Supreme Court of India on black money stashed abroad in foreign accounts

Supreme Court is currently hearing Review Petition of Central Govt filed in the PIL (WP No.176 of 2009) which was filed by noted lawyer Ram Jethmalani for directions to Government to take prompt measures to ensure that  the money stashed abroad in illegal bank accounts is brought back to India. The supreme Court had constituted a SIT for this purpose.

The matter came up on 28th October when the Supreme Court directed Govt to place the names of all such account holders. On 29th October, the Govt gave names of 627 such account holders in sealed cover to Court who then passed it on to SIT for taking appropriate action.  The matter will now be taken up on 3rd December at 3.30 pm.

Here is the text of the Order passed by Supreme court on 29th October 2014 :

“Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India, on instructions, would submit that as of now, he is not pressing for any of the prayers made in the Interlocutory Application No. 14 of 2014 filed in Writ Petition (C) No.176 of 2009.

          Placing on record the said statement by the learned Attorney General, I.A. No. 14 of 2014 is disposed of as having become unnecessary for the present.

          Shri Rohtagi, learned Attorney General, has voluntarily had filed two separate sealed covers before each of us, which, according to him, contains the names of those account holders who have their bank accounts in HSBC, Geneva, as received from the Government of France.

         This Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition, by its order dated 04.07.2011 had constituted a Special Investigation Team (for short 'the S.I.T.'). That S.I.T. has been constituted and is functional as of now.

        By our order dated 01.05.2014, we had reconstituted the said S.I.T. and had directed the newly constituted S.I.T. to take forward the orders and directions issued by this Court on 04.07.2011. The said S.I.T. is looking into these matters. In fact, they had filed a Status Report before us on an earlier occasion.

        We do not intend to open the two sealed covers that are placed before each of us by the learned Attorney General, since we have already constituted an S.I.T. to look into these matters. The Registry is hereby directed to hand over the said two sealed covers intact today itself to a responsible officer/person in the S.I.T. with a specific instruction that it shall not be opened by anybody else except by the learned Chairman and Vice-chairman of the S.I.T.

          It is now for the S.I.T. to make use of the documents furnished by the learned Attorney General. We permit the S.I.T. to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and for that purpose to evolve its own procedure after hearing the learned Attorney General or his representative, Shri Ram Jethmalani, party-in-person and his counsel.

          We now request the S.I.T. to furnish before us the latest Status Report as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, by the end of November, 2014.

          We permit both sides to express their difficulties, grievances and other procedure which requires to be adopted before the S.I.T.

I.A.No.15 of 2014:

          Reply, if any, be filed to I.A. No. 15 of 2014 within four weeks' time.

         Call the matter on 3rd December, 2014 at 3.30 p.m.”

Happy Diwali

The Goddess Of Light Is Adorned In Sparkles

And Light This Diwali.

She Wears A Million Stars To Illuminate Our Life.

The Sun And The Moon Are Her Allies

On The Path To Destroy All Evil And

Bring Peace And Happiness To Us.

Let Us Celebrate A Special Diwali This Day!

Sunil Goel

B.Sc, LLB, LLM

38/7 East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi - 110026
107, DLF Towers, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi - 110015

M : 9810215488

https://www.facebook.com/sunilgoel71

Member : 

Supreme Court Bar Association

Delhi High Court Bar Association

Guest Faculty, Dte of Training, UTCS, New Delhi

S.G.Solicitors

Government can not give away land at its sweet will in arbitrary manner, held Supreme Court

A bench of Supreme court of India comprising Justices M.Y.Eqbal and P.C.Ghosh in its judgment dated 26th September 2014 in the case of ‘CIDCO vs Platinum Entertainment’ Civil Appeal no. 9264/2014 upheld the CIDCO’s action  of cancelling the land allotted to the respondents allottees by undue favour at the instance of the Minister.

