Loading...

Follow Legal Desire on Feedspot

Continue with Google
Continue with Facebook
or

Valid

It has to be conceded right in the beginning that in a latest and significant judgment titled Kirodi (Since Deceased) Through His LR vs. Ram Parkash & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 4988 of 2019 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11527 of 2019, it has been held by the two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Indira Banerjee very explicitly on May 10, 2019 that the substantial question of law requirement not mandatory in second appeals before Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Apex Court said that, though the Code of Civil Procedure requires the second appeal to mandatorily contain a substantial question of law considering the same, but as far as state of Punjab is concerned, Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 does not require the framing of such a substantial question of law. Very rightly so!

                                            To start with, first and foremost it is stated eloquently in para 2 that, “The sole contention advanced is that the regular second appeal has been decided without framing a question of law.” Para 3 then further states that, “In order to support the aforesaid plea, learned counsel for the appellant(s) has relied upon the judgments in Civil Appeals No. 3276-3281 of 2019 titled as Chand Kaur (D) through Lrs. And in Civil Appeal Nos. 9118-9119 of 2010 titled as Surat Singh (Dead) Vs. Siri Bhagwan & Ors. both emanating from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He also relies upon two other judgments i.e. Civil Appeal No. 4451 of 2009 titled as Shrikant Vs. Narayan Singh (d) through Lrs. & Ors. and Civil Appeal No. 1117 of 2001 titled as Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (D) by Lrs. Both emanating from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to canvass the aforesaid proposition.”

                             To be sure, it is then recalled in para 4 that, “On the last day of hearing, we had pointed out to learned counsel for the appellant(s) that insofar as Punjab and Haryana High Court is concerned, a different legal position will prevail in view of the Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 201 of 2005 titled as Pankajakshi (Dead) through L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. Chandrika & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 157.”

                                Be it noted, it is then lamented in para 5 that, “Unfortunately, in respect of both the first two judgments, emanating from second appeal in Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Constitution Bench decision has not been brought to the notice of the Bench deciding the matters.” It is then clarified in para 6 that, “We are elucidating the position which emerges from the Constitution Bench Judgment to put the controversy at rest.”

                          Furthermore, para 7 then concedes that, “It is no doubt true that by virtue of Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Amendment Act’) and Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) was amended requiring the second appeal to mandatorily contain a substantial question of law considering the same.”

                           More significantly, para 8 then envisages that, “It was initially held in Kulwant Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) by Lrs. Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 262 case that Section 100 of the Code would take precedence over Section 41 of the Punjab Court Act, 1918 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Punjab Act’) which conspicuously does not require the framing of such a substantial question of law. It was held that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act being repugnant to the amended provisions of Section 100 of the Code and Section 97 of the Amendment Act containing a saving clause, Section 41 of the Punjab Act would no longer hold the field and substantial question of law will be required to be framed. Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act reads as under:

“Section 41 – Second Appeals

(1)         An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court on any of the following grounds, namely:

(a)          the decision being contrary to law or to some custom or usage having the force of law:

(b)         the decision having failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law:

(c)           a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 [V of 1908], or by any other law for the time being in force which may possibly have produced error or possibly have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits:

(1)         [Explanation – A question relating to the existence or validity of a custom or usage shall be deemed to be a question of law within the meaning of this section.]

(2)         An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.

(3)         [Repealed by Section 2B of Punjab Act 6 of 1941]”.”

                                          What cannot be overlooked is that the Bench then points out in para 9 that, “A Constitution Bench of this Court however in Pankajakshi (Dead) through L.Rs. & Ors. (supra) opined that Section 97 of the Amendment Act prohibited amendments made in the principal Act which were repugnant to the same and, therefore, if any state amendment to the Code was enacted by the state legislature or a rule was made by the High Court of State in respect of the provisions of the Code, it would be hit by the provisions of the savings clause of the Amendment Act. The caveat, however, was that the legislation in question being the Punjab Act is a pre-Constitution Act and hence is not a legislation hit by the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution of India which holds state enactments to be repugnant to the enactments when they run counter to the laws enacted by the Centre through the Concurrent List. The legislation was saved by Article 372(1) of the Constitution of India being a pre-Constitutional enactment which was to continue to be in force until altered or repealed or amended by a competent legislature. No such repeal took place, hence, the legislation continue to operate.”

                                            To say the least, it would be pertinent to mention here that the Bench then rightly acknowledges in para 10 that, “The effect of the judgment of the Constitution Bench is that insofar as the State of Punjab is concerned, a second appeal does not require formulation of a substantial question of law since the Punjab Act would be applicable for the State. Hence, Section 100 of the Code would not hold the field having supervening effect.”

                                                  It cannot be lost on us that the Bench then rightly envisages in para 11 that, “The discussion of the Constitution Bench is as under:

  1. The judgment in Kulwant Kaur case raised a question which arose on an application of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. This Section was couched in language similar to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it existed before the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, which amended Section 100 to make it more restrictive so that a second appeal could only be filed if there was a substantial question of law involved in the matter. The question this Court posed before itself was whether Section 41 itself was whether Section 41 stood repealed by virtue of Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, which reads as under:-

             “97. Repeals and savings – (1) Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or a High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except insofar as such amendment or provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed.”  

This Court concluded that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act was repealed because it would amount to an amendment made or provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature. This Court further held that, in any event, Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act being a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to a later law made by Parliament, namely, Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, and that therefore, by virtue of the operation of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, the said provision is in any case overridden. In arriving at the aforesaid two conclusions, this Court held: (SCC p. 276, paras 27-29)

“27. Now we proceed to examine Section 97(1) of the Amendment Act and the amendment of Section 100 CPC by the said 1976 Act. Through this amendment, right to second appeal stands further restricted only to lie where, ‘the case involves a substantial question of law.’ This introduction definitely is in conflict with Section 41 of the Punjab Act which was in pari material with unamended Section 100 CPC. Thus, so long there was no specific provision to the contrary in this Code, Section 4 CPC saved special or local law. But after it comes in conflict, Section 4 CPC would not save, on the contrary its language implied would make such special or local law inapplicable. We may examine now the submission for the respondent based on the language of Section 100(1) CPC even after the said amendment. The reliance is on the following words:

       ‘100. Second appeal – (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided …by any other law for the time being in force.’

These words existed even prior to the amendment and are unaffected by the amendment. Thus so far it could legitimately be submitted that, reading this part of the section in isolation it saves the local law. But this has to be read with Section 97(1) of the Amendment Act, which reads:

’97. Repeal and savings – (1) Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or a High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except insofar as such amendment or provision is consistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed.’ (Noticed again for convenience.)

