Say no to bribe

Members of the Pune wing of India Against Corruption (IAC) launched an anti-corruption campaign titled 'say no to bribe' at Ralegan Siddhi, in the presence of Anna Hazare on Sunday. The activists carried out a car and bike rally from Pune to Ralegan Siddhi. The activists will now approach various government offices and appeal to the officers and the public to avoid giving or taking bribes. Nearly 200 people participated in the rally, which started from Vimannagar at 9 am. The rally reached the village around 12.30 pm.

"We had an appointment with Hazare in the afternoon. So we scheduled the rally accordingly," Devjeet Saha, a coordinator of the rally said. The intention of the rally was to have Anna launch the campaign. People who participated in the rally took a pledge in front of Anna that they would not participate in any kind of corruption, he said. "Anna interacted with the people for nearly an hour. He shared his experiences of Tihar jail and the agitations in Delhi," said participant Deepak Bharadia. "It was truly an inspiring experience for the participants," he added. Bharadia said that the IAC members and other citizens will visit various government offices from Thursday. The first visit will be to the passport office on Senapati Bapat Road.

"People from the city have been supporting the anti-corruption campaign in large numbers. The support was massive during Anna's fast. So citizens want to keep the spirit of the fight against corruption alive," he said.

Read more...

Offence committed by an Indian in a foreign country can be tried by a court in India

An offence committed by an Indian in a foreign country can be tried by a court in India, the Supreme Court has held.

A three-judge Bench of J. Altamas Kabir, J. Cyriac Joseph and J. S.S. Nijjar said “the provisions of Indian Penal Code have been extended to offences committed by any citizen of India in any place within and beyond India by virtue of Section 4 thereof.”

The Bench, however said that offences committed by an Indian citizen in a foreign country would be amenable to provisions of IPC subject to the limitation imposed under Section 188 Cr.PC, viz seeking the prior consent of the Central government.

In the present case, the appellant Thota Venkateswarlu was married to Parvatha Reddy Suneetha in November 2005 as per Hindu traditions and customs in Ongole in Andhra Pradesh. At the time of marriage Rs. 12 lakh in cash, 45 sovereigns of gold and Rs. 50,000 as ‘Adapaduchu katnam' was alleged to have been given to the husband, mother-in-law, and other relatives of the husband.

According to Suneetha, her husband left for Botswana in January 2006 and she later joined him. While in Botswana, she was allegedly severely ill-treated and various demands were made including a demand for additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakh. Unable to withstand the torture she sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ongole for dowry offences under IPC as well offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The magistrate, to whom the complaint was forwarded took cognisance and issued summons to the husband and others, who were questioned on their arrival to India. While the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed proceedings against the appellant's mother and two others, it dismissed his plea. The present appeal by Venkateswaralu is directed against this order.

The appellant's wife argued that part of the offence relating to dowry was committed in Indian soil and part of the offence was committed abroad. Hence the offence could be tried in Indian courts. However, the appellant argued that he could not be tried without the previous sanction from the Central government.

J. Kabir pointed out that it was clear that the case relating to the alleged dowry offences were committed outside India. But since part of the offence was committed in India, the court here could try the appellant and the High Court was correct in rejecting his plea to quash the proceedings. The Bench while asking the trial court to take up the case said, the trial would not proceed without the sanction of the Central government as envisaged in Section 188 Cr.P.C.

Read more...

Judge Population Ratio in India

The Law Commission in its 120th Report recommended that the strength of judges per one million population may be increased from 10.5 to 50 judges per million population. Giving this information in written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha, Shri Salman Khurshid, Minister of Law & Justice, said that the judge strength of the High Courts is reviewed every three years. The data received from the High Courts for the triennial review of the judge strength of the High Courts are analyzed in accordance with the guidelines fixed for the increase of the strength which is based on number of cases filed and disposed.

Shri Khurshid further informed the House that with regard to subordinate judiciary, the Supreme Court, in its judgment of 21st March, 2002, in All India Judges’ Association & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors, directed the States that an increase in the Judge strength from the existing 10.5 or 13 per 10 lakh people to 50 judges per 10 lakh people should be effected and implemented within a period of five years. The Central Government filed a modification petition in the Supreme Court praying that the increase in judge strength in the Union Territories for which Central Government is administratively responsible be allowed based on workload and pendency of cases.

Read more...

Will the Lokpal be tenth time lucky?

The Lokpal bill is into its ninth life but the eight previous governments that tried to deliver it failed to show similar cat-like survival skills.

For over four decades, the bill has repeatedly been introduced only to be forgotten and then resurrected again. But almost all the governments that tried to give it birth died prematurely themselves — some within months — and the two that completed their terms got waist-deep in problems and failed to return.

The Congress was the first to try. On May 1, 1968, then home minister Y.B. Chavan introduced the bill in the Lok Sabha and it was referred to a joint select committee that completed its work in a year. The House passed the bill on August 20, 1969.

But before the legislation could travel the few yards to the Rajya Sabha, the fourth Lok Sabha was dissolved following the Congress’s split into Congress () and Congress (R). Nothing was heard of the bill for the next two years and, despite its passage in the Lok Sabha, it lapsed.

On August 2, 1971, Ram Niwas Mirdha, junior personnel minister in the Indira Gandhi ministry, brought it back to the Lok Sabha. But within weeks, India had gone to war with Pakistan.

Thereafter, Indira’s term was dogged by problems, from food shortage and price rise to bandhs and corruption, culminating in the June 1975 court judgment against her election that led to the Emergency. So the Lokpal bill was the last thing on her mind. Her government lasted its term but lost the 1977 election.

The victorious Janata Party government took up the bill. Charan Singh, home minister in the Morarji Desai cabinet, placed it in the House on July 23, 1977. But the Janata Party’s innings ended in just over two years.

The fourth to introduce the bill — on August 25, 1985 — was Rajiv Gandhi’s law minister A.K. Sen. Rajiv’s decision to bring it within a year of securing a stupendous majority appeared to be in sync with his promise to root out corruption.

But the bill was again referred to a standing committee and forgotten as the Bofors cloud gathered steam and the Ram temple agitation got off the blocks. Rajiv never returned to power.

The V.P. Singh government, high on its pre-poll promise of bringing the corrupt to justice, introduced the bill in its first Parliament session. The government didn’t last even a year.

P.V. Narasimha Rao didn’t touch the bill for the five years he ruled but his successor H.D. Deve Gowda, Prime Minister of the United Front coalition, introduced it on September 10, 1996. By April next year, he was gone. The Front itself was ousted later in the year.

On July 23, 1998, Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s National Democratic Alliance resurrected what by then was already looking like a doomed legislation. It followed the familiar route to a standing committee and, before anything substantive could be done, Vajpayee had lost his majority in April 1999 — in less than a year and by a single vote.

Vajpayee returned but the bill had to wait until 2001, when deputy personnel minister Vasundhara Raje placed it in Parliament on July 9. The House panel that vetted it was headed by Pranab Mukherjee, who completed the job in record time.

However, the NDA government sat on the bill. Then, buoyed by its Assembly poll victories, it called a snap general election and lost.

UPA-I didn’t once think of the bill. Now UPA-II has revived it and suffered its gravest political crisis. When a revised draft comes up, perhaps in winter, will the Lokpal be tenth time lucky?

Read more...