Sir Crawford leaves his aura on golden jubilee in the fraternity - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Legally Speaking

Sir Crawford leaves his aura on golden jubilee in the fraternity

Anu Bhuvanachandran

Published

on

Sir James Richard Crawford may not be popular to an undergrad student but will be familiar with the cases he appeared and the cause titles for which he delivered exceptionally marvelous judgements. In a way Sir Crawford live through his contributions rather than the contributions live through him. This was the magic of Crawford’s pen. Many idle soulful corpse sweeps century where Sir Crawford could not and we are unlucky to be bagged by his more contributions to the fraternity.

The reason why Sir Crawford could deliver his contribution being a jurist, an attorney and a judge is just because he found himself limitless. Let us commemorate his contribution right from graduation in Bachelor of Laws Degree in 1971 to the year Sir took his last breath i.e. 2021 which is fifty years.

BEING A JURIST

In the initial years, Sir Crawford handled international law and was appointed at Australian Law Reform Commissions in 1984 where he penned a series of reports on recognition of aboriginal acceptance of customary law, sovereign immunity, patriation and federalization of Admiralty Law and jurisdiction. In the report on Foreign State Immunity Sir Crawford was appointed as the Commissioner in-charge and identified “In the absence of satisfactory arrangements for securing compliance with judgments, the assertion of judicial jurisdiction over a foreign state entails an assertion of the right to enforce any resulting judgment, if it is not complied with, by appropriate means.”

In 1992, Sir Crawford was elected to be a member at International Law Commission where he served as Special Rapporteur to State Responsibility for almost four years and was also in-charge of Draft Statute for International Criminal Court. During this venture some of the notable contributions include “Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts” where foundations of state responsibilities are analyzed and counter measures towards breach of peremptory norms were identified. In 1996, Sir Crawford assumed the directorship of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at Cambridge twice i.e. 1997-2003 and 2006-2010. The major juristic contribution in the form of text books and commentaries from Sir Crawford includes “The Rights of Peoples, The Creation of States in International Law, International Law as an Open System, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law and State Responsibility”. This is just touching the feather tip of Sir Crawford’s contribution as jurist.

BEING AN ATTORNEY

Sir James Crawford started his practice at the High Court of Australia in 1977 and was later moved to South Wales Bar in 1987 and later engaged as counsel before the International Court of Justice in several cases. He was also the counsel for Australia before the ITLOS and for China before the Settlement Body of WTO in the US- Definitive Anti-Dumping case.

In handling cases, Sir Crawford showed a very unique approach of imputing the cause title to the international history. This can be done only if the intellect, hard work, dedication and passion always go in right proportion. I have tried to discuss few cases where Sir Crawford appeared and paved way to magical decisions from the judiciary.

East Timor (Australia v. Protugal) for Australia Sir Crawford relied on Monetary Gold Removed from Rome 1943 decided by ICJ to establish his argument “the Court would not be able to act if, in order to do so, it were required to rule on the lawfulness of Indonesia’s entry into and continuing presence in East Timor, on the validity of the 1989 Treaty between Australia and Indonesia, or on the rights and obligations of Indonesia under that Treaty, even if the Court did not have to determine its validity.”

Case concerning the Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) Sir Crawford appeared as Senior Counsel for Iran and argued “the destruction caused by several warships of the United States Navy, in October 1987 and April 1988, to three offshore oil production complexes, owned and operated for commercial purposes by the National Iranian Oil Company, constituted a fundamental breach of various provisions of the Treaty of Amity and of international law.”

In Pulau Batu Puteh (Malaysia v. Singapore) Crawford appeared as the Senior Counsel for Malaysia and submitted supporting the Malaysia’s sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh.

In Maritime Delimitation in Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine) Crawford appeared as Senior Counsel for Ukraine argued on artificial character of Romania’s two sector approach where he pointed that “Romania then compounds its error by using, as the relevant basepoint on the Romanian side for constructing its equidistance line, the seaward most point on a man-made feature – the Sulina Dyke – which Romania itself concedes, although without giving details, “underwent major extension works from the 1950s until the 1980”.

With regard to Case Concerning Whaling in Antarctic (Australia v. Japan)- Counsel for Australia “The commercial whaling activity prohibited within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary is the same as that prohibited under the commercial whaling moratorium. While the language used in paragraph 7(b) of the Schedule (“commercial whaling”) is not identical to that of paragraph 10(e) (“killing [whales] for commercial purposes”), these are simply two ways of describing the same activity. Both prohibitions regulate the same category of whaling under the ICRW – commercial whaling.”

Ariel Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v. Columbia)- Senior Counsel for Columbia “It is a key feature of the aerial spraying campaign that it was conducted across the entirety of Colombia, wherever illicit crops were detected. It was not focused on border areas but on Colombian territory.”

Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of documents and data (Timor-Leste v. Australia)- Counsel for Australia- “Timor-Leste has asserted rights over the Materials, not only in terms of confidentiality and ‘legal professional privilege’ (which, to the extent such rights exist, are qualified by the applicable law and subject to important limitations), but also in terms of ownership, inviolability and immunity (rights which Timor-Leste presents as unqualified and unlimited). The exercise of these rights, both generally and in the specific circumstances of this case, is discussed later in this Counter-Memorial. However, in any case, a necessary predicate to any of the claims listed above is a sufficient factual basis connecting the claimant to the claimed object (a point Timor-Leste now effectively concedes by abandoning claims as to individual items which it now accepts do not belong to it).”

Application of International Convention on Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation)- Senior Counsel for Georgia- “the Russian Federation, through its State organs, State agents, and other persons and entities exercising governmental authority, and through the South Ossetian and Abkhaz separatist forces and other agents acting on the instructions of, and under the direction and control of the Russian Federation, is responsible for serious violations of its fundamental obligations under CERD, including Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.”

Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia) (Senior Counsel for Croatia “There are regrettably large number of other persons who are understood to be within the jurisdiction of the FRY (Serbia and Montenegro) and who have not been Landed over to the ICTY, or submitted to trial in the FRY (Serbia and Montenegro) or handed over to Croatia, in respect of acts or illicitly giving rise to genocidal acts occurring in the territory of Croatia and which are the subject of these proceedings.”

Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)- Senior Counsel for Chile- “Peru’s two submissions are logically inconsistent with each other. If the boundary were an equidistance line (which it is not), there could not be any “outer triangle”. The respective maritime zones of the Parties would be coterminous at the end of the equidistance line, and that line would give to Peru the alta mar area”.

BEING A JUDGE

When Sir Crawford left his aura behind, his tenure as member at International Court of Justice was due to expire only in 2024. He was initially served as President of various international tribunals. Let us now go through some historic revolutionary judgements paved modernity to face the dynamic developments at global parlance.

In 2016, Obligations concerning Negotiation relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India) Sir Crawford was one among the judges upheld in favour of India – “The Court therefore concludes that the first objection made by India must be upheld. It follows that the Court does not have jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute. Consequently, it is not necessary for the Court to deal with the other objections raised by India. The questions of the existence of and extent of customary international law obligations in the field of nuclear disarmament, and India’s compliance with such obligations, pertain to the merits. But the Court has found that no dispute existed between the Parties prior to the filing of the Application, and consequently it lacks jurisdiction to consider these questions.”

Further in 2017, Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Sir Crawford was in favour of “The Court observes that the fact that an applicant may have breached a treaty at issue in the case does not per se affect the admissibility of its application. Moreover, the Court notes that Somalia is neither relying on the MOU as an instrument conferring jurisdiction on the Court nor as a source of substantive law governing the merits of this case. Thus, Somalia’s objection to CLCS consideration of Kenya’s submission does not render the Application inadmissible. In the circumstances of this case, there is no need for the Court to address the more general question whether there are situations in which the conduct of an applicant would be of such a character as to render its application inadmissible. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the preliminary objection to the admissibility of Somalia’s Application must be rejected.”

In 2018, Sir Crawford favored judgement pronounced against abuse of process or rights in Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equitorial Guinea v. France) “The Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction pursuant to the Palermo Convention to entertain Equatorial Guinea’s Application. The Court further concludes that it has jurisdiction pursuant to the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention to entertain the submissions of Equatorial Guinea relating to the status of the building at 42 Avenue Foch in Paris as diplomatic premises, including any claims relating to the seizure of certain furnishings and other property present on the above-mentioned premises. Finally, the Court finds that Equatorial Guinea’s Application is not inadmissible on grounds of abuse of process or abuse of rights.”

In 2019, Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) Sir Crawford favored “The Court begins by noting that the United States has not argued that Iran, through its alleged conduct, has violated the Treaty of Amity, upon which its Application is based. Without having to take a position on the “clean hands” doctrine, the Court considers that, even if it were shown that the Applicant’s conduct was not beyond reproach, this would not be sufficient per se to uphold the objection to admissibility raised by the Respondent on the basis of the “clean hands” doctrine. Such a conclusion is however without prejudice to the question whether the allegations made by the United States, concerning notably Iran’s alleged sponsoring and support of international terrorism and its presumed actions in respect of nuclear non-proliferation and arms trafficking, could, eventually, provide a defence on the merits. In light of the foregoing, the two objections to admissibility of the Application raised by the United States must be rejected”

