, tolerance, and unity in diversity and peaceful co-existence. Others brand it as a political verdict contrary to facts and law, affirmation of Hindu majoritarianism, judicial perpetuation of a gross illegality, an attempt to supplant the much cherished ‘rule of law’ with the ‘divine rule’ and so on.
Be that as it may, the core issue involved in the Ayodhya matter is essentially political. It will be foolhardy to seek a legal solution of a political and religious problem. In 1994, the apex court had returned the Presidential Reference unanswered on the question: “whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure)” on the count that the reference was superfluous, unnecessary, opposed to secularism and favoured one religious community.
The momentous verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has given an opportunity to leave the past behind and press on with new resolve and vigour. We should shun internecine belligerent positions and should reach out to each other to hammer out a mutually acceptable solution more or less in line with the Ayodhya verdict.
NEETI GOYAL, Bahadurgarh

The hullabaloo over AFSPA is deafening

Gen (retd) VP Malik’s Article “Revisiting AFSA:Don’t blame it for Kashmir problems”, The Tribune, New Delhi, Sept 20, was enlightening and gave an apt snapshots of the various provisions of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFPSA) vis-à-vis its need in view of the extant disturbed, subversive conditions in many parts of the Country, and its practical utility and efficacy. The real thorn in the flesh of the problem lies in the socio-politico-economic grievances of the people and the political authorities concerned only can address it. To pass the buck on the Armed Forces for the present vitiated state of affairs is highly reprehensible and self-defeating.
The AFSPA arms the security forces with sweeping powers that are absolutely necessary to pulverize the diabolic designs of the subversive element in the disturbed areas. Amongst others, the whipping boy is the Para 6 of the AFSPA. It confers some protection to the members of the security forces deployed in the disturbed areas against frivolous prosecutions etc. inasmuch that prior sanction of the Central Government is mandatory before any prosecution, suit or legal proceeding is instituted against them for any alleged acts of commission or omission done under the AFSPA . The detractors of the AFSPA must know that even an ordinary public servant, while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, enjoys largely similar protections under the general law of the land. Even in the absence of the AFSPA , the members of the armed forces will enjoy somewhat identical protection as envisaged in said Para 6, under section 197 (2) of the code of criminal procedure.
The need of hour is to chalk out cogent and comprehensive roadmap to redress the grievances of the aggrieved people in the disturbed areas. However, the security forces require potent legal cover, optimal logistics support and adequate operational freedom to crush the menace of terrorism and insurgency.

Retirement age of the Judges and independence of Higher Judiciary

The Sunday Tribune, New Delhi, Sept 26, 2010, P. 12
Raising judges’ tenure will strengthen judicial independence
Justice A.R. Lakshmanan’s article, “Retirement of judges: Raise the age to streamline the higher judiciary” (Sunday Oped, Aug 29) was thought-provoking. The increase in the retirement age of the judges of higher judiciary will have a profound bearing on the judicial independence.
The retired judges are offered government employment of some kind or other which may subject some of them to extraneous consideration and thus undermine judicial independence.
It is more so in view of the constitutional embargo prohibiting a retired Supreme Court and High Court judge to practice law before any court or authority in India and in the High Court(s) where he held office as a permanent judge respectively. In the US, a Supreme Court Judge holds office during good behaviour, which means that he can continue to occupy office for life. Of course, a judge is at liberty to retire on attaining the age of 70 years and on completing ten years of service at the Supreme Court.
The Constitution Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha to raise the retirement age of High Court Judges from 62 to 65 is laudable but not adequate. Either the Constitution should be amended on the lines of the American Constitution or the retirement age of judges be fixed at 70 years in consonance with the normal life expectancy in India.
RAJENDER GOYAL, Advocate, Bahadurgarh

QUOTA BLUES

THR TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER, 23, 2010, P. 10
Quota blues
Apropos of the editorial, “Quota conundrum” (Sept 15), the founding fathers’ idea of reservation was like that of the crutches lent to a physically challenged person until his limbs grow up and he stands on his own legs. The time has come for a review of the entire policy on quotas. The quota based reservation policy, a part of the affirmative action, envisaged as a tool of egalitarianism now stands catapulted as a ‘prized booty’.
The common refrain of the protagonists of the Jat reservation is that when some other peasantry castes in Haryana already enjoy the benefits of the reservation, why the Jats should be deprived of the same? The remedy lies in not giving quotas to any such caste.
RAJENDER GOYAL, Advocate, Bahadurgarh