The court held “State and its agencies and instrumentalities cannot give  largesse  to any person at sweet will and whims of the political entities or officers  of the State.  However, decisions and action of the State must be founded on  a sound, transparent and well defined policy which shall be made known to  the public.  The disposal of Government land by adopting  a  discriminatory  and arbitrary method shall always be avoided and it should be  done  in  a  fair and equitable manner as the allotment on favoritism or  nepotism  influences the exercises of discretion.  Even assuming that if the Rule  or  Regulation prescribes the mode of allotment by entertaining individual  application  or by tenders or competitive bidding, the Rule of Law requires publicity to  be given before such allotment is made”.

The court further observed “we  observe,  that  notwithstanding Regulation 4, as contained in the Regulations, the appellant CIDCO may  take all endeavour to make allotments of plots by open tender or  competing  bids and shall not take any decision for allotment  of  Government  land  at  the instance of the Ministers and High Dignitaries for any purposes whatsoever”.

Click below for the Full Judgment.

Full Judgment

Supreme Court to reexamine JMM MPs bribery case judgment of 1998

A bench of Supreme Court of India comprising Justices T.S.Thakur, R.Banumathi in SLP (Crl) 2758/2014 titled as “Sita Soren vs Union of India through CBI” in its order on 23^rd September 2014 referred the issue of corruption by a MP/MLA to a larger bench. The court said “Since the issue arises for consideration is substantial and of general public importance, we refer these matters to a larger Bench of three Hon'ble Judges to be constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India”.

The case is that the Election Commission had in April 2012 countermanded the Rajya Sabha elections in Jharkhand and handed over probe to CBI following allegations of bribery. The CBI in its charge-sheet had accused Sita Soren of receiving Rs 1.5 lakh for proposing nomination and also casting vote in favour of Raj Kumar Agarwal, an independent candidate. She challenged her prosecution claiming immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India, which provided that no member of legislature of a state shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him/her in the legislature or any committee thereof. She cited the 1998 judgment in JMM MPs bribery case ( in which the apex court granted immunity from prosecution to MPs who took bribe and voted to save the then Congress government of P V Narasimha Rao in Parliament). Jharkhand High Court rejected her plea by coming to a conclusion that since she had not voted for the candidate for whom the bribe was allegedly paid, she was not entitled to immunity from prosecution as in the JMM MPs case the Supreme Court had allowed Ajit Singh's prosecution for not voting even after allegedly taking bribe.

The Supreme Court was of the view that the 1998 judgment in JMM MPs bribery case need a fresh look and hence referred the matter to CJI for constitution of a 3-Judge bench to decide the issue. As per the procedure adopted by the apex court, a two-judge bench can refer a question of law to a three-judge bench, which alone can decide whether such a question merited consideration by a constitution bench. 

In JMM MPs bribery case, a Constitution bench by a 3-2 majority had held that those who took bribe but did not vote were liable to be prosecuted under Prevention of Corruption Act as they would not be entitled to immunity from prosecution granted to MPs under Article 105(2) of the Constitution. 

People indulging in Cow slaughter sentenced to life imprisonment by Delhi Sessions Court

The court of Ms. Kamini Lao, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi , in its 538 page judgment on 9th October 2014, convicted and awarded life imprisonment to seven persons who were indulging in transport and slaughter of cows illegally. They were members of a Mewat gang and they were held guilty of firing at police officials who were trying to rescue cows that were being illegally taken by them for slaughtering. The case related to an encounter between a gang of cattle lifters from Mewat, on the outskirts of Delhi, and the Delhi police in the Outer Delhi district on the intervening night of January 18-19, 2013, when the accused were trying to flee by taking away three cows, one calf and a buffalo from a dairy in Rohini's sector 16-17 for the purpose of slaughtering. During the encounter, one of the gang members died while a cop sustained injury. 

The court also called for the immediate need to set right the mechanism for rescuing animals rampantly released on 'superdari' (undertaking) to those who were accused of the violation of special laws relating to protection of animals. The court said that people are taking advantage of lacuna in existing laws dealing with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Delhi Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act and also the general law (Indian Penal Code/ Code of Criminal Procedure) as these laws are totally silent on how these rescued animals are required to be dealt with. The Court said "Under no circumstances can these animals/cattle be handed over to the same persons from whose clutches they have been rescued. Cattle wealth of the country has to be protected at any cost not only because it is connected to important issues of national health but also because its an issue which is closely knitted to religious beliefs and sentiments of a class of society which have to be respected".