  1. Thus, language of Section 97(1) of the Amendment Act clearly spells out that any local law which can be termed to be inconsistent perishes, but if it is not so, the local law would continue to occupy its field.
  2. Since Section 41 of the Punjab Act is expressly in conflict with the amending law, viz., Section 100 as amended, it would be deemed to have been repealed. Thus we have no hesitation to hold that the law declared by the Full Bench of the High Court in the case of Ganpat cannot be sustained and is thus overruled.” [at paras 27-29].
  3. We are afraid that this judgment in Kulwant Kaur case does not state the law correctly on both propositions. First and foremost, when Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 speaks of any amendment made or any provision inserted in the principal Act by virtue of a State Legislature or a High Court, the said Section refers only to amendments made and/or provisions inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure itself and not elsewhere. This is clear from the expression “principal Act” occurring in Section 97(1). What Section 97(1) really does is to state that where a State Legislature makes an amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, which amendment will apply only within the four corners of the State, being made under Schedule VII List III Entry 13 to the Constitution of India, such amendment shall stand repealed if it is inconsistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by the Parliamentary enactment contained in the 1976 amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure. This is further made clear by the reference in Section 97(1) to a High Court. The expression “any provision inserted in the principal Act” by a High Court has reference to Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which High Courts may make rules regulating their own procedure, and the procedure of civil courts subject to their superintendence, and may by such rules annul, alter, or add to any of the rules contained in the first schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure.
  4. The Kulwant Kaur decision on the application of Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, is not correct in law.
  5. Even the reference to Article 254 of the Constitution was not correctly made by this Court in the said decision in Kulwant Kaur case. Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act is of 1918 vintage. Obviously, therefore, it is not a law made by the Legislature of a State after the Constitution of India has come into force. It is a law made by a Provincial Legislature under Section 80A of the Government of India Act, 1915, which law was continued, being a law in force in British India, immediately before the commencement of the Government of India Act, 1935, by Section 292 thereof. In turn, after the Constitution of India came into force and, by Article 395, repealed the Government of India Act, 1935, the Punjab Courts Act was continued being a law in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution of India by virtue of Article 372(1) of the Constitution of India. This being the case, Article 254 of the Constitution of India would have no application to such a law for the simple reason that it is not a law made by the Legislature of a State but is an existing law continued by virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution of India. If at all, it is Article 372(1) alone that would apply to such law which is to continue in force until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority. We have already found that since Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 has no application to Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, it would necessarily continue as a law in force. Shri Viswanathan’s reliance upon this authority, therefore, does not lead his argument any further”.”  

                                  Finally and perhaps most importantly, it is then held in the second last para 12 that, “In view of the legal position enunciated above, the judgments of this court in Chand Kaur (D) through Lrs.’s case (supra) and Surat Singh (Dead)’s case (supra) being contrary to the Constitution Bench of this Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through L.Rs. & Ors. (supra) and the Constitution Bench’s decision not being brought to the notice of the Bench of this Court deciding the matters, they would not hold the field.” The last para 13 then states that, “The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”

                                      It needs no Albert Einstein to conclude that it is a very well reasoned and logical judgments which while citing the relevant case laws in detail very rightly concludes that, “Insofar as the State of Punjab is concerned, a second appeal does not require formulation of a substantial question of law since the Punjab Act would be applicable for the State.” It has already been discussed in detail above. It must also be pointed out here at the cost of repetition that in earlier judgments decided by Apex Court in Chand Kaur (D) through Lrs. Vs. Mehar Kaur (D) through Lrs. and Surat Singh (Dead) Vs. Siri Bhagwan & Ors, the Bench while considering the appeals arising from orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court in a second appeal had observed that the sine qua non for allowing the second appeal is to first frame the substantial question(s) of law arising in the case and then decide the second appeal by answering the question(s) framed. But in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment, the Apex Court Bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Indira Banerjee very explicitly and elegantly held on May 10, 2019 that these two judgments delivered by another Bench ‘would not hold the field’ as they are contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through L.Rs Vs. Chandrika as has already been pointed out in detail earlier. Very rightly so! No denying it!

The post SC: Substantial Question of Law requirement Not mandatory in Second Appeals before Punjab & Haryana HC appeared first on Legal Desire.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

About the organisation

ICFAI University, Dehradun, or in its fuller name Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University, Dehradun, is a Private university located in the city of Dehradun, in north Indian state of Uttarakhand.

About the conference

Naraindas Centre for Social Development and Research in collaboration with Future Prospects and the ICFAI University, Dehradun presents the first edition of the conference on ‘Multidisciplinary Approach of Legal Advancement of 21st Century with respect to Technological and Social Development’.

The aim of the conference is to bring together wide audience of academicians, policy makers, students& practitioners around clearly circumscribed topics. To engaged participants in fruitful discussions & facilitate mutual understanding.

This conference on law, technology, management and medical is an attempt to make the citizens aware of the legal advancement in the 21st century.

An additional goal of the conference is to provide a place for students academicians & professionals with inter-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary interests related to law, medical, social sciences, management & technology to meet and interact with members inside and outside their own particular disciplines.

Date:  8th and 9th June 2019

Venue: ICFAI University, Rajawala Road Central Hopetwon, Selaqui, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, India.

After the conference, the organizers are offering a one day trip to Mussoorie on 10th of June for which prior registration is mandatory. Registration fee is INR 500/- which includes travelling, breakfast and lunch.

Call for submission

Proposals in the form of abstracts are invited from all eminent scholars, academicians, practitioners, lawyers, students to contribute to the conference. The abstract should not only include key issues but also highlight the different views and arguments in the current scenario.

Co-Authorship up to a maximum of three are allowed.

Eligibility

Students, academicians, bureaucrats, professionals, researchers etc. from various fields allied subjects and multidisciplinary fields are invited to contribute to conference.

Themes

  1. Constitutional Law
  2. Cooperative Federalism
  3. Cyber
  4. Medical
  5. Management
  6. Social Sciences
  7. Technological Advancement

How to submit?

Authors may send their abstract at ontomoeten11[at]gmail.com

The abstract should not exceed 350 words and must be accompanied by a cover page stating the following:

The soft copy of the research paper must be submitted in doc./docx format to ontomoeten11[at]gmail.com with the subject “Research Paper Submission”.

A cover letter mentioning the title of the paper and the relevant sub-theme. Name of the Author(s), Course, Year of study, Name of the college/university, Professional Position with postal address, Email address and contact number. The file name must contain the name of the paper. (“Name of the author” “Name of the research paper”)

Fee details

For students:

  • Single authorship: INR 1000/-
  • Co-authorship: INR 1500/-
  •  Inabsentia: INR 1200/-
  • For attending the seminar: INR 800/-

For Academicians/Practitioners/Research Scholars:

  • Single authorship: INR 1500/-
  • Co-authorship: INR 2000/-
  •  In absentia: INR 1500/-
  • For attending the seminar: INR 1000/-
  • On the spot registration: INR 1200/-

Note: once the payment has been made, please take a screenshot of the transaction and mail it along with the scanned copy of the registration form to ontomoeten11[at]gmail.com separate registration to be done for co-authors.

Payment details

Online Transfer

Name: SAKSHI SHIVHARE

Name of band: BANK OF BARODA

Barch: KOLAR ROAD,  BHOPAL (M.P)

Account number:  31750100008760

IFSC code: BARB0KOLARR (5TH CHARACTER IS ZERO)

Payment through Paytm or UPI: 860279365

Deadline

Last date for abstract submission: 31st May 2019

Last date for final submission registration form and registration fee: 6th June 2019

Date of the conference: 8th and 9th June 2019

Contact

CONVENER: Dr. Navtika Singh Nautiyal (Assistant Professor, ICFAI University, Dehradun)

STUDENT CONVENER: Sakshi Shivhare: 8770263513

STUDENT CO-CONVENER: Kartik Sachdeva: 7986568097

E-mail: ontomoeten11@gmail.com

Download Brochure, Click Here

The post Call for Submissions: National conference on ‘Multidisciplinary Approach of Legal Advancement of 21st Century’ appeared first on Legal Desire.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

DLA Piper LLP (US) announced that Frank Ryan has been elected chair of the firm for a term of four years, effective January 1, 2021.

He will succeed Roger Meltzer and Cameron “Jay” Rains, who are currently serving in their second four-year terms as US co-chairs, which will expire December 31, 2020. Meltzer and Rains will also continue to serve as global co-chair and global co-CEO, respectively, through December 31, 2022.

“The orderly transition of leadership at DLA Piper has been an integral part of the firm’s strategy since it was founded in 2005, and it is a process that we have approached collaboratively and with great care and deliberation,” said Senator George Mitchell, chairman emeritus of DLA Piper LLP (US), who led the firm’s succession process.

“I look forward to working with Frank as we begin the transition process and continue our evolution as a global legal enterprise,” said Meltzer. “His stature within the firm as a leader, practitioner and business advisor of the highest caliber will serve him well in this new role and when addressing the myriad opportunities and challenges that come with it.”