Further in the same year the Jadhav case Judgement was pronounced by the ICJ where Sir Crawford favored “Finds that it has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article I of the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963, to entertain the Application filed by the Republic of India on 8 May 2017. Rejects the objections by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the admissibility of the Application of the Republic of India and finds that the Application of the Republic of India is admissible. Finds that, by not notifying the appropriate consular post of the Republic of India in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan without delay of the detention of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav and thereby depriving the Republic of India of the right to render the assistance provided for by the Vienna Convention to the individual concerned, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan breached the obligations incumbent upon it under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Finds that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan deprived the Republic of India of the right to communicate with and have access to Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, to visit him in detention and to arrange for his legal representation, and thereby breached the obligations incumbent upon it under Article 36, paragraph 1 (a) and (c), of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Finds that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is under an obligation to inform Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav without further delay of his rights and to provide Indian consular officers access to him in accordance with Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Finds that the appropriate reparation in this case consists in the obligation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to provide, by the means of its own choosing, effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, so as to ensure that full weight is given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Convention, taking account of paragraphs 139, 145 and 146 of this Judgment. Declares that a continued stay of execution constitutes an indispensable condition for the effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav.”

In 2020, Appeal relating to the jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) Sir Crawford favored “Rejects the appeal brought by the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on 4 July 2018 from the Decision of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization, dated 29 June 2018. Holds that the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization has jurisdiction to entertain the application submitted to it by the Government of the State of Qatar on 30 October 2017 and that the said application is admissible.”

Again in 2020, the Arbitral award of 3rd October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) Sir Crawford supported “Finds that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by the Co-operative Republic of Guyana on 29 March 2018 in so far as it concerns the validity of the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 and the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Finds that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana arising from events that occurred after the signature of the Geneva Agreement”.

In 3rd February 2021, ICJ passed its judgement on Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) where Sir Crawford favored “Rejects the preliminary objection to its jurisdiction raised by the United States of America according to which the subject-matter of the dispute does not relate to the interpretation or application of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955. Rejects the preliminary objection to its jurisdiction raised by the United States of America relating to the measures concerning trade or transactions between the Islamic Republic of Iran (or Iranian nationals and companies) and third countries (or their nationals and companies). Rejects the preliminary objection to the admissibility of the Application raised by the United States of America. Rejects the preliminary objection raised by the United States of America on the basis of Article XX, paragraph 1 (b), of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955. Rejects the preliminary objection raised by the United States of America on the basis of Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955. Finds, consequently, that it has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955, to entertain the Application filed by the Islamic Republic of Iran on 16 July 2018, and that the said Application is admissible.”

On 4th February 2021, Crawford favored the judgement of ICJ in Application of International Convention on Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) “In light of the above, the Court concludes that the first preliminary objection raised by the UAE must be upheld. Having found that it does not have jurisdiction ratione materiae in the present case under Article 22 of the Convention, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the second preliminary objection raised by the UAE. In accordance with its jurisprudence, when its jurisdiction is challenged on diverse grounds, the Court is “free to base its decision on the ground which in its judgment is more direct and conclusive”.

Going just through the arguments and pies of findings will not provide you the full knowledge as to how Sir Crawford’s judgements in ICJ contribute to mitigate the dynamic developments at the global parlance. For the same you need to go through full judgement.

My writeup is just a platform to commemorate this great jurist, noble attorney and a most just and prudent judge. The life of Sir Crawford is the best example for law students, lawyers, judges, jurists and professors to learn how to balance and excel in multiple areas of the same fraternity in the limited span of time.

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Legally Speaking

Analysing Article 21, humans rights and individual freedom

Published

on

“Death must be beautiful. To lie on soft brown earth, with grasses waving above one’s head, and listen to the silence. To have no yesterday, no tomorrow. To forget life, to forgive life, to be departed.”

– Oscar Wilde

INTRODUCTION

The grimace compounding the affliction implicating faith & culture economizing on the despair from the clutches stands out to be a serene sojourn. The complacency in setting to work the health crisis nonetheless politics has doomed the fraternity squandering the attainment. People & their rights must be magnanimous at front & centre. Dignity in casualty is recognized around the world. The cremation of the dead bodies in Covid-19 is not an easy tribulation. The Hygiene Protocols ambling wrapping dead bodies to discerning handing over the bodies to the families increase the efficacy of transmitting body fluids. According to the World Health Organisation plebeians intimidated of their emancipations incarcerated are prone to getting tremendous exposure. The scale of devastation brought on by the second wave of Covid continues to snuff out lives, upend healthcare systems & dwindle the economy broke out with negligence, callousness evincing response as people reckoning with the grief of catastrophe that’s still unfolding.

Emotions Coexist as they aren’t linear or unitary bringing about guilt unobtrusive on some days & overbearing on others. Losing a beloved one is one of the extensively gruelling situations even under the best of episodes. Every congregation brings into the world its sermon to soothe the concussion, Hindus gathering to burn carcasses along the Ganges River to the Jewish folklore of amassing solace at shack during a seven-day mourning stint, Islamic legislation, as in many kith & kin surmises, the management of uneventful is the theme of distinct policies that strive at pledging the elegance and deference of the dead as well as for their living comrade. The disposition and swivel scale of the prevailing pandemic, however, has concocted miscellaneous qualms, asceticism, and straight rumours in Muslim-majority states as well as for Muslim communities around the realm. Oftentimes bar and the legal sorority have beefed up the liberties which are equated to dead soul from stature of the dead person to decent interment. Anticipating the incessant phenomenal pestilence “COVID 19”, the situation has become very catastrophic, and the conundrum of this dilemma makes it a more chaotic one. The horrendous and ungrammatical crisis of sufferers and dead bodies provoke the compunction of the very validity of rights that are functional to dead persons in the glimmer of the status quo.