The court observed that, though cattle slaughtering was banned in Delhi, there were many loopholes in the law which prohibits the slaughter. The court called upon the Government to create a policy and a foolproof mechanism for protecting cattle in the country. The demands for banning of cattle slaughter across the country found backing of the court which said that cattle needs to be protected not only because of health reasons but also because it is closely knitted to religious beliefs of a section of society. Pertinently, cattle slaughter is banned in most states in the country but is legal in some states.

Click below for reading the Full Judgment.

Full Judgmemt

AIADMK chief and Tamilnadu's Chief Minister Jayalalitha convicted in disproportionate Assets case, read full judgment

In a landmark judgment pronounced on 27th September 2014 and running into 1176 pages, the court of Shri John Micheal Cunha, 36th Addl. City Civil and Session Judge, Bangalore convicted the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu Smt. J. Jayalalitha in the 10 year old Assets Disproportionate Case under Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced her to 4 year imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100 crore.

She was accused of amassing wealth disproportionate to her known sources of income during the check period of 1.7.1991 till 30.4.1996 to the extent of Rs.66 crores. The case against her was instituted on the complaint of Dr.Subramaniam Swamy, the them President of Janata Dal.

Click below to read the Full Text of the judgment dated 27th September 2014.

Full Text of Jayalalitha conviction judgment.

Supreme Court of India leave it to wisdom of PM and CM to appoint clean ministers with no criminal background

In response to a petition filed by one Manoj Narula (Writ Petition Civil No. 289/2005) seeking to stop MPs and MLAs chargesheeted but not yet convicted of crimes from being appointed ministers in Central and State governments respectively, the 5-Judge Batch of Supreme Court of India pronounced an important judgment on 27th August 2014. The Court said that framers of Constitution reposed faith and trust in the Prime Minister and Chief Minister and left it to their wisdom to appoint only those persons as ministers who have clean antecedents. The Court ruled that corruption is an enemy of the nation. As a trustee of the constitution, the PM is expected not to appoint unwarranted persons as ministers. The Court wished that politicians with a "criminal background" should not serve in government.

The court however said it could not disqualify the ministers, as the constitution allows prime minister to appoint his own cabinet, but said it hoped that the PM will honor the spirit of the constitution in appointing ministers. 

Earlier, vide judgment in case of Lily Thomas vs UOI on 10th July 2013, Supreme Court had struck down Section 8 (4) of the Representation of People Act 1951. As a result of said ruling, if a MP or MLA is "convicted" of an offence prescribed in Section 8(1) & (2), then he will immediately cease to be an MP or MLA and thus will thus lose his ministership if he is a minister. There was an outcry by the politicians. The then Government headed by Congress introduced a bill called Representation of People (Second amendment and Validation) Act 2013 to dilute the judgment to help the tainted politicians but before the bill could be passed, the parliament was adjourned. The Government that immediately brought an ordinance to undo the said judgment but after severe public criticism, the ordinance was dropped and not pursued.

In another judgment in case of Chief Election Commissioner vs Jan Chowkidar on 10th July 2013, Supreme Court had held that the persons who are either in prison serving a sentence after conviction or who are in lawful custody of police, are debarred from contesting elections of MP or MLA. The Government succeeded in undoing this judgment by getting the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013 passed in Rajya Sabha on 27th August 2013. In Lok Sabha, it was passed on 6th September 2013 without any discussion. Thus, the bar on convicted politicians from contesting elections has been removed by the Government by said amendment.

Click here for Full Text of the Judgment.

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41850

Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

Supreme Court rejects the various petitions challenging validity of National Judicial Appointment Commission Bill

The Supreme Court on 25th August 2014 rejected a bunch of PILs challenging the validity of Constitution (99th Amendment) Bill and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Bill 2014 on the ground that these are pre-mature as the bill is still in the process of becoming law and it has only been passed by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha at the moment. Since it will amend Articles 124(2) and 217(1) of the Constitution of India, it needs to be ratified by the legislatures of at least half of the States of India (i.e. min. 15 States) before being sent to the President for approval. This law will replace the present collegium system for appointment of Supreme Court and High courts judges under which the collegium comprising three senior most judges of Supreme court including the CJI recommends the appointment of High Court and Supreme Court judges. 