“Frank represents the next generation of leadership at DLA Piper in the US, truly someone who has grown and prospered at the firm as an unambiguously global practitioner,” said Rains. “Roger and I are committed to collaborating with him to execute on our strategy and elevate our global proposition in the months and years to come.”

“I am honored to be chosen by my fellow partners, and deeply appreciate the trust they have placed in me to lead the firm in the coming years,” said Ryan. “DLA Piper has provided me a tremendous opportunity to build a successful practice, serving clients around the world, and it will be an honor to serve as the chair of this firm in the future.”

Ryan, who joined DLA Piper LLP (US) as a partner in 2010, is currently global and US co-chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property and Technology practice and deputy chair of the Media, Sport and Entertainment sector. He is also a member of the firm’s US Executive Committee and Global Board.

The post DLA Piper elects Frank Ryan as US chair appeared first on Legal Desire.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Dean Kuriakose, a Lawyer by profession and political leader from Indian National Congress and who is also the President of the Youth congress kerala wing of Indian Youth Congress is a winning Member of Parliament in this Lok Sabha Elections of 2019. He is 37 years old, married to an ayurvedic doctor. He comes from Idukki, a Lok Sabha / Parliamentary constituency in Cochin region of Kerala in South India. A total of 16 candidates contested in this constituency Adv.Dean Kuriakose, Appanchira Ponnappan, Adv.Sabu Varghese, T.K.Tomy, Muhammed Sharafudheen, Silvi Sunil, Anish Mariyil, James Joseph, Joyce George, Adv.Joice George, Joice George, P.C.Jolly, Biju Joseph, Adv.Chittoor Rajamannar, Shoby Joseph, Somini Prabhakaran, out of which Adv. Dean Kuriakose won with 54.23% (498493) votes, a margin of 171053 votes from independent candidate Adv. Joice George. Adv. Kuriakose, 1st rank holder in M.A (Human Rights and Politics) from School of International Relations and Politics, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam has his name run over in around 204 criminal cases as an accused, second highest candidate and 37 charges of serious nature. The highest number of criminal charges declared was by K. Surendran, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP)candidate from Kerala’s Pathanamthitta parliamentary constituency, 240 criminal cases against himself.

Out of 204 Cases he was convicted in one case in march 2018 imposing a fine of Rs. 1600/- and details of rest 203 cases are as follows:

 

Cases Pending

Serial No.

FIR No.

Case No.

Court

IPC Sections Applicable

Other Details / Other Acts / Sections Applicable

Charges Framed

Date on which charges were framed

Appeal Filed

Details and present status of appeal

1

Cr.No.215/2019, udayapuram Police Station

143, 147, 283, 149

No

No

2

Cr.No.356/2019, Ernakulam Central Police Station

143, 147, 148, 427, 149

Section 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011 and Section 4 R/W 3 of KPDPP & PC ordinance 2019

No

No

3

Cr.No.357/2019, Ernakulam Central Police Station

143, 147, 188, 283, 149

No

No

4

Cr.No.358/2019, Ernakulam Central Police Station

143, 147, 188, 283, 149

No

No

5

Cr.No.359/2019, Ernakulam Central Police Station

Sec. 151 CrPC

No

No

6

Cr.No.241/2019, kadavanthra Police Station

143, 147, 188, 283, 149,

Sec.117(e) of KP Act

No

No

7

Cr.No.258/2019, Thoppumpadi Police Station

143, 147, 283, 149

No

No

8

Cr.No.197/2019, Mulavukad Police Station

143, 147, 188, 283, 149

Section 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011 and Section 4 R/w 3 of KPDPP & PC Ordinance 2019

No

No

9

Cr.No.315/2019, Kalamasherry Police Station

143, 147, 148, 283, 323, 506(i), 188, 149

No

No

10

Cr.No.269/2019, Palluruthi Police Station

188, 283, 34

No

No

11

Cr.No.318/2019, Ernakulam Town North Police Station

143, 147, 283, 149

No

No

12

Cr.No.207/2019, North Paravoor Police Station

143, 147, 188, 283, 149,

Section 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011

No

No

13

Cr.No92/2019, Binanipuram Police Station

143, 147, 283, 149

No

No

14

Cr.No.352/2019 Aluva East Police station

143, 147, 283, 149,

Sec.77(i)(b), 121 of KP Act

No

No

15

Cr.No.343/2019, Angamali Police Station

143, 147, 188, 283, 149

No

No

16

Cr.No.119/2019, Vadakara Police Station

143, 283, 188, 149

Section 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011

No

No

17

Cr.No.103/2019, Aluva Police Station

143, 147, 283, 188, 149

Section 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011

No

No

18

Cr.No.134/2019, Varapuzha Police Station

143, 147, 188, 283, 149

No

No

19

Cr.No.225/2019, Nedumbassery Police Station

143, 145, 147, 188, 283, 149

No

No

20

Cr.No.282/2019, Njarakkal Police Station

143, 147, 188, 283, 149

Section 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011

No

No

21

Cr.No.426/2019, Perumbavoor Police Station

143, 144, 147, 283, 149

No

No

22

Cr.No.427/2019, Perumbavoor Police Station

143, 144, 147, 283, 149

No

No

23

Cr.No.428/2019, Perumbavoor Police Station

143, 144, 147, 283, 149

No

No

24

Cr.No.432/2019, Perumbavoor Police Station

341, 323, 325, 294B, 506(i)

No

No

25

Cr.No.202/2019, Piravam Police Station

143, 147, 188, 149

No

No

26

Cr.No.203/2019, Piravam Police Station

143, 147, 447, 506(i), 188, 149

No

No

27

Cr.No.449/2019, Muvattupuzha Police Station

143, 147, 283, 294B, 506(i), 149

Section 4 (i), 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011

No

No

28

Cr.No.313/2019, kothamangalam Police Station

143, 147, 283, 149

Section 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011

No

No

29

Cr.No.98/2019, Kuttampuzha Police Station

143, 188, 147, 283, 149

Section 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011

No

No

30

Cr.No.265/2019, Alapy South Police Station

143, 188, 147, 283, 149

Yes

No

31

Cr.No.122/2019Kozhikode Police Station

u/s 3 (1), of PDPP Act

No

No

32

Cr.No.247/2019, thodupuzha Police Station

143, 147, 283, 188, 149

No

No

33

Cr.No.78/2019, Idukki Police Station

143, 147, 283, 188, 149

No

No

34

Cr.No.45/2019, Muttam Police Station

143, 283, 294B, 506(i), 149

No

No

35

Cr.No.1437/2018, Aluva East Police Station

CC.No.140/2019

Special ACJM for the Cases against MP/MLA in Kerala

143, 147, 283, 149

Yes

16 Jan 2019

No

36

Cr.No.1172/2014, Ernakulam central Police Station, Ernakulam Dist.

CC.No.113/2018, Transferred

ACJM Thiruvananthapuram

U/s 147, 174(A) Railway Act

No

No

37

Cr.No.96/2019, Perinthalmanda Police Station Malapuram Dist.

143, 147, 283, 149

No

No

38

Cr.No.97/2019, Perinthalmanda Police Station Malapuram Dist.

JFCM I Perunthalmanna

143, 147, 283, 149

No

No

39

Cr.No.74/2019, Cheruthuruthi Police Station, Thrissur Dist.

JFCM I Vadakancheri

143, 147, 283, 149

Section 6 Kerala public Ways (Restriction of Assembilies and Procession Act)2011

No

No

40

Cr.No.42/2019, Mangara Police Station, Palakkad Dist.

JFCM II Palakkad

143, 147, 283, 188, 149

Section 4 r/w 6 Kerala public Ways (Restriction of Assembilies and Procession Act)2011

No

No

41

Cr.No.73/2019, Chittoor Police Station Palakkad Dist.