STANDPOINT: HUMAN RIGHTS & FEDERAL LAW

Human dignity reinforces the right to life in portion the state has an optimistic obligation to insulate & respect life. The Rights are extensive, interdependent & mutually supplementary.

Humanitarian organisations especially the Red Cross (ICRC) evolved a compatriot & drudged knack in disaster supervision and tragedy riposte, catastrophe vindication, and humanitarian forensics. This experience is amassed from quite 150 years of operating in conflict zones and from an operative composure in additional 90 countries, mounting the ICRC to fetch effective recommendation and attend to state authorities & (NSAGs) in the retort to the getaway. UDHR ascribes kinsfolk subsist to be put up with autonomous and equal in dignity and rights” (Article1). These rights are “inalienable” to every person. The Human Rights Convention are for infractions of the treaties outlined in the testimony, while the assertions can be bought in by any victim of the violation a defunct person cannot do the same. The resolution 2005 on human rights & forensic science played up the primacy of distinguished human remains antidote, acclimating adequate composure & discarding similarly as of reverence for the clans’ desire. Geneva Convention 1949 certifies everyone to the dispute forthwith foster the deeds seized to patrol the annihilated – counteracting ill-treatment.” Even in modern days, international humanitarian legislation puts up to corroborate that even during the crossroads of war and conflict; the dead bodies of the combatants are not disdained out of vengeance and enmity. International Human Rights Law recognizes discretion on rights neither arbitrary nor discretionary based on scientific testimony. The convention I of Geneva (Article 17), Convention III of (Article 120), Convention IV (Article 130), Article 8 Additional Protocol II, Cairo Declaration Article 3 on Human Rights & other relevant legitimate instruments, furnish for the honourable entombment of the combatants and prisoners of war. The veneer of the lifeless person ought to be cherished even during the times of crusade & discord, there could be no justification to divest an individual who withers in the eternity of peace of the identical right of a respected burial and funeral rites, which the person would have otherwise been entitled to, if not for the pandemic.

According to Cal Health “Cremation” ensues in three strides the constriction of the core of a bygone human to its indispensable components via immolation, transferring or the body during incineration to elicit the system, processing of the remains after exile from the funeral courtyard. “In a country statute which stymies the establishment or upkeep in any one township of surplus than one crematory for the cremation of mortal cadavers cannot be bolstered as a police measure as against a cemetery association located near another crematory and in close proximity to several cemeteries and in a neighbourhood where there are, but irregular dwelling-houses and no buildings devoted to any business except that of burying the dead.”

PLUGGING GAPS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY: DIGNITY IN DEATH

The pestilence hasn’t only exemplified spirit, security and financial crisis, yet a crisis of conviction in the decisive crusade of humans. The Right to Life being an inclusive concept, affirms no soul shall be pillaged of life or liberation or property befitting mulled over the spectrum of Article 21 by insinuating the medication of cadavers in the additional terms – “The perspective of repudiation whacked by Article 21, whether such deprivation is permanent or temporary.” Life sans status is an icky debacle & verve that congregates cessation with dignity is a virtue to be yearned for and a juncture for celebration”.

Article 21, the kick pin of all other rights renders no soul ought to be knocked off of life or liberty by dint of the ‘procedure’ recounted in Article 21 has been skimmed into the ‘due procedure’ by the Supreme Court and implied treatment must be fair, just & reasonable. Over the epoch, the Supreme Court has deciphered Article 14 & 21 to entail myriad privileges within its ruffle.

The Apex Court adduced quoting that illustrated “life” in additional words: “Something more than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its forfeiture amplifies to all those limbs and faculties by which existence is relished. The overhead equally hampers the mutilation of the body by the amputation of an arm or leg, or the putting out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul articulates with the outer world” congruently conserving the term ‘life’ meant the freedom to dwell with grace & the analogous embargoing stalled drudgery. The Article flexures “some of the finer graces of benevolent refinement, which propels life worth living” & an intensified notion of cinch may credit “society” of the apprehensive person. Eventually, dignity isn’t the sole sleuth to a living man but after his demise was put as deposition by the Supreme Court has been overstepped in Satyama Dubey v. U.O.I.

