Law Commission Submits Report on Anticipatory Bail

Law Commission Submits Report on Anticipatory Bail - PIB Press Release

The Law Commission of India submitted its 203rd Report on Anticipatory Bail to the Government. The Chairman of the Commission Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, former Supreme Court Judge, presented a copy of the said report to the Union Minister of Law & Justice, Dr. H.R. Bhardwaj, today.

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, dealing with anticipatory bail, was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005. The enforcement of the amended provision was kept in abeyance and expert opinion of the Law Commission sought to suggest a modified version to make the provision workable with suitable safeguards to protect the rights and liberty of the citizens. The Law Commission examined in details the scope and ambit of the existing as well as the amended section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of various judicial pronouncements on the subject.

As regards the Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 438, as amended, permitting arrest of the applicant by the police without warrant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in the application, the Law Commission has been of the view that the provision is more of explanatory nature and clarifies that there shall be no bar to such arrest if there are otherwise reasonable grounds to make such arrest. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in M.C. Abraham and another Vs State of Maharashtra, (2003) 2 SCC 649, the Commission has expressed the view that the mere fact that an anticipatory bail application is rejected is no ground for directing the applicant’s immediate arrest. There may be cases where an application may be rejected and yet the applicant is not put up for trial as, after investigation no material is found against him. Power of arrest, therefore, has to be exercised with due caution and circumspection and not in any mechanical manner. The Commission has thus concluded that it is not necessary to have the Proviso inserted in Section 438(1) as the position on this aspect is already very clear. The Commission has, therefore, recommended the omission of Proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 438, as amended.

As regards Section 438(1B) relating to the presence of the applicant at the time of final hearing, the Law Commission has critically examined the nitty-gritty of restraint and custody to which the applicant may be subjected to in terms of the court’s order under that Section. The Law Commission has come to the conclusion that when the applicant appears in the Court in compliance with the Court’s order and is subjected to the Court’s directions, he may be viewed as in the Court’s custody and this may render the relief of anticipatory bail infructuous. The Commission has, therefore, recommended deletion of sub-section (1B) of Section 438.

The Commission has noted that the concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of Session and the High Court under Section 438 has generated much avoidable litigation. The Code has not prescribed any specific order in which the two alternative concurrent forums are to be approached for the grant of anticipatory bail. It is left to the option of the applicant to move either the Court of Session or the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail one after another. In order to streamline the procedure, the Commission has recommended insertion of a provision in Section 438 on the lines of Section 397(2) dealing with revision application. Accordingly, it is recommended that if an application under Section 438 is made by a person either to the High Court or the Court of Session, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other Court. In order to provide the remedy of revision against the order of Court of Session in High Court, an Explanation is recommended to be inserted in the Section to the effect that final order for direction under sub-section (1) of Section 438 will not be construed as an interlocutory order. The Report contains a revised text of Section 438 based on its recommendation.

It may be recalled that the amended section inter alia provided for obligatory presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail at the time of final hearing of the application and making final order thereon, if, on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice [Section 438 (1B)]. The amended section also permits arrest of the applicant by the police without warrant on the basis of the accusations apprehended in the anticipatory bail application in cases where either the application is rejected or no interim order is passed thereon [Section 438 (1) Proviso]. There was widespread protest by lawyers against these amendments. The lawyers’ fraternity was of the view that the applicant would be arrested in the event of rejection of his application if present in the Court and thus he might be deprived of moving the higher Court against rejection of his application.

Kiran Bedi's resignation accepted

New Delhi, Dec 26 (IANS) After sitting over it for nearly one and a half months, the government Wednesday accepted the voluntary retirement plea of India's first Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Kiran Bedi.


The government decided to relieve Bedi, who was holding the post of the director general of Bureau of Police Research and Development, from her duties immediately.

According to sources the union home ministry has decided to relieve Bedi from her duties as early as Monday.

"I have received the letter relieving me from the government," Bedi told IANS, confirming the government order. She has already given up her charge at the bureau.

Bedi was clearly irked over being bypassed for the post of Delhi Police chief after Y.S. Dadwal, two years her junior, was preferred this July.