JFCM I Chittoor

143, 147, 283, 188, 149

No

No

42

Cr.No.149/2019, Vadakancherri Police Station

143, 147, 148, 283, 188, 149

Section 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011

No

No

43

Cr.No.229/2019, Thrissur Town East police Station

143, 147, 153, 283, 188, 149

No

No

44

Cr.No.81/2019, Erumapetti Police Station

143, 147, 427, 283, 149

Section 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011 and Section 4 r/w 3 of KPDPP & PC Ordnance 2019

No

No

45

Cr.No.118/2019, Nedupuzha Police Station

143, 147., 153, 283, 149

Section 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011

No

No

46

Cr.No.242/2019, Kunthakulam Police Station

143, 147, 283, 149

No

No

47

Cr.No.176/2019, Vadanapilli Police Station

143, 147, 283, 149

No

No

48

Cr.No.97/2019, Valappad Police Station

143, 147, 283, 188, 149

Section 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011

No

No

49

Cr.No.141/2019, Chalakudi Police Station

143, 145, 283, 188, 149

No

No

50

Cr.No.121/2019, Mala Police Station

143, 147, 283, 149

No

No

51

Cr.No.123/2019, Mala Police Station

143, 147, 283, 149

No

No

52

Cr.No.141/2019, Puthukad police Station

143, 147, 283, 188, 149

section 4, 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011

No

No

53

Cr.No.142/2019, Puthukad police Station

143, 147, 283, 188, 149

section 4, 6 of KPWRA & P Act 2011

No

No

54

Cr.No.165/2019, Irijalakuda Police Station

143, 147, 283, 341, 323, 294B, 506(i), 427, 149

No

No

55

Cr.No.45/2019, Srikrishnapuram Police Station

143, 147, 283, 149

No

No

56

Cr.No.46/2019, Srikrishnapuram Police Station

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

National Election Watch and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) have analysed the self-sworn affidavits of 539 out of 542 Winners in the Lok Sabha 2019 Elections. Elections in Vellore constituency has been cancelled. Winners were not analysed due to the unavailability of their clear and complete affidavits on the ECI website at the time of making this report.

Criminal Background
  • Winners with Declared Criminal Cases Out of the 539 Winners analysed in Lok Sabha 2019, 233 (43%) Winners have declared criminal cases against themselves. Out of 542 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha elections in 2014185(34%) Winners had declared criminal cases against themselves. Out of 543 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha elections in 2009162 (30%) Winners had declared criminal cases against themselves. There is an increase of 44% in the number of MPs with declared criminal cases since 2009.
  • Winners with Serious Criminal Cases: 159 (29%) Winners in Lok Sabha 2019 Elections have declared serious criminal cases including cases related to rapemurder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, crimes against women etc. Out of 542 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha elections in 2014112(21%) Winners had declared serious criminal cases against themselves. Out of 543 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha elections in 200976(14%) Winners had declared serious criminal cases against themselves. There is an increase of 109% in the number of MPs with declared serious criminal cases since 2009.
  • An INC Winner, Dean Kuriakose from Idukki constituency has declared 204 criminal cases against himself, including cases related to committing culpable homicide, house trespass, robbery, criminal intimidation etc.
Lok Sabha Election Year Total Number of Winners Analysed Number of Winners With Declared Criminal Cases Percentage of Winners with Declared Criminal Cases Number of Winners With Declared Serious Criminal Cases Percentage of Winners with Declared  Serious Criminal Cases
2009 543 162 30% 76 14%
2014 542 185 34% 112 21%
2019 539 233 43% 159 29%

Table:  Winners with Declared Criminal Cases: 2009, 2014, And 2019

  • Winners with declared convicted cases: 10 Winners have declared convicted cases against themselves. The details of these winners are given below:
S.No. Name State Constituency Party Total Cases(including pending cases) Serious IPC Other IPC
1 Dean Kuriakose Kerala Idukki INC 204 37 887
2 Chhatar Singh Darbar Madhya Pradesh Dhar BJP 1 3 0
3 Kailash Choudhary Rajasthan Barmer BJP 2 2 6
4 Manoj Kishorbhai Kotak Maharashtra Mumbai North East BJP 2 2 4
5 T.N. Prathapan Kerala Thrissur INC 7 1 35
6 K. Sudhakaran Kerala Kannur INC 3 1 6
7 Talari Rangaiah Andhra Pradesh Anantapur YSRCP 2 1 3
8 V K Sreekandan Kerala Palakkad INC 7 0 29
9 Jagdambika Pal Uttar Pradesh Domariyaganj BJP 3 0 3
10 Rajbahadur Singh Madhya Pradesh Sagar BJP 1 0 0

Table: Winners with declared convicted cases

  • Winners with cases related to murder11 Winners have declared cases related to murder (Indian Penal Code Section-302). The details of these winners are given below:
S.No. Name State Constituency Party Total Cases Serious IPC Other IPC
1 Horen Sing Bey ASSAM AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT BJP 2 12 6
2 Sri Nisith Pramanik WEST BENGAL COOCH BEHAR BJP 11 21 23
3 Ajay Kumar UTTAR PRADESH KHERI BJP 1 1 0
4 Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL BJP 1 5 2
5 Chhatar Singh Darbar MADHYA PRADESH DHAR BJP 1 3 0
6 Atul Kumar Singh UTTAR PRADESH GHOSI BSP 13 14 23
7 Afzal Ansari UTTAR PRADESH GHAZIPUR BSP 5 3 11
8 Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury WEST BENGAL BAHARAMPUR INC 7 12 24
9 Naba Kumar Sarania ASSAM KOKRAJHAR IND 5 14 7
10 Bhonsle Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayanraje Pratapasinh Maharaj MAHARASHTRA SATARA NCP 8 17 44
11 Kuruva Gorantla Madhav ANDHRA PRADESH HINDUPUR YSRCP 2 4 0

Table: Winners with declared cases related to murder

  • Winners with cases related to Attempt to Murder: 30 Winners have declared cases of attempt to murder (IPC Section-307).
  • Winners with cases related to Crimes against Women: 19 Winners have declared cases related to crimes against women.  Out of 19 Winners, Winners have declared cases related to rape (IPC Section-376). The details of these winners are given below:
S.No. Name State Constituency Party Total Cases Serious IPC Other IPC
1 Saumitra Khan WEST BENGAL BISHNUPUR BJP 6 19 3
2 Hibi Eden KERALA ERNAKULAM INC 7 2 26
3 Kuruva Gorantla Madhav ANDHRA PRADESH HINDUPUR YSRCP 2 4 0

Table: Winners with declared cases related to rape

 

  • Winners with cases related to Kidnapping: Winners have declared cases related to kidnapping. The details of these winners are given below:
S.No. Name State Constituency Party Total Cases Serious IPC Other IPC
1 Horen Sing Bey Assam Autonomous District BJP 2 12 6
2 Satyapal Singh Baghel Uttar Pradesh Agra BJP 5 8 9
3 Kishan Kapoor Himachal Pradesh Kangra BJP 2 4 3
4 Pankaj Choudhary Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj BJP 5 6 9
5 Atul Kumar Singh Uttar Pradesh Ghosi BSP 13 14 23
6 Naba Kumar Sarania Assam Kokrajhar Independent 5 14 7

Table: Winners with declared cases related to kidnapping

  • Winners with cases related to Hate Speech: 29 Winners have declared cases related to hate speech.
  • Chances of Winning for candidates with Declared Criminal Cases:    The chances of winning for a candidate with declared criminal cases in the Lok Sabha 2019 is 15.5% whereas for a candidate with a clean background, it is 4.7%.
  • Party wise Winners with Criminal Cases: 116(39%) out of 301 Winners from BJP, 29(57%) out of 51 Winners from INC10(43%) out of 23 Winners from DMK, 9(41%) out of 22 Winners fielded by AITC and 13 (81%) out of 16 winners from JD(U)  have declared criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.
  • Party wise Winners with Serious Criminal Cases87(29%) out of 301 Winners from BJP, 19(37%) out of 51 Winners from INC6 (26%) out of 23 Winners from DMK, 4(18%) out of 22 Winners fielded by AITC and 8 (50%) out of 16 winners from JD (U) have declared serious criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.