Further, the court ratified the diverse undertakings stripped away by the Police and the local body for procuring an adequate crypt to an abandoned dead person, according to the pious morality to which he belonged. The petition was disposed of based on affidavits. The hegemonies, & culture, the indistinguishable compassion with which a living being is anticipated to be cared for, should also be magnified the ones who are dead”. Praxis and heredity stances are innate to the ultimate ceremony of an individual’s vivacity. The decent interring is sketched in Article 25 that waives for leeway of conscience & autonomous profession, practice and propagation of faith subject to civil declaration, righteousness & vigour in Part III of the Constitution. Regime edicts overriding canonical practices for lifeless torsi should in no way be deemed discriminatory but must be a commensurate standard to impede disorders and casualties on the pretext of the virus, while simultaneously assuring public protection and economic wellbeing of India.

Please read concluding on thedailyguardian.com

It is vital to think back that is ephemeral and is the modus Vivendi to steering the ragged waters of rash, individually but concurrently.

EPILOGUE

The contemporary catastrophe dissembles as a spur transgressing the rights of a lifeless person despite on fleek backing of the legal bracket. The Conclusions sound prettier than the present is as the crisis is deep & has led to reports of untold human grief. Death has taken its toll as the health system crumbles the lives could be saved however policy stiffness cropping up blazing pyres shaping the vicinity between the living & the dead. A two-pronged strategy effectuating even-handed botch vaccine allotment must be carried out & tapering off SARS COV 2 transmission whilst the vaccine is rolled out.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Modern technology and challenges over privacy: An analysis

Published

on

INTRODUCTION

Privacy has always been concerned in this technical era. On one hand, where it has been simplified our life, on the other hand, it has always been questioned over Privacy. Once again the privacy concern has become a burning and sensational topic which is being discussed around the globe. Recently, an investigation by international media has revealed that more than 50,000 phone numbers across the globe have been targeted for hacking through the spyware called ‘Pegasus’, which has been developed by the Israeli firm NSO Group. Furthermore, Over 300 Verified phone numbers used by ministers, opposition leaders, journalists, the legal community, businessmen, government officials, scientists, rights activists, and others, were targeted using this malware. 

It has once again called the regulations for surveillance in India. In India, Communication surveillance takes place primarily under two laws one being the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the other being the Information Technology Act, 2000. On one hand, The Telegraph Act deals with the interception of calls, while on the other hand, the IT Act deals with surveillance of all electronic communication. Although, it is also notable that India still lacks a comprehensive data Protection law to fill the gaps in the existing frameworks for surveillance. 

LAWS REGULATING SURVEILLANCE IN INDIA.

Telegraph Act, 1885 

Section 5 (2) of the Telegraph Act states that “On the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the Central Government or a State Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct that any message or class of messages to or from any person or class of persons, or relating to any particular subject, brought for transmission by or transmitted or received by any telegraph, shall not be transmitted, or shall be intercepted or detained, or shall be disclosed to the Government making the order or an officer thereof mentioned in the order….”

Under this provision, the government has been authorised to intercept calls only in certain situations like when it is in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offense. Moreover, an additional proviso under section 5(2) states that this lawful interception can’t take place against journalists provided that “press messages intended to be published in India of correspondents accredited to the Central Government or a State Government shall not be intercepted or detained, unless their transmission has been prohibited under this sub-section.”

Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing in the case of Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1996), finds the absence of procedural safeguards in the provisions of the Telegraph Act. In the same judgment, the Hon’ble court also laid down certain guidelines for interceptions. The court observed that authorities who are engaged in interception were not even maintaining adequate records and logs on the interception. Furthermore, the court also states that “Tapping is a serious invasion of an individual’s privacy. With the growth of highly sophisticated communication technology, the right to a sold telephone conversation, in the privacy of one’s home or office without interference, is increasingly susceptible to abuse. It is no doubt correct that every Government, howsoever democratic, exercises some degree of Subrosa operation as a part of its intelligence outfit but at the same time citizen’s right to privacy has to be protected from being abused by the authorities of the day”. The guidelines by the Hon’ble Supreme Court formed the basis of introducing Rule 419A in the Telegraph Rules in 2007 and later in the rules prescribed under the IT Act in the year 2009.

IT ACT, 2000

Furthermore, to address electronic surveillance, Section 69 of the Information Technology and Information Technology (Procedure for Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 were enacted. Under the IT Act, all electronic data transmissions are permitted to be intercepted. So, in terms of the Pegasus spyware, it may be legal. Both the IT Act and the Telegraph Act would have to be invoked by the government. Furthermore, in addition to the restrictions imposed by Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act and Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, Section 69 of the IT Act adds another dimension that broadens it — interception, monitoring, and decryption of digital information “for the investigation of an offence.”

Significantly, it does away with the condition precedent established by the Telegraph Act, which requires “the occurrence of a public emergency in the interest of public safety,” broadening the scope of powers under the law.