NOTE:-In the above write-up published in "The Tribune". I have been misquoted in certain material aspect in so far as the assertion "The remedy lies is not giving quotas to any such caste" is concerned. In fact, I had used the expression "The remedy lies in disentitling any of such caste to reap the fruits of the reservation, if found, that they do not qualify for it" in the original write-up sent to The Tribune for publication . The flawed paraphrasing has resulted into total misconstruction of my perspective on this count.

The original write-up sent to "The Tribune" is reproduced below:

Bandwagon of reservation
Apropos the editorial “Quota conundrum: Hooda again mishandles situation”, Sept 15, the Founding Fathers’ idea of reservation policy was like that of the crutches lent to a limbless person until his limbs grow up and he stands on his own legs. The time has come at such a pass, paradoxically, where we see that the erstwhile limbless person, now having fully grown-up limbs, does not want to let go of the borrowed crutches, and the inherently able-bodied person has started clamouring for the crutches. The quota based reservation policy- a part of the affirmative action- envisaged as a tool of egalitarianism now stands catapulted as a ‘prized booty’. The common refrain of the protagonists of the jat reservation is that some other peasantry castes in Haryana already enjoy the benefits of the reservation, then, why jat should not be? Two wrongs do not make a right they constitute a plumb blunder. The remedy lies in disentitling any of such caste to reap the fruits of the reservation, if found, that they do not qualify for it. Be that as it may be, we must be alive to the hard fact that reservation is a state’s charity and it is highly unbecoming of any self-respecting person to live off anybody’s alms unless it is not at all possible to stand on one's own legs due to some insurmountable present or historical reasons.
RAJENDER GOYAL, Advocate
Bahadurgarh

Recent approval and derecognition of Law Institutes in India

The Meeting of the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India was held on Saturday, 4th September, 2010 at 10.30 A.M. and on Sunday, 5th September, 2010 at 10.30 A.M. at the premises of the Bar Council of India, 225, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi. In the said meeting the Vaish College of Law, Rohtak was granted permission to commence admission process. Quite shockingly, the Institute of Law & Management Studies, MDU, Gurgaon (one of the finest law institute in Haryana) has been derecognized allegedly for offering allurements to the Office of Chairman, BCI by the incharge of the Institute. Since the said Institute is a an University maintained Institute, the alleged allurements must have some non-pecuniary connotations!
The record of minutes is reproduced as follows:
Vaish College of Law, Rohtak, Haryana
Perused the report of Vaish College of Law, Rohtak, Haryana.
Permission is granted to commence a three year law course with
two sections of 60 students for two years 2010-2011 and 2011-
2012. Similarly, permission is granted for two sections of 60
students each for B. A. LL.B. 5 year law course. However, the said
college is directed to supply information to the DLE on the teaching
plan, the syllabus to be followed as well as fair and transparent
process be adopted for the admission of the students. The said
admission of students will take place under the supervision of the
Professor in Charge of the Campus Law Centre, Delhi University.
Institute of Law & Magmt. Studies, Maharishi Dayanand
University, Gurgaon, Haryana
Having regard to the fact that the in-charge of this institution
attempted to offer allurements to the Office of Chairman, Bar
Council of India, the said application is rejected. This institution
will not be recognized by the Bar Council of India. Office is
directed to maintain a list of all the promoters of the institution. If
a new institution promoted by the said persons applies for
recognition, office will put-up a note of the present resolution.

Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University,
Sonipat, Haryana
Having regard to the material as well as the inspection report,
there is no manner of doubt that the Jindal Law School is
maintaining standards and imparting legal education of high
quality. Under the circumstances, approval is granted for B.A.
LL.B. (Hons.) 5 year course and LL.B. (Hons.) 3 year course for the
years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The existing sections may be
maintained.
(SOURCE: http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/)

The following law colleges were dercognised:
The MOM of the Legal Education Committee of the BCI conducted on 30th April, 2010 de-recognises
Bihar Institute of Law, Patna
Ram Kumari Ayodhya Law College, Begusarai, Bihar
ITM University and ITM Law School, Gurgaon, Haryana
Anugrah Memorial Law College, Gaya, Bodh Gaya, Bihar
S. S. S. Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Women’s Law College, CIDCO, Aurangabad
S. S. S. Devjibhai Hariya Law College, Kalyan, Distt- Thane, Maharashtra
Namdevraoji Parjane Patil Law college, Kopargaon, Distt- Ahmednagar, Maharashtra
Utrakhand Technical University, Uttrakhand
The MOM of the Legal Education Committee of the BCI conducted on 21st and 22nd August, 2010 de-recognises the following law colleges-
S. S. S. Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Women’s Law College, CIDCO, Aurangabad
S. S. S. Devjibhai Hariya Law College, Kalyan, Distt- Thane, Maharashtra
Namdevraoji Parjane Patil Law College, Kopargaon, Distt-Ahmednagar, Maharashtra
Hutama Rajguru Shikshan Prasarak Mandal’s (HRSPM) Law College, Rajgurunagar, Pune
Hurakadli Ajja Law College, Dharwad, Karnataka
B. M. Law College, Muzaffarnagar
Bharti Vidyapeeth’s New Law College, Kolhapur
5 year course withdrawn
P. S. Raju Law College, Kakinada, A.P.
Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Law, Kakinada
3 year course withdrawn
Prasunna College of Law, Kurnool
Yashwantrao Chavan Law College, Karad
5 year course withdrawn
Department of Law, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Srikakulam, Etcherla, A. P.
P. E. S. Modern Law College, Pune
3 year course withdrawn
Manjra Charitable Trust’s College of Law, Navi Mumbai
Maa Jinwani College of Legal Studies, Pushpgiri Treeth, Sonkatch, M.p
College of Law, D. N. R. College Association, Bhimavaram, A.P
5 year course withdrawn
S. I. P. E. Law College, Dibrugarh, Assam
The MOM of the Legal Education Committee of the BCI conducted on 4th and 5th September, 2010 de-recognises the following law colleges-
Shri V. P. K. Mandal’s Pravin Gandhi College of Law, Vile Parle, Mumbai, Maharashtra
Seth Shankarlal Lahoti Law College, Gulbarga, Karnataka
Smt. Sonia Gandhi Law College, Gulbarga, Karnataka
Jawahar Law College, Yadgir
Karnataka Law College, Gulbarga
H. C. E. S. Law College, Gadag
Shri B. R. Mirdha Govt. College agaur, Rajasthan (STBC)
Government Law College, Sirohi, Rajasthan
Government P.G. College, Datia, Madhya Pradesh
Centre for Juridical Studies, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh
Maharani Laxmi Bai Govt. College of Excellence, Gwalior
D. H. S. K. Law College, Dibrugarh
Dr. R. K. Baruah Law College, Dibrugarh
Institute of Law & Magmt. Studies, Maharishi Dayanand University,Gurgaon, Haryana
Saraswati Law College, Chitrdurga, Karnataka
Virendra Kumar Singhal Law College, Moradabad, U.P.
Marwadi Siksha Samithi Law College, Hyderabad, A.P.
Visakha Law College, Visakhapatnam
Veeravali College of Law, Prakash Nagar, Rajamundry
However the Legal Education Committee re-considered the matters of the following law colleges which were decided by the Committee at its meeting held on 21st and 22nd August, 2010 and modified as follows-
Bharti Vidyapeeth’s New Law College, Kolhapur
5 year law course allowed
Maa Jinwani College of Legal Studies, Pushpgiri Treeth, Sonkatch, M.P.
3 year law course allowed
Sridhar University, Pilani, Rajasthan
(SOURCE:www.barandbench.com)