"If the government thought that I was dispensable for the post of Delhi's commissioner of police, I think I am dispensable for any other government job," Bedi had told IANS earlier.

Magasaysay Award winner Bedi had submitted her voluntary retirement application Nov 15, saying she wanted to quit to pursue her "strong academic and social interests".

The home ministry had indicated last week that it wanted Bedi at its proposed 'national police mission' project, but she said she was not willing to work "for the government" any more.

A 1972-batch IPS officer, Bedi was keen to take charge of the Delhi Police, which she has served in various capacities.

A law graduate from Delhi University, Bedi is also a former all-India and all-Asia tennis champion.

Bedi became a household name in the Indian capital when she took charge of Delhi Traffic Police, earning in the process the sobriquet "Crane Bedi" because of her penchant for using cranes to remove vehicles parked illegally.

She then went on to hold several posts, including deputy inspector general of police in Mizoram, inspector general of police in Chandigarh, director general of Narcotics Control Bureau, inspector general of police at Tihar Jail, and back at Delhi Police, joint commissioner of training and special commissioner in charge of intelligence.

She earned worldwide fame for her efforts to reform Delhi's Tihar Jail.

She also went on deputation to the United Nations.

Panel to examine long vacations for Supreme Court judges

New Delhi, Dec 26 Judges of the higher judiciary have long enjoyed a work calendar with holidays matching those of schoolchildren, but a parliamentary panel has decided to step in and examine whether the long vacations are really necessary.

As Supreme Court and high court judges take a break during the ongoing fortnight long year-end holiday, the Parliamentary Standing Committee for the Ministry of Law and Justice has decided to examine the need and rationality of long vacations in the apex court.

Said the panel's Chairman and Rajya Sabha Member E.M.S. Natchiappan: "We are currently examining several issues of legal reform. We will also examine the rationality of continuing with the British legacy of long vacations in the judiciary."

"It has also been brought to the committee's notice that the backlog of cases in the apex court has begun rising of late. We would like to examine if vacations have a bearing on the rising trend of backlog of cases there," Natchiappan told IANS.

He said the committee would like to examine the work schedule of judges like the time taken in hearing cases, reading various case files and laws, writing verdicts and whether long vacations aid or hinder their work.

Beginning Dec 17, the Supreme Court is officially on a winter break, nearly a week before Delhi schools called it a year. The court closed amid fiercely divided legal opinion over the need for long holidays in the judiciary, which often makes news for having more holidays than working days.

The total number of days of work for it, as per its 2007 calendar, works out to a meagre 176 out of 365 days. For the remaining 189 days, more than six months of the year, it was on holiday.

The holidays included roughly 104 Saturdays and Sundays, nearly two months of summer vacation, a week each of Diwali and Dussehra breaks, besides several other offs that ranged from a day to a week.

"Even the highest US court, where individual judges do not have to adjudicate more than 150 cases, does not have more than three to four months of holidays in a year," said senior advocate K.K. Venugopal.

The British legacy of a long summer vacation has been continuing since independence. This year, the Supreme Court closed for summer from May 21 to July 8, compared to several schools that closed from May 15 to July 1.

While there could be a rationale for closing schools for two months in the scorching summer of Delhi, the apex court and high court judges have air-conditioned cars to commute and air-conditioned courtrooms to work in, said advocate Prashant Bhushan.

The rationale to close down courts in summer is questionable, he added.

Besides the holidays and vacations, individual judges are entitled to their own quota of leaves, according to the provisions of Supreme Court Judges' salary and other Condition of Service Act, 1958.

Depending upon the number of years of service, they are also entitled to a certain number of off days on full salary, some on half salary and on quarter salary too.

Official data from the Department of Justice reveals that the number of cases pending in the apex court had come down to 19,806 in 1998 from a whopping 104,936 in 1991. But it's rising again. At the beginning of 2006, it had risen to nearly 29,000 and by November 2007 it was 46,000.

Despite the rising backlog of cases, some lawyers support long vacations in the judiciary on ground of "tremendous work pressure" on judges.

"Every day, a bench of two to three judges hears around 50 cases. The cases listed on Mondays go up to 70 while it's around 40 on Fridays. They also have to read the voluminous files every evening before hearing them the next day," said a lawyer.