 

 

Financial Background
  • Crorepati WinnersOut of the 539 Winners analysed, 475 (88%) are crorepatis. Out of 542 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha 2014 elections, 443 (82%) Winners were crorepatisOut of 543 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha 2009 elections, 315(58%) Winners were crorepatis.

 

S.No. Lok Sabha Election Year Total Number of Winners Analysed Crorepati Winners Percentage of Crorepati Winners
1 2009 543 315 58%
2 2014 542 443 82%
3 2019 539 475 88%

Table:  Crorepati Winners: 2009, 2014, And 2019

  • Party wise Crorepati Winners: 265(88%) out of 301 Winners from BJP, 43 (84%) out of 51 Winners from INC22 (96%) out of 23 Winners from DMK, 20(91%) out of 22 Winners fielded by AITC, 19(86%) out of 22 Winners fielded by YSRCP,and 18(100%) Winners from SHS have declared assets worth more than Rs. 1 crore.
  • Chances of Winning based on assets:  The chance of winning for a crorepati candidate in the Lok Sabha 2019 is 21%, whereas chance of winning for a candidate with assets less than Rs. 1 crore is 1%.
Value of assets(Rs.) No of candidates No of Winners % of Winners
Rs.5 cr and above 883 266 30.1%
Rs.2 crores to Rs. 5 crores 678 125 18.4%
Rs. 50 lakhs to Rs.2 crores 1601 112 7%
Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs.50 lakhs 2069 27 1.3%
less than Rs.10 lakhs 2699 9 0.3%

Table: Chances of Winning on the basis of Assets

  • Average assets: The average of assets per Winner in the Lok Sabha Elections 2019 is Rs 20.93 Crore.
  • Party wise average assets: Among major parties, the average assets per Winner for 301 BJP Winners is Rs 14.52 Crores51 INC Winners have average assets of Rs 38.71 Crores, 23 DMK Winners have average assets worth Rs 24.51 Crores, 22 YSRCP Winners have average assets worth Rs 54.85 Crore, and 22 AITC Winners have average assets of Rs. 6.15 crores.
  • High asset Winners*:  The 3 richest Winners  in the Lok Sabha 2019  Elections are given below:
S.No. Name State Constituency Party Name Movable Assets (Rs) Immovable Assets (Rs) Total Assets (Rs) PAN Given
1 Nakul Nath MADHYA PRADESH CHHINDWARA INC 6,18,41,72,757 41,77,74,000 6,60,19,46,757
 660 Crore+
Y
2 Vasanthakumar H TAMIL NADU KANNIYAKUMARI INC 2,30,49,30,444 1,87,00,00,000 4,17,49,30,444
 417 Crore+
Y
3 D.K. Suresh KARNATAKA BANGALORE RURAL INC 33,30,03,790 3,05,59,16,927 3,38,89,20,717
 338 Crore+
Y

Table: Top three Winners with highest declared assets

  • Low asset Winners: The details of top 3 Winners with low assets are given below :
S.No. Name State Constituency Party Name Movable Assets (Rs) Immovable Assets (Rs) Total Assets (Rs) PAN Given
1 Goddeti Madhavi ANDHRA PRADESH ARAKU YSRCP 1,41,179 0 1,41,179 
 1 Lacs+
Y
2 Chandrani Murmu ODISHA KEONJHAR BJD 3,40,580 0 3,40,580 
 3 Lacs+
Y
3 Mahant Balak Nath RAJASTHAN ALWAR BJP 3,52,929 0 3,52,929 
 3 Lacs+
Y

Table: Top 3 low asset Winners

  • Winners with high liabilities: The top three Winners with highest liabilities are as given below;
S.No. Name State Constituency Party Name Total Assets(Rs) Liabilities (Rs) Disputed liabilities (Rs) PAN Given
1 Vasanthakumar H TAMIL NADU KANNIYAKUMARI INC 4,17,49,30,444 
 417 Crore+
# 1,54,75,11,439 
 154 Crore+
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

National Election Watch and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) have analysed the self-sworn affidavits of 539 out of 542 Winners in the Lok Sabha 2019 Elections. Elections in Vellore constituency has been cancelled. Winners were not analysed due to the unavailability of their clear and complete affidavits on the ECI website at the time of making this report.

Summary of Analysis Criminal Background
  • Winners with Declared Criminal Cases Out of the 539 Winners analysed in Lok Sabha 2019, 233 (43%) Winners have declared criminal cases against themselves. Out of 542 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha elections in 2014185(34%) Winners had declared criminal cases against themselves. Out of 543 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha elections in 2009162 (30%) Winners had declared criminal cases against themselves. There is an increase of 44% in the number of MPs with declared criminal cases since 2009.
  • Winners with Serious Criminal Cases: 159 (29%) Winners in Lok Sabha 2019 Elections have declared serious criminal cases including cases related to rapemurder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, crimes against women etc. Out of 542 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha elections in 2014112(21%) Winners had declared serious criminal cases against themselves. Out of 543 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha elections in 200976(14%) Winners had declared serious criminal cases against themselves. There is an increase of 109% in the number of MPs with declared serious criminal cases since 2009.
  • An INC Winner, Dean Kuriakose from Idukki constituency has declared 204 criminal cases against himself, including cases related to committing culpable homicide, house trespass, robbery, criminal intimidation etc.

Lok Sabha Election Year Total Number of Winners Analysed Number of Winners With Declared Criminal Cases Percentage of Winners with Declared Criminal Cases Number of Winners With Declared Serious Criminal Cases Percentage of Winners with Declared  Serious Criminal Cases
2009 543 162 30% 76 14%
2014 542 185 34% 112 21%
2019 539 233 43% 159 29%

Table:  Winners with Declared Criminal Cases: 2009, 2014, And 2019

  • Winners with declared convicted cases: 10 Winners have declared convicted cases against themselves. The details of these winners are given below:
S.No. Name State Constituency Party Total Cases(including pending cases) Serious IPC Other IPC
1 Dean Kuriakose Kerala Idukki INC 204 37 887
2 Chhatar Singh Darbar Madhya Pradesh Dhar BJP 1 3 0
3 Kailash Choudhary Rajasthan Barmer BJP 2 2 6
4 Manoj Kishorbhai Kotak Maharashtra Mumbai North East BJP 2 2 4
5 T.N. Prathapan Kerala Thrissur INC 7 1 35
6 K. Sudhakaran Kerala Kannur INC 3 1 6
7 Talari Rangaiah Andhra Pradesh Anantapur YSRCP 2 1 3
8 V K Sreekandan Kerala Palakkad INC 7 0 29
9 Jagdambika Pal Uttar Pradesh Domariyaganj BJP 3 0 3
10 Rajbahadur Singh Madhya Pradesh Sagar BJP 1 0 0

Table: Winners with declared convicted cases

  • Winners with cases related to murder11 Winners have declared cases related to murder (Indian Penal Code Section-302). The details of these winners are given below:
S.No. Name State Constituency Party Total Cases Serious IPC Other IPC
1 Horen Sing Bey ASSAM AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT BJP 2 12 6
2 Sri Nisith Pramanik WEST BENGAL COOCH BEHAR BJP 11 21 23
3 Ajay Kumar UTTAR PRADESH KHERI BJP 1 1 0
4 Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL BJP 1 5 2
5 Chhatar Singh Darbar MADHYA PRADESH DHAR BJP 1 3 0
6 Atul Kumar Singh UTTAR PRADESH GHOSI BSP 13 14 23
7 Afzal Ansari UTTAR PRADESH GHAZIPUR BSP 5 3 11
8 Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury WEST BENGAL BAHARAMPUR INC 7 12 24
9 Naba Kumar Sarania ASSAM KOKRAJHAR IND 5 14 7
10 Bhonsle Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayanraje Pratapasinh Maharaj MAHARASHTRA SATARA NCP 8 17 44
11 Kuruva Gorantla Madhav ANDHRA PRADESH HINDUPUR YSRCP 2 4 0