Injudiciousness and perfunctoriness over Haryana judicial service examination

The controversies, apathy and dilly-dallying has become endemic to the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC). The whole gamut of the selection process is shrouded by an eerie sense of distrust, secrecy and panic. The sore points are umpteen.
Timely steps are required to be taken for determination of vacancies, issue of advertisement, conducting examinations, interviews, declaration of the final results and issue of orders of appointments. For all these and other steps, if any, it is necessary to provide for fixed time schedule so that system works automatically and there is no delay in filling up of vacancies.
On the contrary, the notifications that are issued for selection for particular posts/services do not specify the date(s) of the holding of the examination. The candidates are left in lurch for months end on just surmising about the time of the examination. Anyhow, if the examinations take place, unpredictability about the declaration of result ensues. And with the declaration of the result, commences the plight of the successful candidates because, more often than not, the result will be found impugned in the High Court/Supreme Court for some alleged irregularities/improprieties in the selection process/examination.
For the selection of suitable candidates for appointment in HCS (Judicial Branch), the HPSC conducted preliminary examination on 11.07.2010 in accordance with the provisions contained in the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 as amended from time to time. In just less than a week, the result came out enlisting the name of the successful candidates found eligible to take the main examination. Expectedly, the said result also wadded into troubled water since the HPSC and Selection Committee, Punjab and Haryana High Court were hauled up by some unsuccessful candidates in the Punjab and Haryana High Court over some grave irregularities in the question paper and answer key. It is noteworthy that both High Court and the State government (read here HPSC) are jointly responsible for the smooth conduct of the judicial service examination as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan v. UP Public Service Commission (2006). The Punjab civil service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 as amended in February 2010, ordain that the HCS (Judicial Branch) Examination is to be conducted by a selection committee consisting of three senior judges of the High Court and equal number of state government official and Chariman of HPSC (Haryana Govt. Gazette Notification No. GSR 3/Const/Art 234 and 309/ 2010 dated 10 Feb 2010).
Before the single judge bench of the High Court, the counsels of the HPSC and the High Court conceded some goof-ups. To protect the paramount interests of the examinees, the single judge bench of His Lordship Justice Ajay Lamba on 13.09.2010 directed the Selection Committee of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and HPSC to constitute an Empowered Committee to look into the grievances of the petitioners and redraft the answer key, recheck the papers of all the candidates, and prepare merit list afresh accordingly. In the flagrant violation of the said decision of the High Court, without undertaking any such exercise, the HPSC notified the schedule for Main Examinations to be held from 1st Oct to 3rd Oct. While the aggrieved candidates were fuming and fretting at the contumacy of the HPSC, the successful candidates were also on tenterhooks, and in a state of paranoia about the legal sanctity of the scheduled examination. In meanwhile, Punjab & Haryana High Court through its Registrar went in Letter Patent Appeal (intra court appeal) before the division bench against the said single bench decision. In deference to the decisions by Their Lordship Justices M.M. Kumar and Ritu Bahri on 22.09.2010 and 27.09.2010 in the above noted case, the Answer Key was rectified and the merit list was published accordingly. Consequently, it occasioned the induction of 45 odd more candidates in the Merit List. Quite shockingly, there was no deferment in the schedule of examination (1st Oct- 3rd Oct 2010) in spite of the fact that 45 new candidates came to find place in the merit list on 27.09.2010 0nly. Will the concerned authorities take pain to enlighten on as to how it is feasible to brace up for an examination for the post of the Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates on a short notice of just four days only?

My wife's note of circumspection on the caste census

The Tribune, New Delhi, September 15, 2010, P. 10
CASTE CENSUS MUST HAVE A PURPOSE
The Cabinet approval for an independent caste count to be conducted from June to September 2011 is uncalled for (news report, “Cabinet nod to caste count in census”, Sept 10). It is noteworthy that in India more than 300 million people are languishing below poverty level. At least 35 million children aged 6-14 years do not attend school and over three million children are living on the streets, and over 150 million children are working as bonded labourers and so on.
Against this backdrop, the move of the government to spend a whopping sum of Rs 2,000 crore on caste census just to pander to some vested interests to help them accomplish their narrow partisan ends is unwarranted.
The huge amount of taxpayers’ money can be utilised to assuage the plight of millions of hapless and impoverished people. Moreover, there are serious doubts on any objective usefulness of this costly drill since in India the same caste bears different tags in different parts of the country. Anyhow, the caste census should be broad-based enlisting the income and the means of livelihood, etc. of the people of different castes so that it may serve the intended purpose.
NEETI GOYAL, Bahadurgarh