IMPACT OF SURVEILLANCE

There are plethoras of examples in this world where personal data are misused for many different reasons. Many people and organizations are under surveillance which is vocal and takes active participation against the criticism of the ruling political party. These things make us understand the impact of surveillance on our freedom of privacy, freedom of speech, and expression and curtail our fundamental rights. Surveillance poses threat to press freedom. The World press freedom index published by Reporters without borders ranked India 142 Out of 180 countries in the year 2021. The press needs greater liberty on privacy and speech because these two enable good reporting. They secure journalists against the threat of government reprisal against honest reporting. 

A report on Privacy rights and protection was published by Forrestor, an American company in the year 2019, In India, the laws which allow the government to conduct surveillance over its citizens are very clearly undermining the laws related to the data privacy to its citizens. In the case K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme court of India held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right that comes under the domain of articles 14, 19, and 21 of the constitution but there is a lack of data protection law in India. In absence of this kind of law, it becomes just an executive order which allows the agencies to encroach on the privacy of their citizens. Also, it is very important to note that people who are under surveillance are unaware of the fact that agencies are monitoring them. In the absence of privacy laws, the security of journalists whose work criticizes the government and their safety is jeopardized. In the case of Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Apex court held that the right to privacy is not an absolute right, it is also subject to restrictions as with other fundamental rights. It was asserted that the right to privacy is not absolute and must bow down to compelling public interest. We still need a number of judicial pronouncements to determine how the right to privacy operates in a practical scenario. Since there is a lack of Judicial pronouncement, the court relies on the German principle “test of proportionality”. This test is used by different countries for the determination of conflicting rights. The Hon’ble supreme court has applied this principle in various cases such as Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, state of Madras V. V.G. Row, etc to balance between the rights and limitations. In this principle, there are four stages to determine the balance of rights and limitations. The legitimate goal stage, suitability, necessity stage, and balancing stage that help us to strike balance between the two. But this is only effective when a particular case comes under the cognizance of court. 

The Surveillance uproar the spread of Authoritarianism in the government system because the executive uses excessive power on the citizens and impacts personal lives. When it is carried out entirely by the executive curtails article 32 and article 226 of the constitution as it happens in secret and thus affected person is unable to show their breach of rights. This not only violates the ideals of due process of law but it is also against the requirement of procedural safeguards as held in the case of K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India. 

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 

To implement the ideals of due process of law and to satisfy the requirements of procedural safety and natural justice, there needs to be judicial observation. The judiciary is the competent body to determine whether specific instances of Surveillance are proportionate or not to balance the government’s objective and the rights of the individuals. The judicial investigation into the Pegasus hacking is important because the leaked database of targeted numbers includes the phone number of a sitting Supreme court Judges, which again raises the question of the Independence of the judiciary in India. 

In India surveillance reform is the need of the hour, the existing protections are weak and the proposed legislation related to personal data fails to consider surveillance of the citizens. We need greater transparency in our system, governmental agencies are only accountable to the government itself. For the protection of National security, the government is bound to do smaller infringements of Fundamental rights and surveillance reform should incorporate ethics of surveillance which includes the moral values of how surveillance regulates. The government of India is in process of enacting a law for the purpose of protecting of personal data of the citizens. There is an urgent need to include privacy as a fundamental right and to provide a defining mechanism to strengthen the rights of the citizens and to provide a remedy in case of violation. 

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Cinematograph Amendment Bill 2021: An analysis

Published

on

Cinematograph Act 1952 establishes Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), commonly known as the Censor Board. The Board is responsible for issuing certificates to films and has the power to deny their certificate (Section 5A). Section 6(1) of the Act empowered the Central Government to re-examine and cancel the certificate issued by CBFC. Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Shankarappa diluted the provisions of Section 6. The court held that the provisions of Section 6 are restrictive of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The new Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021 attempts to dilute the judgment of the Supreme Court and aims to get back its revisionary powers. This will provide extraordinary powers to the Central Government by creating one more level of Censorship. This year Central Government passed an ordinance, the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 which abolished the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT). The proposed bill also aims to convert this ordinance into regular law by placing it in legislation. FCAT was solemnly established to resolve the issues related to the certification of Films. With its abolishment, the filmmakers have to approach High Court in case the Censors Board denies providing certification or provides with some ratification. This will also increase the burden of High Courts. Ultimately, this leading to a delay in a Film release.

Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution says, “All Citizens shall have Right to freedom of Speech and Expression.” Article 19(2) of the Constitution empowers the State to restrict Freedom of Speech and Expression provided that the restrictions are legitimate. Supreme Court in K.M. Shankarappa v. Union of India held, “words contained in the main portion of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act and in the first proviso thereto are opposed to the basic structures of the Constitution and as such the words “or has been decided by” and “or as the case may be decided by the Tribunal” contained in the main portion of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 and the words “or to whom a certificate has been granted as the case may be” as contained in the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act, are unconstitutional as the same are violative of the basic structures of the Constitution.”Supreme Court in many of its Judgments has discussed the importance of Movies as a medium of Freedom of Speech and Expression. Supreme Court in the Rangarajan case regarded Movies as an effective medium to raise any general concern.The proposed amendment is an attempt to overutilize the powers provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

If the bill becomes an act then it will nullify the Supreme Court Judgment. The autonomy of the Censor Board will be deduced. The Central Government will have the power to strike down any certificate issued by CBFC. This also induces the concept of dual Censorship, limiting the Freedom of Speech and Expression. Justice Mudholkar in Sakal v. Union of India rightly said, “The freedom of speech and expression of opinion is of paramount importance under a democratic Constitution which envisages changes in the composition of legislatures and governments and must be preserved.” The abolishment of FCAT will further increase the backlog of High Courts and will lead to an unnecessary delay in the release of Films.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Andhra Pradesh High Court issues guidelines for prompt transmission of bail orders

Published

on

Andhra Pradesh High Court

While granting bail to an accused under The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a cogent, composed, commendable and convincing judgment in Criminal Petition No. 3933 of 2021 delivered on July 22, 2021 has taken a very serious note of the significant delay in issuing the certified copies of the orders. A Single Judge Bench comprising of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti of Andhra Pradesh High Court minced just no words to make it pretty clear that, “Disposal of bail application without furnishing the order copy within a reasonable time will not place the accused in a better position.” Justice Lalitha also observed that despite the conscious recognition of several pending cases, it is difficult to issue the order copies within a short period due to staff shortage. She has rightly diagnosed the root problem which must be addressed now without any further delay!

Needless to say, we all saw how just recently the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana too did not lag behind in a notable case titled IN RE: DELAY IN RELEASE OF CONVICTS AFTER GRANT OF BAIL in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4/2021 while taking took serious note of this major shortcoming or lacuna. CJI led Bench of Apex Court comprising also of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice AS Bopanna had expressed the Court’s willingness to evolve a system to electronically transmit bail orders directly to prisons so that prison authorities will not delay the release of prisoners awaiting a certified copy of the order. Accordingly, a scheme called “FASTER” which implies “Fast and Secure Transmission of Electronic Record” is being considered which will be used to communicate all orders to concerned jail authorities without waiting. This will certainly benefit the under-trial prisoners/accused and so has to be lauded in no uncertain terms!

To start with, the ball is set rolling in para 1 of this latest, learned, laudable and landmark judgment authored by a Single Judge Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti wherein it is put forth that, “This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking regular bail to the petitioner/ A-2 in connection with Crime No.38 of 2020 of Mothugudem Police Station, East Godavari District for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w Section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity “NDPS Act”).”

While elaborating on the prosecution version, the Bench then lays bare in para 2 that, “The case of prosecution is that on 03.09.2020 on credible information about illegal transportation of ganja, the respondent Police rushed to Daralamma Temple, outskirts of Polluru village of Chinturu Mandal and while conducting vehicle check at about 11.00 AM, they found a Bolero pick-up van bearing registration No.AP 24 TB 1550 coming from Donkarai proceeding towards Lakkavaram Junction. On seeing the police, the inmates of the said Bolero van tried to escape from the spot, but the police apprehended them and on search, they found 300 KGs of ganja. The police seized the contraband, registered the crime, arrested the petitioner and remanded him to judicial custody on the same day.”

As we see, the Bench then mentions in para 3 that, “Heard Sri G.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.”

While on the one hand, the Bench enunciates in para 4 that, “Learned counsel for the petitioner/A-2 submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and in fact, the petitioner was engaged by A-1 on payment of Rs.15,000/- who accompanied him. Further the officer who acted as a gazetted officer while conducting the search and seizure is a veterinary doctor and the said doctor is not a competent person to act as a gazetted officer under Sections 42, 43 and 50 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the entire investigation is completed and the petitioner is languishing in jail from 03.09.2020.”

As against what is stated above, the Bench then points out in para 5 that, “On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that on 13.10.2020 charge sheet was filed.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench then while taking a holistic view holds in para 6 that, “Taking into consideration the fact that the entire investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and further the petitioner is languishing in jail from 03.09.2020, this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. However, on certain conditions.”

Adding more to it, the Bench then further holds in para 7 that, “Accordingly, the petitioner/ A-2 shall be enlarged on bail on execution of self bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rampachodavaram. On such release, the petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Mothugudem Police Station, East Godavari District, once in a month till completion of trial.”

Be it noted, the Bench then envisages in para 8 that, “This Court having criminal roster from the last couple of months has noticed that in spite of best efforts by the Registry, there is significant delay in issuing the certified copies of the orders. This Court is conscious of the large number of cases pending before the Court, due to dearth of staff, it is difficult to issue the order copies within a short span of time. In cases, where the accused are entitled for statutory bail as they are languishing in jail for more than 60, 90 and 180 days, when default bail is granted, it was brought to the notice of the Court that there was considerable delay in dispatching the copy of orders. Hence, this Court feels that an alternative mechanism shall be evolved to address the plight of these undertrial prisoners/accused. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also taken a serious note of this issue.”