Table: Winners with declared cases related to murder

  • Winners with cases related to Attempt to Murder: 30 Winners have declared cases of attempt to murder (IPC Section-307).
  • Winners with cases related to Crimes against Women: 19 Winners have declared cases related to crimes against women.  Out of 19 Winners, Winners have declared cases related to rape (IPC Section-376). The details of these winners are given below:
S.No. Name State Constituency Party Total Cases Serious IPC Other IPC
1 Saumitra Khan WEST BENGAL BISHNUPUR BJP 6 19 3
2 Hibi Eden KERALA ERNAKULAM INC 7 2 26
3 Kuruva Gorantla Madhav ANDHRA PRADESH HINDUPUR YSRCP 2 4 0

Table: Winners with declared cases related to rape

 

  • Winners with cases related to Kidnapping: Winners have declared cases related to kidnapping. The details of these winners are given below:
S.No. Name State Constituency Party Total Cases Serious IPC Other IPC
1 Horen Sing Bey Assam Autonomous District BJP 2 12 6
2 Satyapal Singh Baghel Uttar Pradesh Agra BJP 5 8 9
3 Kishan Kapoor Himachal Pradesh Kangra BJP 2 4 3
4 Pankaj Choudhary Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj BJP 5 6 9
5 Atul Kumar Singh Uttar Pradesh Ghosi BSP 13 14 23
6 Naba Kumar Sarania Assam Kokrajhar Independent 5 14 7

Table: Winners with declared cases related to kidnapping

  • Winners with cases related to Hate Speech: 29 Winners have declared cases related to hate speech.
  • Chances of Winning for candidates with Declared Criminal Cases:    The chances of winning for a candidate with declared criminal cases in the Lok Sabha 2019 is 15.5% whereas for a candidate with a clean background, it is 4.7%.
  • Party wise Winners with Criminal Cases: 116(39%) out of 301 Winners from BJP, 29(57%) out of 51 Winners from INC10(43%) out of 23 Winners from DMK, 9(41%) out of 22 Winners fielded by AITC and 13 (81%) out of 16 winners from JD(U)  have declared criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.
  • Party wise Winners with Serious Criminal Cases87(29%) out of 301 Winners from BJP, 19(37%) out of 51 Winners from INC6 (26%) out of 23 Winners from DMK, 4(18%) out of 22 Winners fielded by AITC and 8 (50%) out of 16 winners from JD (U) have declared serious criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.

 

 

Financial Background
  • Crorepati WinnersOut of the 539 Winners analysed, 475 (88%) are crorepatis. Out of 542 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha 2014 elections, 443 (82%) Winners were crorepatisOut of 543 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha 2009 elections, 315(58%) Winners were crorepatis.

 

S.No. Lok Sabha Election Year Total Number of Winners Analysed Crorepati Winners Percentage of Crorepati Winners
1 2009 543 315 58%
2 2014 542 443 82%
3 2019 539 475 88%

Table:  Crorepati Winners: 2009, 2014, And 2019

  • Party wise Crorepati Winners: 265(88%) out of 301 Winners from BJP, 43 (84%) out of 51 Winners from INC22 (96%) out of 23 Winners from DMK, 20(91%) out of 22 Winners fielded by AITC, 19(86%) out of 22 Winners fielded by YSRCP,and 18(100%) Winners from SHS have declared assets worth more than Rs. 1 crore.
  • Chances of Winning based on assets:  The chance of winning for a crorepati candidate in the Lok Sabha 2019 is 21%, whereas chance of winning for a candidate with assets less than Rs. 1 crore is 1%.
Value of assets(Rs.) No of candidates No of Winners % of Winners
Rs.5 cr and above 883 266 30.1%
Rs.2 crores to Rs. 5 crores 678 125 18.4%
Rs. 50 lakhs to Rs.2 crores 1601 112 7%
Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs.50 lakhs 2069 27 1.3%
less than Rs.10 lakhs 2699 9 0.3%

Table: Chances of Winning on the basis of Assets

  • Average assets: The average of assets per Winner in the Lok Sabha Elections 2019 is Rs 20.93 Crore.
  • Party wise average assets: Among major parties, the average assets per Winner for 301 BJP Winners is Rs 14.52 Crores51 INC Winners have average assets of Rs 38.71 Crores, 23 DMK Winners have average assets worth Rs 24.51 Crores, 22 YSRCP Winners have average assets worth Rs 54.85 Crore, and 22 AITC Winners have average assets of Rs. 6.15 crores.
  • High asset Winners*:  The 3 richest Winners  in the Lok Sabha 2019  Elections are given below:
S.No. Name State Constituency Party Name Movable Assets (Rs) Immovable Assets (Rs) Total Assets (Rs) PAN Given
1 Nakul Nath MADHYA PRADESH CHHINDWARA INC 6,18,41,72,757 41,77,74,000 6,60,19,46,757
 660 Crore+
Y
2 Vasanthakumar H TAMIL NADU KANNIYAKUMARI INC 2,30,49,30,444 1,87,00,00,000 4,17,49,30,444
 417 Crore+
Y
3 D.K. Suresh KARNATAKA BANGALORE RURAL INC 33,30,03,790 3,05,59,16,927 3,38,89,20,717
 338 Crore+
Y

Table: Top three Winners with highest declared assets

  • Low asset Winners: The details of top 3 Winners with low assets are given below :
S.No. Name State Constituency Party Name Movable Assets (Rs) Immovable Assets (Rs) Total Assets (Rs) PAN Given
1 Goddeti Madhavi ANDHRA PRADESH ARAKU YSRCP 1,41,179 0 1,41,179 
 1 Lacs+
Y
2 Chandrani Murmu ODISHA KEONJHAR BJD 3,40,580 0 3,40,580 
 3 Lacs+
Y
3
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Expressing serious concern over the continuance of manual scavenging in the country, Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu, Chairperson, NHRC said that the Government needs to tell what it has done to end this menace. Merely putting laws in place will not to be suffice; the ground realties need to change. He was inaugurating the NHRC’s ‘Open fourum discussion on the issues and challenges of manual scavenging and human rights at the Commission’s premisies in New Delhi on 24th May’19

Justice Dattu said that even after the intervention of the Supreme Court in the matter, it appears that the laws to eradicate manual scavenging are lying on the table and may remain so unless implemented proactively. It’s a curse on society that we continue to hear about the deaths of people while cleaning sewage without protective gear, which amounts to violation of human rights. We hear about such incidents happening in the National Capital, imagine what will be the situation in the other parts of the country. The Commission has taken suo motu cognizance of 34 such incidents in the recent past. The NHRC Chairperson said that this menace should have ended long back by adopting some system as in developed countries.

Ms. Nilam Sawhney, Secretary, Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment said that the eradication of manual scavenging remains very high on the priority of the Government. Several programmes, policies and welfare measures, including the legislative and programmitic interventions, have been introduced and are being implemented to achieve the desired results.

She said that as per 2018 survey, there are 173 districts in the country where the problem of manual scavenging still continues. 34,749 manual scavengers have been identified so far. Uttar Pradesh tops the list with 16663 followed by Maharashtra with 6387 manual scavengers. Efforts are on to identify the manual scavengers for their rehabilation through skill development and financial assistance. Identification of dry latrines and their replacement with proper toilets is an ongoing exercise. The Railways have upgraded more than 55 thousand coaches with bio toilets so that human excreta does not fall on the tracks. 464 workshops have been conducted in various Municipalties for awarness about the laws on eradication of the manual scavenging and welfare measures for the rehabilation of manual scavengers. The focus is on shifting hazardous cleaning to mechanized cleaning.