Do'nt tinker with the present policy of appointment of the Chief Justice of a High Court from outside the State

The present policy of appointing the Chief Justice of a High Court from outside the state is the part and parcel of the policy to have one-third of the puisne judges of a High Court from outside a state. It has come in place after a very serious and prolonged deliberations at very various fora viz. the Constituent Assembly, State Reorganization Commission, 14 Report of Ist Law Commission of India (LCI) headed by the then Attorney-General of India, Sh. M.C. Setalvad, Administrative Reform Commission and the 80th Report of the 8th LCI headed by the eminent Mr.justice H.R. Khanna. The present policy also finds approval from the decisions of the Supreme Court of the India [S.P. Gupta Vs UOl , AIR 1982 SC 149 (1st Judges case) and Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association V s UOl, AIR 1994 SC 268 (11nd Judges case)]. The Constituent Assembly debates indicate that the High Court Judges were intended to constitute an All India Cadre.
The most common grouse against the present policy is that chief justice from outside is not familiar with the local Bar, traditions, language and the practices and rules of the new High Court, and the judges of the subordinate judiciary. The Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Advocate on record Association v. Union of India adverted to this and opined that:
“It may be desirable to transfer in advance the senior-most Judge due for appointment as Chief Justice to the High Court where he is likely to be appointed Chief Justice, to enable him to take over as Chief Justice as soon as the vacancy arises and, in the meantime, acquaint himself with the new High Court. This would ensure a smooth transition without any gap in filling the office of Chief Justice”. (AIR 1994 SC 268 at P. 440)
The recent transfer of Justice Ranjan Gogoi from Gauhati High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court is in conformity with the said opinion of the Apex Court and needs to be replicated invariably in every case.
Moreover, while denouncing the present policy of transfer, we should not lose sight of the rampant scourge of the “uncle judges” that is sullying the hallowed edifice of judiciary and creating fatal cleavages in its image of non-partisanship.
However, the new Chief Justice should be given a long enough stint to enable him to find feet in the new High Court. It is also imperative that Constitution amendment Bill, 2010 introduced by the government in the Lok Sabha in the last monsoon session to raise the retirement age of High Court Judges from 62 to 65 be made into law forthwith.
POST SCRIPT:-
Reportedly, in a departure from two-decade-old practice, the SC collegium has recommended the appointment of Andhra High Court Chief Justice Nissar Ahmed Kakru as the Chief Justice of the high court of J& K, which is his home state. The SC collegium is understand to have decided to send the present Chief Justice of the High Court of the J&K High Court, Aftab Hussain Saikia, to the Gauhati High Court as its Chief Justice in his home state of Assam, replacing Chief Justice Madan Lokur, who is being transferred to the Andhra High Court. (As reported in Hindustan Times, New Delhi, Sept 15, 2010, P. 8)