Under the new system proposed to be introduced by this new law, the appointment will be made by a Commission which will be called National Judicial Appointment Commission which will comprise of 6 persons comprising the Chief Justice of India, two other seniormost judges of Supreme Court, Law Minister of India and two eminent personalities who would be chosen by a panel of Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and leader of single largest party in Lok Sabha. 

The Attorney General argued that the Court can not restrain a government from enacting a law, it will lead to chaos, it will amount to interference of judiciary in legislative and executive domain.

Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

Supreme Court orders for fast tracking criminal trials against politicians

Supreme Court of India is hearing a PIL regarding disqualification of those MPs and MLAs from contesting elections against whom chargesheet has been filed in a criminal court and regarding fast-tracking criminal cases involving politicians. This is Writ Petition (Civil) No.536/2011 titled as 'Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India'. (At present, a MP or MLA, only on being convicted, ceases to be MP / MLA. There is no disqualification incurred at the stage of being chargesheeted). 

On 16.12.2013, Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to expedite consideration of the two issues, namely, (1) whether disqualification should be triggered upon conviction as it exists today or upon framing of charges by the court or upon the presentation of the chargesheet by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and (2) whether filing of false affidavits under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 should be a ground of disqualification? and, if yes, what mode and mechanism needs to be provided for adjudication on the veracity of the affidavit? In pursuance thereto, the Law Commission prepared its recommendation in the form of 244th Report titled 'Electoral Disqualifications'. In this Report, the Law Commission recommended that MP / MLA should be disqualified on framing of charges against them by the court, subject to certain conditions. This was considered by the Supreme Court in hearing on 10th March 2014. 

To ensure the maintenance of probity of public office, to ensure conclusion of trial expeditiously, the Supreme Court on said day directed that in relation to sitting MPs and MLAs who have charges framed against them for the offences which are specified in Section 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of the RP Act, the trial shall be concluded as speedily and expeditiously as may be possible and in no case later than one year from the date of the framing of charge(s). In such cases, as far as possible, the trial shall be conducted on a day-to-day basis. If for some extraordinary circumstances the concerned court is being not able to conclude the trial within one year from the date of framing of charge(s), such court would submit the report to the Chief Justice of the respective High Court indicating special reasons for not adhering to the above time limit and delay in conclusion of the trial. In such situation, the Chief Justice may issue appropriate directions to the concerned court extending the time for conclusion of the trial. 

Click below for the Full text of Order dated 10th March 2014.
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/536201131032014p.txt

On 08.03.2016, the Three Judge Bench referred the matter to Five Judge Constitution Bench, particularly in view of Judgment dated 27th August 2014 by 5-Judge Bench in Manoj Narula vs Union of India 2014 (9) SCC 1. Thereafter, there is no further development in the matter, as seen from Supreme Court website.

Click below for the Full text of Order dated 8th March 2016.
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/querycheck_page2.asp

http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wc%2053611p.txt

Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

Delhi High Court dismiss petition seeking ban on Hindi movie 'Finding Fanny'

A Bench of Chief Justice Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw of Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL 'Nandini Tewari vs Union of India and other' Writ Petition (Civil) No.6053/2014 on 10th September 2014. The PIL sought a ban on the release of director Homi Adajania's new movie 'Finding Fanny' starring Deepika Padukone and Arjun Kapoor. The PIL alleged that the word "fanny" was vulgar and was a slang and should be removed from the movie, its songs, posters and banners. It said the dictionary meaning of the word "fanny" was highly sexually explicit, and using the word in the movie will hurt the feelings of the citizens of India, especially minor children. It said that allowing such words in films and television will pollute children's minds. It also challenged the UA certificate given to this movie. 

The film released on Friday 12th September 2014.

Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en