He added: "They also need time to write judgments, which cannot be written in open courts. And they end up doing all these work during holidays or vacations, which they deserve."

But Venugopal disagreed: "It's true that Supreme Court judges do a lot of work even at home. Yet, the apex court needs to arrest the rising trend of the backlog of cases and reducing their long vacations may be one way out." - IANS

Court summons Amarinder, others in corruption case

Ludhiana, A district and sessions court here Monday issued summons to former Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singh and 34 others in the corruption case filed against them by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau in the Ludhiana City Centre scam.

Amarinder Singh, his son Raninder Singh, son-in-law Raminder Singh, former minister Jagjit Singh and others have been asked to appear before the court of Judge G.K. Rai Jan 10. The vigilance department, in a charge sheet submitted before the court recently, had named 36 people in the case. Of them, Ludhiana improvement trust (LIT) chairman Paramjit Singh Sibia, who allotted the multi-billion project to the Delhi-based Today Homes and infrastructure company, has already been declared an absconder by the court.

Amarinder Singh, who headed the Congress government as chief minister till February, has been accused of favouring Today Homes in the allotment of the project - touted to be the biggest shopping and commercial mall in Asia. Work on the project has been stalled after the Akali Dal came to power in the state.

The vigilance has claimed that favours shown to the company cost the state a whopping Rs.30 billion. Earlier this year, vigilance officials questioned the former chief minister for nearly seven hours. His son Raninder and son-in-law Raminder have also been questioned.

SC to consider framing guidelines on PILs

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will consider laying down guidelines governing public interest litigation (PIL).

"It is better to have some guidelines whether these types of PILs can be entertained," said a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.

The Chief Justice decided to address the issue when a PIL relating to rehabilitation of sex workers referred to it by a bench headed by Justice S B Sinha came up for hearing.

Justice Sinha had referred the matter in view of the observations made by the bench comprising Justices A K Mathur and Markandeya Katju and had said it was not clear what was the power of the court in dealing with PILs.


On Tuesday, the court found itself plagued by self-doubt over its power to entertain PILs when a bench of Justices Sinha and Bedi refused to hear a lawsuit by non-governmental organisation Prajawla on the legal status of sex workers. It referred the lawsuit to the bench of Chief Justice Balakrishnan, asking whether court benches were entitled at all to hear the PILs "in view of" Justice Katju's ruling. This also left Delhi High Court judges rattled as the ruling had either declared illegal or questioned the rationality of several recent judgements of the high court. The ruling has led to more than one bench of the high court refraining from hearing PILs during the week. The rancour in the judiciary reached the bench of Chief Justice Balakrishnan Thursday when counsel appearing for another PIL apprehended that the bench might not hear it at all owing to the "judicial activism" judgement.

However, the chief justice's bench observed that his was a three-judge bench and a two-judge bench ruling on "judicial activism" was not binding.

But even that failed to clear the confusion whether the ruling was not binding merely on three-judge benches of the court or not binding at all on any high court. While admitting the need to have an elaborate guideline for entertaining PILs, the bench of Chief Justice Balakrishnan adjourned the hearing on the PIL related to the conditions of sex workers for Feb 23.

'Judicial activism' order holds up court order on Bluelines

New Delhi, Dec 14 Despite the Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan clearing the air over judicial activism, Delhi High Court Friday did not pass an order on entertaining a public suit on Blueline buses.

A division bench headed by Justices Mukul Mudgal and Reva Khetarpal refrained from passing an order on the growing number of accidents caused by the privately owned Blueline buses.

"We have to see the effect of the Supreme Court order (of Dec 6) on the proceedings of this case," said the bench, adding, "We have not had the time to go through the judgement. It has just been handed over to us by the amicus curiae."

The bench was hearing a suo motu matter, which it had earlier taken into cognisance, on the growing number of Blueline accidents.

The court refused to pass any order on the matter without going through the apex court judgement, which had deprecated the tendency of "judicial overreach".

"The apex court ruling of 1997 is that the judiciary and bureaucracy should join hands together and work for the welfare of people," Justice Khetarpal observed.