Mr. Jaideep Govind, Secretary General, NHRC said that no doubt work is being done to address the issue but a lot needs to be done to eradicate the manual scavenging and open defecation. Many open defecation free villages are returing to older ways; availability of water remains a concern. The Minsitires need to own up the lot of problems to help them find solutions thereof. He expected that they will proacticevely and timely send the requisite reports to the NHRC as well as the compliance reports.

Many important suggestions emerged during the discussions, some of which are as follows:

  1. Ensure strict compliance of the legal provisons to eradicate manual scavenging;
  2. Increase the amount of scholarship for the children of manul scavenger upto Rs 5000 per month;
  3. Disclose data on the number of manual scavengers in every part of the country proactively;
  4. Make it compulsory that only those will be engaged for the job for cleaning, who are trained for the job and registerd;
  5. Conduct survey and an audit on the incidents of deaths while cleaning sewage/ drainage to know the causes and suggestions for remedial measures;
  6. Release data on the people got scholarship and rehabilataed;
  7. Prepare a safety gear a kit and provise it to the municipalities which can give it to to people involved inb the job of cleaning;

Besides the NHRC Members, Mr. Justice P.C.Pant, Mrs. Jyotika Kalra, the other participants included Mr. Arun Bakora, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Ms. Yogita Swaroop, Economic Advisor, Ministry of Socila Justice and Empowerment Mrs. Deepa Bajwa, Director General, Defence Estates, Mr. V. K. Jindal, Joint Secreraetry, Ministry of Urban Housing Affairs, Mr. Alok Kumar, Executive Director, Railway Board, represenataives of UN and other international bodies and civil society, including among others, Mr. Bejwada Wilson, National Convener, Safai Karamchari Andolan, Ms. Suman Chahar, Vice Presodent, Sulabh International, senior officers of the NHRC Mr. Prabhat Singh, D.G.(I), Mr. Dilip Kumar, Joint Secretary(T&R), Dr. Ranjit Singh, Joint Secretary(P&A), Dr Sanjay Dubey, Director.

The post NHRC Chief: Government needs to tell what it has done to end the menace of manual scavenging appeared first on Legal Desire.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
Legal Desire by Legal Desire - 3d ago

India is certainly not a country known for its gambling culture. In fact, it’s pretty much non-existent, no thanks to the outdated gambling laws that are in much-needed updating. However, the online gambling industry is a completely different story. Online casinos, especially sports betting and fantasy sports platforms are becoming more popular by the day. For instance, just recently Tencent led $100 million series funding in Dream11 to enter Indian gaming industry!

As you see, on one hand, we have a system that discourages gambling, and on the other hand, the traction that online casinos are enjoying today is simply unbelievable. This raises the question: is gambling legal in India?

The Truth About Gambling in India

Gambling is more of a grey area in India today even though the law commission has clarified its stance on the industry by saying that it finds it “strongly undesirable”. However, the distinction between gambling and a legal game, at least how the industry stakeholders and experts consider it, is made based on whether it’s based on skill or luck.

If a game is based on pure luck, then it’s considered gambling and it won’t be allowed as per the law. However, if you can increase the odds of winning a game by using skill(s), then it won’t be considered gambling and can be permitted by the government.

What Kind of Platforms are Legal in India?

There is no dearth of legal casino platforms in India. For instance, the LeoVegas casino in India is quite popular as it offers a slew of games like slots, blackjack, roulette, etc. as well as attractive bonuses. All the games offered on the platform are legal and enjoyed by millions of Indians. In fact, there are many other platforms like this especially in the sports betting and fantasy sports category that you can also check out- Dream11 Fantasy Cricket, Betrally India, etc.

India has some land-based casinos too but you can count them all on the fingers your hands. Most of them are based in Goa and if you are going there, then the recommendations would be Deltin Royale Casino, Casino Pride, and Casino Paradise.

Conclusion

Gambling might be an emerging industry in India, the credit for which can be mostly contributed to the online casinos, but it’s growing faster than ever and giving the people an option to have a good time and with friends and family and earn money at the same time. Since most people can’t visit Goa which is pretty much the only place where you can play casino games in a physical establishment i.e. a traditional casino, your best bet is to check out the online platforms. You won’t be disappointed!

The post Is Gambling Legal in India? appeared first on Legal Desire.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

I am very clear on one thing right from the time I was child: No one can compel anyone to sing anything which he/she does not want to sing. There is not even an iota of doubt in my mind that no law and no court can compel anyone to sing anything against his/her wishes. Our Constitution guarantees not just the right to freedom of speech and expression as envisaged in Article 19 but also guarantees to remain silent to what one does not wish to sing.

                                               Having said this, let me refer here now to the judgment by the Madras High Court which had culminated from a goof-up by the Government of Tamil Nadu. A government job applicant – K Veeramani had in his entrance exam for the post of BT Assistant written to a question that Vande Mataram was written in Bengali. The examiner said that it was Sanskrit. The applicant challenged it as he missed by just one mark. The applicant contended that in all the books he had read, Bengali was mentioned as the language in which Vande Mataram was originally written.

                                         Following this, the Judge had directed the Advocate General of Madras High Court – R Muthukumaraswamy to apprise the court of the correct answer in order to settle the dispute over the linguistic origin of the song. When the case up on July 13, the Advocate General informed the court that Vande Mataram was of Sanskrit origin but had originally been penned in Bengali by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. The Judge directed the Teachers Recruitment Board to award the mark to the petitioner.

                                                       Needless to say, the Hon’ble Madras High Court should have focused only on this. Instead what we saw is that it stipulated that the national song Vande Mataram should be compulsorily sung and played in all schools and educational establishments across the State at least once a week. Justice MV Muralidharan also ordered that Vande Mataram should be played in all Government offices and institutions, private companies, factories and industries at least once a month. Certainly I must say here that patriotism cannot be thrust upon anyone. Singing of national song or anything else must be purely voluntary.

                                        Be it noted, Justice Muralidharan also made it clear that nobody should be forced to sing the national song provided there were valid reasons. This itself proves that it is just not correct to force anyone to sing Vande Mataram or anything else which he/she does not want to sing. Singing or not singing anything cannot be made a crime by any law.

                                        But the moot question that arises here is: Who will determine these valid reasons and what standards will be applied haven’t been specified? All this will only serve to provide more leeway to authorities and moral brigade to harass a common person who is just concerned about how to earn his/her bread and butter! Moreover, every citizen have been guaranteed the fundamental choice by the founding fathers of our Constitution to sing what they want or not to sing at all! No law and no court can force any citizen to sing any song whether it is national song or anything else! Patriotism cannot be forced at gun point or lawpoint or any other point!

                                              This latest order of Madras High Court is reminiscent of the Supreme Court direction in November 2016 on the compulsory singing of the national anthem in cinema houses. We all know how some fringe elements exploit such orders to further their own narrow vested political interests by forcing people from a particular religion or group to sing something which they feel their religion does not permit them to sing! This is why I very strongly feel that no one should be forced anyhow to sing anything against his/her wishes because this is no way to usher in nationalism.

                                                Truth be told, there are many who don’t like to sing any song but they love our nation as much as we do. Why should they be made to sing any song against their wishes? Why should goons be given a pretext to attack those who refuse to sing song? How can this be legally justified?  

                                              Don’t we know that there were incidents of physical assaults on those who did not stand up when the national anthem was played in theatres and in some cases even the physically disabled people or those who can’t hear properly or see properly were beaten up! What sort of nationalism is this? Such sort of forced nationalism cannot be justified under any circumstances! All courts right from bottom to top must guard against giving such judgments which can be misconstrued by goons to further their own vested interests or the vested interests of their political masters!