Justice A.R. Lakashmanan is factually incorrect

In the article “Appointing Chief Justices: The way out (The Tribune, New Delhi, Sept 13, p. 9), the Justice A.R. Lakshmanan’s (retired Judge, Supreme Court of India and former Chairman, Law Commission of India) observation that “The Collegium is now to consist of the Chief Justice of India and four seniormost Judges of the court and in the appointment of a High Court Judge, the Supreme Court Judge acquainted with that particular High Court should also be consulted raising the number to six” is factually incorrect. As a matter of fact and record, in the case of appointment of High Court Judges, the collegium consists of the Chief Justice of India and the two senior-most puisne Judges of the Supreme Court. In arriving at any decision, the collegium has to elicit the views, amongst others, of colleagues on the Supreme Court Bench “who are conversant with the affairs of the concerned High Court” (kindly advert to paras 26, 27 and 41of the celebrated case, In Re: Presidential Reference, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1).
Interestingly, the memorandum of procedure qua appointment of the judges in High Courts drawn by the Ministry of Law and Justice seemingly in deference to the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268, para 501, sub para 13 at p. 439 (also known as Second Judges Case) sets out that
“The Chief Justice of India would send his recommendation for the appointment of a puisne Judge of the High Court as Chief Justice of that High Court or of another High Court, in consultation with the two seniormost Judges of the Supreme Court. He would also ascertain the views of the seniormost colleague in the Supreme Court who is conversant with the affairs of the High Court in which the recommendee has been functioning and whose opinion is likely to be significant in adjudging the suitability of the candidate.”
It is noteworthy that whereas the said memorandum is restrictive in a sense that it circumscribes the consultation only with the seniormost colleague ……. and there is no such limitation expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Re Presidential case as above indicated.
In fact, His Lordship’s observation about the composition of the collegium holds good regarding the appointments of the judges in the Supreme Court and the transfer of the judges of the High Courts with an addition that said collegium has also to seek the views of the Chief Justice of the High Court from which the transfer is to be effected and of the Chief Justice of the High Court to which the transfer is to be effected.
It is also pertinent to mention here that Justice A.R. Lakshamanan is the author of the 18TH Law Commission of India (LCI), 214th Report on "Proposal for Reconsideration of Judges cases I, II and III - S.P. Gupta Vs UOl reported in AIR 1982 SC 149, Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association V s UOl reported in 1993 (4) SCC 441 and Special Reference 1 of 1998 reported in 1998 (7) SC 739". The recommendations of this report also stands reiterated in the later 230th Report of LCI.
The record needs to be set straight.

Revamp of legal education system in India

There are around 900 recognised institutes, including 12 national law schools and 145 departments of law in various universities in India imparting the legal education. However, barring the national law schools and some other handful of the institutes, the modalities and standards of legal education provided therein neither prepares the students enough to take up the legal practice and consultancy effectively nor it is good enough to let them to face up to the contemporary needs and challenges in the domain of modern legal profession. The reasons are not very far to seek. The legal education as imparted in most of the law institutes in India largely acquaints the students with abstract theoretical aspects of law not giving desired emphasis on its procedural and practical aspects. Consequently, the fresh law graduates when they join the legal profession find themselves landed up in an alien world not able to apply the knowledge and skill acquired in the law institutes on real world problems.
To bridge the gap between theory and practice, there should be a well laid out and broad based collaboration between the law institutes and the bar & bench. There must be exceedingly greater objective focus on the procedural laws, and clinical and practical aspects of law viz. court visits primarily aimed at pre-trial preparation & participation in trial proceedings, visit of quasi-judicial bodies, Parliament, police stations, jails, NHRC, NWC, SC/ST Commission,revenue courts, offices of registrar of companies, firms, societies, trade mark, patent, copyright; moot court, mock parliament, free legal aid cell, drafting etc. with the active involvement of the competent members of the bar and the bench, and other specialized consultants and attorneys in various branches of laws. To a certain extent, most of the universities curricula provide for them, but practically not taken with the earnestness as it calls for and virtually pooh-poohed as not being worthwhile for the law students at the stage when they are still pursuing their course. As a corollary, it takes years end on for the new entrants to get acclimatized to the dynamics and imperatives of the legal profession.
Moreover, holding of the Lok Adalats in the Law institutes and latter’s participation also in the other variants of Alternative Dispute resolution (ADR) like mediation, conciliation will also be in the fitness of the things. The most of the faculty members of law institutes are thoroughbred academicians divorced from practical nitty-gritty of law. Hence, it will also be desirable to provide for various measures for them also as in the case of law students so that they will augment their practical insights about the law and its application and thus, we may have true academic lawyers. The supplementing of key course papers with mandatory assignments/research papers, the problem-oriented examination, and also the periodic revision and up-gradation of curricula to catch up with emerging new trends & areas of the legal discipline is also imperative to raise the bar of the legal education. It is also imperative to devise an innovative, interactive and participatory teaching methodology.
The LL.B. courses (both 3 years and 5 years) offered by the various law institutes are general in nature. There should be some degree of specialisation at the level of LL.B. itself. For this, later parts of the said courses should consist of elective subjects only and should be followed by an intense internship/apprenticeship in the chosen field of the specialisation. The discontinuation of LL.B. 3 YEARS Course also merits serious contemplations. While retaining the LL.B. 5 years course, the introduction of a new integrated course of the duration of 6 years [B.A. (LAW)-LL.B.-LL.M.] may be in sync with the extant demand of the time.
The above-suggested measures postulate that there is an otherwise competent and dedicated faculty supported by all necessary infrastructure and other paraphernalia in a law institute.
“We do have a small number of dynamic and outstanding law schools, but I am afraid they remain islands of excellence amidst a sea of institutionalized mediocrity,” rued Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the quality of legal education in a two-day conference on Second Generation Reforms held recently in New Delhi.
The proposed National Law School Bill, 2010 envisaging the establishment of national law schools in all the states in India is welcome. The biannual All India Bar Examination (to be held on December 5, 2010 for the first time) aimed to test the worth of the candidate seeking entry in the legal profession is also a step in right direction. The need of the hour is to emulate the standards and excellence cultivated and nurtured by the national law schools for other law institutes in India also and usher in dramatic reforms and improvement in the scope and quality of legal education system in India.