On Dec 6, a two-bench apex court had cautioned the judiciary against indulging in judicial activism and encroaching upon the domain of the legislature and the executive, saying if the courts failed to restrain themselves the politicians would step in and curtail their power and independence.

However on Thursday, a three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India observed, "We are not bound by the two-judge bench order."

But his observation failed to clarify if the Dec 6 order, delivered by a bench of Justices A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katju, will not bind only a three-judges' bench or not be binding at all on any bench.

Meanwhile, senior counsel V.P Singh for the Blueline bus operators whose permits have been cancelled following a high court order, said the order was not justified and needed to be reviewed.

"We are just implementing the apex court order and not passing any order. Article 141 says the apex court ruling should be followed by all subordinate courts," Justice Mudgal said while posting the matter till Jan 10, next year.

On Monday, the apex court had castigated the Delhi High Court for entertaining PILs on a host of public issues, including the begging menace, nursery admissions and traffic issues particularly the Blueline menace.

Amitabh Bachchan gets clean chit in land scam

Lucknow, Dec 11 - The Allahabad High Court Tuesday gave a clean chit to Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan in the Barabanki farmland scam.

Bachchan had challenged the order of the Faizabad additional commissioner who had dismissed his petition relating to purchase of government farmland at Daulatpur village in Uttar Pradesh`s Barabanki district by claiming to be a farmer.

The Uttar Pradesh government had alleged that Bachchan had committed fraud by claiming that he was a resident of 17, Clive Road, Allahabad, while filing his application for allotment of farmland.

The Faizabad additional commissioner had ruled that the 1993 Barabanki land transfer in Bachchan's name was illegal. - IANS

Supreme court in self-doubt after 'judicial activism' ruling

New Delhi, Dec 11 (IANS) A day after a Supreme Court bench cautioned the judiciary against indulging in judicial activism, the apex court Tuesday virtually found itself gripped by self-doubt over its power to entertain public suits.

The court's self-doubt was evident from the decision of a bench to refer to a larger bench a Public Interest Litigation on the legal status of sex workers.

"In view of yesterday's judgment (by the bench of Justices A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katzu), this matter be referred to a larger three-judge bench to be examined if it could be heard by us," said the bench of Justices S.B. Sinha and H.S. Bedi, while refusing to further adjudicate the PIL filed by a non-governmental organisation Prajawala.

The suit had sought the court's direction to the government to treat sex workers, held under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act (SITA), as a victim of the crime rather than an accused. The PIL has also demanded a ban on arrest of such victims.

The bench of Justice Sinha referred the matter to a larger bench mid-way through its adjudication. The bench had been hearing the PIL for quite some time.

With Justice Sinha's bench referring the PIL to a larger bench "in view of" Monday's ruling on judicial activism, the controversial ruling itself stands referred to a larger bench for legal scrutiny.

In an apparently candid mood of self-introspection, the bench of Justice Mathur and Justice Katzu had cautioned the judiciary to refrain from encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and the executive saying otherwise politicians will curtail its power and independence.

"If the judiciary does not exercise restraint, there is bound to be a reaction from politicians and others. The politicians will step in to curtail its power and independence," the bench had apprehended Monday.

Justice Katzu had on an earlier occasion made an equally controversial remark about "hanging the corrupt by the nearest lamppost".

The observation had triggered a debate in the legal circles over the desirability of judges' making exaggerated and hyperbolic observations in courts.

The bench of Justice Mathur and Justice Katzu, in its ruling delivered Thursday but released Monday, observed, "In the name of judicial activism, judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of the state."

"Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the government. They must have modesty and humility and not behave like emperors," the bench had said.

What has made the ruling all the more controversial is the fact that the bench has gone to the extent of questioning various Supreme Court judgements, delivered in past by benches headed by erstwhile chief justices, and has also virtually rendered illegal a host of recent decisions by the Delhi High court by its single 22-page judgement.

SC - Students involved in Ragging should be expelled

Coming down heavily on ragging in colleges, the Supreme Court Monday said its directions issued in May on the menace should be extended to include private, unaided colleges and professional educational institutes as well.