                     Nationalism cannot be forcibly spoon-feeded. What is the guarantee that those who sing Vande Mataram or any other song would be good citizens or would not indulge in anti-national acts or corruption? Who invited Pakistani invader Gen Pervez Musharraf who masterminded Kargil war in which we lost more than 500 brave soldiers as per official figures? Who gave Most Favoured Nation status to Pakistan unilaterally for more than 20 years which is even now continuing? Those politicians who love singing Vande Mataram and other songs!

                                        Everyday our brave soldiers are dying because of the proxy war being waged by our rogue neighbour – Pakistan and yet our politicians who keep chanting “Bharat Mata Ki Jai, Vande Mataram etc etc” are not ready to declare Pakistan as a “rogue and terror” nation just like Kuwait did recently and severe all ties with Pakistan! No national party is willing to support the likes of independent MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar who has tried several times to bring in a private member Bill to declare Pakistan a terror state! Most shameful!

                                            Even former Rajya Sabha MP Maulana Mehmood Madani who is also leader of Jamiat-e-Ulema had demanded sometime back that Pakistan be named “Aatankistaan” and India should severe all ties with Pakistan but our mainstream parties who enjoy singing national songs are just not prepared for it and feel very strongly that no matter how many soldiers are killed but relations with Pakistan must remain intact! Corruption is silently killing so many people more than that of terror killings and there are so many corrupt politicians who never tire of singing national songs yet shamelessly and wantonly indulge in corruption by nexus with corrupt contractors, engineers etc in making weak roads, weak bridges and weak buildings etc thus directly ensuring that many innocent people are killed in the most brazen manner! Thus there can be no two opinions about the irrefutable truth that moral character is the biggest asset and this should always be stressed upon right from childhood but nowadays it seems that more focus is attached on national songs etc which alone is just not enough!

                                           It is most unfortunate that sparks flew in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on July 28 as the ruling BJP MLAs slammed Samajwadi Party’s Abu Asim Azmi who opposed a demand for making the singing of the song mandatory in the schools and colleges of the State. What is most disconcerting to note is that Maharashtra Public Works Minister and BJP leader Chandrakant Patil even went to the extent of saying that those who want to live in the country must say Vande Mataram and Bharat Mata Ki Jai! This is just not done!

                                       India is a very liberal and democratic country where everyone is free even to worship any God of his/her choice or not worship any God and remain an atheist! How can anyone be forced to worship a particular God or Goddess? I myself consider Bharat as father and not as Mata so will those who disagree with me beat me up? Same is the case with singing of national song or anthem. If some person does not like singing anything, that does not imply that he/she is an anti-national or does not love his/her country!

                                                  I am reminded of 1994 when my faith in Lord Shiva was completely shattered and my best friend Sageer Khan took a vow from me that I would worship Lord Shiva till my last breath just like he himself worshipped Allah. He rightly said to me to always remember that anything can be changed but parents, religion which includes God whom we worship right from our childhood days and nationality can never be shunned or changed! I had to agree not at gunpoint but because of friendpoint which he pointed towards me and while visiting temple alone I used to utter “Matha to tekna hain tekna hain tekna hain Shraddha nahin hain bhakti nahin hain paar matha to tekna hain tekna hain tekna hain, naak to ragaadni hain Sageer Khan ne kahan hain Sageer Khan ne kahan hain”.

                                       An old priest used to observe me daily and one day he said to me that, “You are doing a crime by worshipping Lord Shiva against your wishes and Lord Shiva will be more angry with you”. I said that I don’t care but I have to fulfill the vow which I gave to my best friend Sageer. He said that Lord Shiva will be most angry with your best friend Sageer Khan because no God wants that anyone should worship him/her against his/her own wishes and your best friend Sageer Khan has committed the biggest sin by forcing you to worship Lord Shiva whom you don’t want to even see! From then on I decided to always go to temple only with true dedication and not because of gunpoint or friendpoint – Sageer Khan! Also, Sageer himself never wanted that I should worship Lord Shiva in a disinterested manner or in a forcible manner.   

                                       Same is the case with singing of songs. No song whether it is national song or national anthem can be forced on anyone whether it is Waris Pathan or Abu Asim Azmi or anyone else! Singing of song or anthem has to be purely voluntary! There should be no coercion at all under any circumstances.  Just because a person does not sing a song or anthem does not make him/her an anti-national and just because a person sings a song or anthem does not make him/her a true patriot! This is what we all especially those who are educated must understand and stop quarreling over such trivial issues like illiterate people! Also, Supreme Court itself had on a writ petition on this specific issue of singing of national song clearly stated that there is no mention in the Constitution of the national song that Vande Mataram is meant to be.

                                    Let me now conclude by quoting what the former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian known for his impeccable credentials and genius whom all Central Governments keep consulting from time to time and even has headed many important Committees like the one on National Education Policy had to say in this regard: “I believe that most people in India are patriotic, while they may not be overly demonstrative about it all the time. Love for one’s country is something that comes naturally and can’t be forced. Nothing can be ensured by using force.  The national anthem and Vande Mataram deserve to be respected but binding people by rules can’t ensure patriotism. In my view, it is not to be brought to the bazaar by saying that every shop and every courtroom will sing it every morning. While I respect the spirit of the Madras High Court ruling. I am critical of its application. By asking to play Vande Mataram in every classroom and every office, the court is certainly overdoing it. We should accept and accommodate different views. I think that a debate on patriotism or Vande Mataram, per se, is not required. There are insufficient debates on what’s affecting the country like poverty, preventive medication and education. Our government, Parliament, media and judiciary are not paying attention to these vital subjects.” Very rightly said! What more should I say on this? What the former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian has said must be adhered to by all of us!

The post Column: No Law And No Court Can Compel Anyone To Sing Anything appeared first on Legal Desire.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Four new judges of the Supreme Court will take oath of office on 24th May’19, raising their number to the full sanctioned strength of 31.

According to a circular issued by the top court, Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, Aniruddha Bose and AS Bopanna will be administered oath of office by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi at 10:30 am on Friday in court number one of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court will have its full strength of judges for the first time since 2008 when Parliament had increased the number of judges from 26 to 31.

As of now, the apex court is functioning with 27 judges, including the Chief Justice of India.

On Wednesday, President Ram Nath Kovind had issued warrants of appointment of Justices Gavai, Kant, Bose and Bopanna as Supreme Court judges.

The names of Justices Bose and Bopanna were earlier returned by the Centre to the Supreme Court collegium citing seniority and representation of regions as the reasons.

In its May 8 resolution, the five-member collegium had reiterated its recommendation to elevate Justices Bose and Bopanna, observing that nothing adverse has been found regarding their competence, conduct or integrity.

The collegium, headed by the CJI, had on May 8 also recommended the names of Justices Gavai and Kant for elevation to the apex court.

Justice Gavai, who was a judge of the Bombay High Court, will become the Chief Justice of India for a little over six months in 2025. He will be the second Chief Justice of India belonging to the Scheduled Caste community after Justice (Retd.) K G Balakrishnan.

Justice Surya Kant, who is the incumbent chief justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, will succeed Justice Gavai as the Chief Justice of India in November 2025. He will remain in office till February 2027.

Justice Bose, who is the chief justice of Jharkhand High Court, is at number 12 in all-India seniority of high court judges.

Justice Bopanna, whose parent high court is Karnataka, is  the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court and is at number 36 in all-India seniority.

The post Supreme Court adds 4 More Judges to have its full sanctioned strength of 31 appeared first on Legal Desire.

Read Full Article

Read for later

Articles marked as Favorite are saved for later viewing.
close
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Separate tags by commas
To access this feature, please upgrade your account.
Start your free month
Free Preview