Thoroughly monumental, colossal, awesome and par excellent

The Tribune, New Delhi, Haryana plus, P. 2, September 10, 2010
Reetika Singh tops LL.M exam (sic) (read LL.B. Exam)
Tribune News Service
Hisar, September 9
Reetika Singh, an alumnus of the local CR Law College, has bagged the first position in the LL.M (three-year course) (Sic) [read LL.B. (three- year course) examination conducted by Kurukshetra University.
She topped the merit list for all three years consecutively, scoring 1905 marks out of 2800. The gap between her aggregate score and the student placed second in the list is 79 marks.
She had earlier bagged the first prize in an inter-university mock court competition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HATS OFF TO YOU Reetika. You and only you were cut out for it. Keep on adding more coveted feathers in your illustrious cap.
RAJENDER GOYAL, Bahadurgarh

Judicial bashing is unfortunate

Each organ of the state should function in conformity with the basic spirit of the Constitution and in accordance with its provision in a way that centrality and the supremacy of the Constitution is preserved at all times to help the system to work smoothly and efficiently. The Constitution has entrusted the executive with the task of policy-making and its due execution. However, the moot point is that if the government of the day becomes oblivious of its constitutional duties, whether the judicial wing of the state -that is the custodian of the Constitution -can chip in and awake the government from a state of inertia typified by total abdication of its duty towards the people.
Allowing the millions of tons of food grains, procured at the heavy expenses of the state exchequer, to rot for years end on in the face of millions of starving people throughout the length and the breadth of the Country is nothing but ruthless trampling upon the spirit of the Constitution besides being highly inhumane and barbaric. The empathy of the Apex Court with the starving poor men on the streets amidst queasy stink of putrefying of millions of tons of food grains from all across the Country should not be denounced as judicial overstepping in the domain of the executive. The Prime Minister of India owes a public apology to the nation on this emotive issue of "FOOD CRISIS" juxtaposed with spine-chilling "GRAIN DRAIN" and should assure the countrymen that not even a single grain of the food wll be let to be rotten in a Country where over 37% of the population is still reeling under below poverty line.

Independent caste census is sheer splurge of tax payers' money

In the wake of the recommendation of the Group of Ministers headed by the Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, the Home Ministry has sought cabinet approval for an independent caste count to be conducted around June 2011. It is noteworthy that in India more than 300 million people are languishing below poverty level, at least 35 million children aged 6 - 14 years do not attend school, over 3 million children are living on the streets, and over 150 million children are working as bonded labourers and so on. Against this repulsive backdrop, the proposed move of the government to splurge whopping money to the tune of Rs. 2000 crore on caste census just to pander to some vested interests to help them accomplish their narrow political ends is highly insensitive and unwarranted. Since the enumeration of population (i.e. headcount) is a decadal phenomenon, the caste count can be undertaken along with the next headcount. The huge amount of taxpayers’ money in meanwhile can be utilized to assuage the plight of millions of hapless and impoverished people.
Moreover, there are serious doubts on any objective usefulness of this costly drill since in India the same caste bears different name tags in different parts of the Country e.g. a largely trading caste known as “Bania” in and around Haryana is addressed by more than 356 different names all across the India viz. Vani in Maharashtra, Vania in Gujrat, Sood in Himachal Pradesh, Mahajan in Jammu and Kashmir, Marwari in north-east and so forth. Anyhow, the caste census should be broad based enlisting the income, the means of livelihood etc. of the people of different castes so that it may subserve any objective purpose for further demographical and anthropological studies.