Supreme Court on Monday directed educational institutions to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy to ragging and expel students found guilty of maltreating freshers.

A bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam said that ragging is plaguing not merely government educational institutions but private educational institutions too and there is no reason why it should be not curbed.

It asked the central and state governments to implement the court's earlier directions to arrest the menace of ragging in private educational institutions, including professional colleges on medicine, engineering, dental science, management, pharmacy and agriculture.

The court directed bodies like the Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India and Bar Council of India to suggest guidelines to it to curtail ragging of junior students by seniors.

It asked educational institutions to include a condition and warning in their admission forms saying that any student found indulging in ragging would be expelled after being given a chance to explain his act.

The bench lambasted the government saying that its earlier directions to do away with ragging did not appear to have made any dent in the situation owing to lack of action by the government.

It asked Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanian, who is assisting the court in the matter as amicus curie, to file a fresh status report on its earlier directions for implementation of the Ragahvan Committee report to check ragging in educational institutions.

In its directions in May, the court had said ragging, which sometimes involves violence, abuse and even sexual harassment, is unacceptable and deserves severe punishment.

Supreme Court asks judiciary not to overstep limits

New Delhi, Dec 10 (IANS) The Supreme Court has cautioned the judiciary to refrain from encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and the executive, and said the "unconstitutional" move could lead to political leaders curtailing its powers otherwise.

"If the judiciary does not exercise restraint and overstretches its limit, there is bound to be reaction from politicians and others. The politicians will step in to curtail its power and independence," said a bench of Justices A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katju in a ruling delivered Friday but released Monday.

The bench made the candid observation following a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling, which had ordered the creation of a regular job for tractor drivers in the state-run Aravali Golf Club in Faridabad.

"The courts cannot direct creation of posts. Creation and sanction of posts is a prerogative of the executive or the legislative authorities and the court cannot arrogate to itself this purely executive or legislative function," said the bench, setting aside the high court ruling.

It added: "Before parting with this case, we would like to make some observations about the limits of the powers of the judiciary.

"We are compelled to make these observations as we are repeatedly coming across cases where judges unjustifiably try to perform the executive or legislative functions. In our opinion, this is clearly unconstitutional," it said.

"In the name of judicial activism, judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of the state.

"Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the government. They must have modesty and humility and not behave like emperors," said the bench.

"The justification often given for judicial encroachment in the domain of the executive or legislature is that the two organs are not doing their jobs properly.

"Even assuming this is so, the same allegations can then be made against the judiciary too because there are cases pending in courts for half a century," the bench added.

Asserting that the judiciary encroaching upon the domain of the executive or the legislature is not a remedy for their non-functioning, the bench said, "If the legislature or the executive are not functioning properly, it is for the people to correct the defects by exercising their franchise properly in the next elections and voting for right candidates or by other lawful methods, for example, peaceful demonstration.

"The remedy is not in the judiciary taking over the legislative or executive functions because that will violate the delicate balance of power enshrined in the constitution. Also, the judiciary has neither the expertise nor the resources to perform these functions," the bench added.

It questioned a host of recent decisions by the Delhi High court in its single 22-page judgement.

Citing the example of the ruling on the school admission process, it said, "The Delhi High Court directed that there can be no interview of children for admissions in nursery schools, while there is no statute which prohibits such interviews.

"But the Delhi High Court, going beyond its jurisdiction, created law by its judicial order and then sought its enforcement. It's clearly illegal," the court said.

"Recently the courts have apparently, if not clearly, strayed into the executive domains or in matters of policy. For instance, the orders passed by the Delhi High Court in recent times dealt with subjects ranging from age and other criteria for nursery admissions, unauthorised schools, criteria for free seats in schools, supply of drinking water in schools, number of free beds in hospitals on public land, use and misuse of ambulances, the kind of air Delhiites breathe."

"In our opinion, they were matters pertaining exclusively to the executive or legislative domains and not the judiciary," said the bench.

Misuse of anti-dowry law increasing in India

New Delhi, Dec - Vikash Tuteja, who is in his late 30s, had to pay his wife a hefty Rs.1.2 million as the settlement amount in his marriage dispute. It is Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that has spoilt his life as his in-laws have been using it quite frequently to extract money from him.