POST SCRIPT: Cabinet accorded approval on 9-9 2010 for an independent caste count to be conducted from June to September 2011.

Retirement age and independence of higher judiciary

In his article “Retirement of judges: Raise the age to streamline the higher judiciary” (The Tribune, New Delhi, oped page, August 29, 2010), Justice A.R. Lakshmanan has made a strong case for increasing the retirement age of the judges of the higher judiciary grounded mainly on the premises of increase in the retirement age of counterparts in some quasi-judicial bodies, rise in the longevity or life expectancy of people in India and best use of high-up experienced professionals. However, it also has other dimensions having profound bearing on the independence of higher judiciary in India. The retired judges of the higher judiciary are offered government employment of some kind or other viz. chairmanship, membership of tribunals, statutory commissions, committees and so forth. The lure of such prospective offices and associated perks and pelf, more so in view of the constitutional embargo prohibiting the retired Supreme Court judge and the retired High Court Judge to practice law before any court or authority in India and in the High Court(s) where he held office as a permanent judge respectively, have ample potential to subject some of the serving judges to extraneous considerations and influences in the discharge of their duties and it may undermine the independence of higher judiciary.
In USA, a Judge of the Supreme Court holds office during good behaviour, which means that he can continue to occupy office for life. Although, a judge is at liberty to retire on attaining the age of seventy years and on completing ten years service at the Supreme Court. Even after retirement as distinct from resignation, they can be requested to join the benches to discharge judicial function, whenever need arises. The secured judicial tenure leading virtually up to the last breath of the judge free of the post-retirement anxieties subserves the independence of higher judiciary in USA.
Moreover, the nature and stress of work is same for the judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Present position of difference in age of retirement can inveigle some of the high court judges to curry favour with the Supreme Court’s collegium (entrusted with the function to make appointments and transfers in higher judiciary) to secure an extended tenure of three more years in the Supreme Court.
To plug the gap, the government has introduced the Constitution amendment Bill, 2010 in the Lok Sabha in the last monsoon session to raise the retirement age of High Court Judges from 62 to 65 that is salutary but not adequate. The Bill in the present form is half-baked and only addresses the matter partially. It would be more in the fitness of the things, if in this matter, either the Indian Constitution is appropriately amended on the line of the American Constitution or any how, the age of retirement of both the High Court and Supreme Court Judges be fixed at 70 years in consonance with the present normal life expectancy in India.

Enact law to rein in the rampage of Khap Panchayats (Caste Councils)

THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 4, 2010, P. 12
Deterrent law must to curb “honour killings”
To say that the highhandedness of the khap panchayats in Haryana is a ‘law and order problem’ is too simplistic a viewpoint. It is an ominous social nuisance (editorial “Honour killings: Delay but don’t drop legislation”, Aug 27). Snuffing out young lives by taking refuge in antiquated and unenforceable customs not only renders the much-cherished constitutional freedoms and liberties redundant but is also an anathema to the tenets of the great Indian culture and civilization embedded in the ideals of compassion, tolerance, non-violence and peaceful co-existence.
The glorification of such crimes by the khap panchayats should tantamount to criminal abetment and conspiracy because it provides a supportive ground to the misguided zealots. Medieval practices like social ostracism or expulsion of the couple and their family, diktats pronouncing the legally wedded couple, as brother and sister by the khap panchayats should also be punishable.
The gaps in the law need to be bridged adequately. To curb a crime, both the Union and state legislature should (sic) (read can) enact the law but subject to a rider that in case of any inconsistency in such law, the Central law will prevail. Parliament is obliged to provide a deterrent law to eradicate this social evil. It would be desirable to take the states on board before the enactment of the law.

RAJENDER GOYAL, Bahadurgarh