Vikash, whose case was settled in a Family Court in Delhi, and many other men and their families have become a victim of this anti-dowry law, which deals with a husband or his family subjecting a woman to cruelty.

The law aims to provide safety and security to women in Indian society where they are often harassed by in-laws for fat sums of dowry at the time of marriage and also subsequently. Punishment can be a maximum of imprisonment of three years and a fine. But there have been many cases of the law being misused.

Mahesh Parekh, a practising lawyer at the Family Court, said: "One out of 12 cases is a vindictive case. It's not as though there is no truth, but, yes, at times it is blown out of proportion to make the husband and the in-laws look criminal and fetch them punishment accordingly."

During the recent Lok Sabha session, it was submitted by the government that more than 11,300 false cases got registered under the Dowry Prohibition Act this year.

The government, which referred to data collected by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), said the cases were declared false on account of mistake of fact or law.

Gurubaksh Singh, secretary of the Save Family Foundation, said: "There are several cases where the husbands were earning a handsome salary and a case of dowry was slapped against them. Women are misguided by the family and sometimes by lawyers to extract money."

Even the legal fraternity has come forward to stop the misuse of dowry laws and proposed the use of lie-detector tests, brain mapping tests and narco-analyses for bringing out the truth in dowry-related cases.

"Even the amendment in the dowry law in the year 1993 has not brought relief to the grieving husbands. Instead, it has created more problems for them," said D.B. Goswami, a prominent criminal lawyer.

"With the help of lie detector tests things will become easier for the complainant as well as the accused. This step will be a great relief for those who are being harassed without any fault of theirs," added Goswami.

K.T.S. Tulsi, a prominent lawyer, said: "There are instances of wives misusing the law only because they want to get away from a joint family and set up homes of their own for various reasons. If a man resists the move because the parents are aged, his wife goes to police with a complaint of dowry harassment."

The Delhi High Court had recently observed that the number of false dowry cases were increasing day by day. In a recent case, the court acquitted a man and five of his family members sentenced to two years imprisonment by a trial court for dowry harassment and an attempt to murder his wife.

Cautioning the police and trial courts against "false statements" by dowry harassment complainants, Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra recently said, "Every failed marriage is not a crime. However, the law (498 A of IPC) is being used to convert failed marriages into a crime and people use it as a tool to extract as much monetary benefit as possible. The FIRs are withdrawn once the payment is received by the complainant," the judge said.

In Bangalore, there are over 300 such cases registered with an NGO, Asha Kirana, which also runs a helpline for harassed husbands.

"Our various laws, including the recent Domestic Violence Act, also support the wife even when she is in the wrong. Even before the case is investigated, the police and the judiciary sympathise with the wife. Precisely for this very reason women who are bent on punishing men use the laws very convincingly," said activist Girish who is also a victim.

Activists are of the opinion that the increase in economic independence, materialism, promiscuity, incompatibility and social acceptance, to name only a few trends, are encouraging women to constantly invoke Section 498 A along with the Dowry Prohibition Act and the recent Domestic Violence Act to get out of a marriage.

"Earlier, once married, a woman had no choice but to stay put with the husband. But with society taking an increasingly lenient view of divorce, second marriages and live-in couples - at least in the urban areas - matrimonial relations have become strained," added Girish.

Several networking groups have urged the government to review Section 498 A and the Domestic Violence Act. To start with, the activists want the sub-clause of taking the aged parents and the wards of the husband into custody to be scrapped immediately so that they are not unnecessarily harassed for no fault of theirs.

National Commission for Women (NCW) chairperson Girja Vyas said, "The NCW has the mandate to review all existing provisions of the constitution and other laws affecting women and to recommend changes, if any."

Bar Council should take note of latest BMW expose: Sorabjee

New Delhi, Dec 4 (IANS) Soli Sorabjee, former attorney general of India, Tuesday said the Bar Council should take "very serious note" of a TV news channel 's sting operation allegedly showing Sunil Kulkarni, the controversial key witness in the 1999 BMW hit-and-run, taking favours from defence lawyer R.K. Anand.

According to the expose by NDTV Monday, Kulkarni spent several months in Anand's farmhouse near Shimla eight years ago and enjoyed his hospitality after the January 1999 accident in which six people were killed.

Reacting to the report, Sorabjee said: "Let the Bar Council take not, the disciplinary committee be composed of senior advocates, whose eminence and impartiality is not in question. "At the same time, R.K. Anand must have confidence in the composition of the tribunal," he said, adding that he felt sorry that a good lawyer had to resort to all this. "I find it very disheartening and very disappointing and very unfortunate that he had ever to resort to this. But if things have come to this, then obviously it is unacceptable," he said.

Ramesh Gupta, one of the lawyers defending Sanjeev Nanda, the main accused in the case, said: "Kulkarni was dropped as a witness in the year 1999 itself. As far as he enjoying the hospitality of Mr Anand, I have nothing to say because I don't know anything about it." R.K. Anand, when contacted, refused to comment on the television expose.

Terming it "professional misconduct", a Bar Council member said it "cannot be tolerated by the legal fraternity". Speaking on condition of anonymity, he said that action would be taken against Anand if found guilty. He added that the Bar Council would take up the matter at the highest level and make sure the guilty is punished. However, some lawyers felt otherwise. "The TV channel report has not been proved yet. The courts will take appropriate steps and punish the guilty, be it Anand or the channel."

The channel in its sting had also claimed that Kulkarni, who has changed his version in court several times, acquired a driving licence in Himachal Pradesh in the name of Nishikant Sharma, giving R.K. Anand's Shimla address as his residence and showing him as his father. Sanjeev Nanda is the grandson of former naval chief Admiral S.M. Nanda.

Two Delhi doctors sentenced for negligence

New Delhi, Dec 3 (IANS) A city court Monday awarded two years' jail to an anaesthetist and a surgeon of a private hospital in Greater Kailash for a boy's death during an operation.

In a rare verdict, Metropolitan Magistrate J.P. Nahar held surgeon Omkar M. Parmar, 68, and anaesthetist N. Dutta, 73, guilty of the death of 13-year-old Gaurav Batra at Sukhda Hospital of Greater Kailash in 1995.

They were sentenced under section 304 A (causing death by rash and negligent act) of the Indian Penal Code.

Rejecting the doctors' plea for leniency, the court said the complainant parents had lost their only child due to their negligent acts. The court also fined the two doctors Rs.10,000 each.

However, the court later granted them bail on a surety bond of Rs.15,000 each.

"Bail bonds are furnished and are accepted till Dec 29 and both the convicts will have to surrender by 10 a.m. on the same day if they fail to obtain bail from the appellate court," the court said.

Victim Gaurav, who was advised surgery for tonsillitis, was operated upon for his ailment after being admitted in the hospital on June 13, 1995, the prosecution said.

However, his parents panicked when he did not gain consciousness even after being under observation for hours in the hospital.

They made several phone calls to doctors Parmar and Dutta to come and attend to their son but they failed to do so and the boy died, the prosecution alleged.

Chief justice suggests out-of-court settlement of cases

New Delhi, Dec 3 Expressing concern over the increasing backlog of cases in courts and the slow rate of disposal, Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan Monday said lawyers could try to settle most of the cases outside courts "as the present establishment cannot cope up".

Inaugurating the Hindi website and annual report 2006 of the district courts of Delhi, the Chief Justice of India said: "The reason for the increasing number of cases is attributed to the fact that the legal fraternity brings all cases to the court. An effort should be made by the lawyers to settle most of the cases outside the courts as the present establishment cannot cope up with the pendency."

According to the annual report 2006, more than 770,310 cases are pending in the district courts of Delhi.

Balakrishnan stressed the need for specialised courts, especially courts pertaining to family matters, but admitted that the disposable rate of cases in 2006 has declined as compared to 2005.

"In India, the judiciary is not well remunerated and there is an urgent need to have better infrastructure to cope up with the increasing work pressure," he said.

Chief Justice of Delhi High Court M.K. Sarma, Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Anil Kumar along with other judges were present at the function.

"With the first phase of computerization over in the district courts, we are now aiming to bring changes like introduction of digital signatures, SMS services for lawyers and litigants and installation of CCTVs in the courts," said the chief justice of the Delhi High Court.

The number of cases filed in the courts in 2006 was 76,000 more than in 2005.

Only 279 cases were disposed in 2006.

IANS

Supreme Court refuses to restore ousted AIIMS director

New Delhi, Dec 3 The Supreme Court Monday refused to restore the services of eminent cardiologist P. Venugopal as AIIMS director, saying it was "finding it difficult" to suspend the law fixing the retirement age for the post.

A bench of Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice Dalveer Bhandari could not provide legal reprieve to the former head of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), even as it said: "We are with Dr. Venugopal on the facts of the case.

"It (the bench) is, however, finding it difficult to suspend the law," the bench added.

Venugopal had challenged the amendments in the law on AIIMS, which President Pratibha Patil approved Friday. The health ministry immediately removed him as director and appointed T.D. Dogra in his place.

The law - All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, and Post Graduate Institute for Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (Amendment) Act, 2007 - limits the tenure of the directors of the two institutes to a maximum of five years or till they reach the retirement age of 65, whichever is earlier.

The new law was viewed as a move by Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss to remove Venugopal, with whom he has been involved in a bitter turf war. Venugopal, a noted cardiologist who has been associated with AIIMS for 42 years, is over 66 years of age.

According to the provisions of the original law passed in 1956, AIIMS directors are appointed for a fixed tenure of five years, irrespective of their age. Venugopal was named director in July 2003 at the age of 62 and was due to retire in July 2008 at the age of 67.

While refusing to grant any reprieve to Venugopal, the bench, however, restrained the government from tinkering with the tenure of the newly appointed AIIMS director, who too does not happen to be on the best of terms with Ramadoss.

The bench restrained the government from acting against the new director on the apprehension of Venugopal's counsel Fali S. Nariman and Arun Jaitley, who told the court that even Dogra had been suspended by this government last October but was reinstated later on the orders of the Delhi High Court.

While refusing to suspend the amendments, the bench agreed with Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanian's contention that "a parliamentary law cannot be rendered illegal on the grounds of malafide" of the government.

"The allegations of malafide (by the government) in passing the law cannot be transferred to parliament," contended Subramanian.

The government's law officer, however, had to face quite a few grilling questions from the bench.

"Can a law be passed to target a single individual?" asked the bench.

Subramanian replied that the government had enacted the law as per a Delhi High Court ruling last October, which had asked the government to enact a proper law governing the tenure of the AIIMS director and save it from the prospects of litigations and enhance its prestige.

At this, Nariman contended that the ruling, on the grounds of which the government was justifying the law, had been challenged by the government itself before the apex court.

He contended that by enacting the law, the government has encroached upon the domain of the judiciary, ignoring the principle of separation of powers in the parliamentary democracy.

Making a fervent plea to suspend the law, Jaitley pointed out to the court that this law would be applicable to only one person, namely Venugopal. - IANS

Lawyers to protest against sentencing

New Delhi - A day after 19 lawyers were sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment by a city court for flouting a high court directive, the Delhi Bar Association said on Saturday it would boycott the court of the judge who pronounced the judgement.

The Delhi Bar Association has asked the lawyers fraternity to boycott the court of Metropolitan Magistrate Sandeep Yadav at Tis Hazari.

"We have decided to protest on Monday by wearing red badges, but we will work so that ordinary people don't suffer because of us," said R.N. Vats, secretary, Delhi Bar Association.

He said they would make a representation before a Delhi High Court committee in order to sort out the matter.

On Friday, Yadav held the lawyers guilty of flouting a high court order in 2005 not to go on strike and sentenced them to a maximum punishment of six months. However, all got bail soon after the verdict.

On Feb 11, 2005, the lawyers had walked down from the court to the Civil Lines to protest shifting of some lawyers and courts from the Tis Hazari court complex to the new Rohini complex.

The Delhi High Court had booked the lawyers under section 144 of the Indian Penal Code (joining unlawful assembly). The 19 lawyers were in police custody for six days before being released on bail.