More significantly, the Bench then underscores in para 9 that, “Protection of personal liberty of an individual is undeniably a constitutional duty of this Court. Our criminal justice system always gives paramount consideration to the protection of the rights of the accused. Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that the personal liberty of an accused can be curtailed only after strict compliance with the procedure established by law. Sections 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C. ensures that the accused is not deprived of his personal liberty arbitrarily. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of cases has held that speedy adjudication process is one of the main facets that constitute the essence of access to justice and without it, access to justice as a constitutional value will be a mere illusion. Denial of this right undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system. It is also settled law that the right of an accused to have his bail application heard by the Court within a reasonable time has been entrenched as a constitutional liberty. At the same time, disposal of bail application without furnishing the order copy within a reasonable time will not place the accused in a better position. Mere emphasizing that an accused has an indefeasible fundamental right to bail itself is not sufficient without furnishing the copy of the order.”

Most significantly, what forms the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then elaborated upon in para 10 wherein it is held that, “This is high time the Courts shall address these issues with a progressive approach by adopting the innovative methods. Recently Andhra Pradesh High Court implemented a procedure whereby the concerned Court Masters are uploading the daily proceedings / orders / judgments on the same day. This Court deems it appropriate to issue the following guidelines.

(a) Parties/Advocates shall download the order copy from the High Court’s Website along with case details which are available in the case status information.

(b) While filing the memo on behalf of accused for furnishing sureties, the Advocate shall State in the memo that he/she has downloaded the order copy from the High Court’s Website. The concerned Administrative Officer / Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court shall verify the order from the High Court’s Website and make an endorsement to that effect and then shall place the same before the Court.

(c) The Public Prosecutor shall also obtain necessary instructions in this regard and assist the Court.

(d) The Presiding Officer on the same day shall dispose of the same and dispatch the release order to the concerned jail authorities forthwith through email or any other electronic mode.

(e) In cases of anticipatory bail, the burden to verify the authenticity of the copy is on the concerned Station House Officer and if necessary, he should obtain necessary instructions from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and complete the process on the same day expeditiously as per law.

(f) Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate copy of this order to (1) The Principal Secretary for Home Affairs, Andhra Pradesh; (2) The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh; (3) The Director of Prosecution, who in turn shall sensitize the Police Officers / Station House Officers / Public Prosecutors and ensure implementation of this order.

(g) Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate copy of this order to all the Principal District Judges in the State, who in turn shall sensitize all the Presiding Officers and ensure implementation of this order.

(h) Registrar (Judicial) is further directed to circulate the copy of this order to all the Bar Associations in the State through the Principal District Judges, so that they can effectively address their clients’ cause.

(i) Registrar (Judicial) shall also issue a separate notification in this regard and the same shall be displayed in the High Court’s Website.”

It is worth noting that the Bench then makes it clear in para 11 that, “This order shall come into force from 26.07.2021.”

Furthermore, the Bench then also directs in para 12 that, “The Judicial Officers in the State shall bring to the notice of the Registrar (Judicial), the issues / hitches, if any, in implementing the directions of this Court. In case of anticipatory bails, the Police Officials shall bring to the notice of the Public Prosecutor, High Court about their difficulties in implementing the orders of this Court and the Registrar (Judicial) and learned Public Prosecutor shall place the same before this Court by the next date of hearing i.e. 31.08.2021.”

For the sake of clarity, the Bench then sought to make it clear in para 13 that, “These directions will be in force until further orders or suitable Rules are framed in this regard.

Please read concluding on thedailyguardian.com

It is needless to mention, if any clarification or modification is required for effective implementation, they will be examined accordingly on the next date of hearing.”

While adding a word of advice, the Bench then stipulates in para 14 that, “In spite of all odds, determined efforts are required for achieving the goal. Ways and means have to be found out by constant thinking and monitoring. It is the responsibility of all the stakeholders to uphold the public confidence in the justice delivery system by giving timely justice which includes furnishing the copies of orders/judgments.”

Finally, the Bench then holds in para 15 that, “Post on 31.08.2021.”

In summary, para 10 which forms the bedrock of this noteworthy judgment dwells on the guidelines that the Andhra Pradesh High Court have issued to implement a procedure whereby the concerned Court Masters are uploading the daily proceedings / orders / judgments on the same day. This is necessary also so that the undertrial prisoners/accused don’t keep languishing in jails even after they have been granted bail as we keep seeing also due to lack of implementation of such procedures as the Andhra Pradesh High Court has elaborated upon in this case. Even Supreme Court three Judge Bench led by CJI NV Ramana has expressed its concern on prisoners languishing in jail even after they have been given bail and so this need to be implemented at the earliest!

It brooks no more delay anymore! This is exactly the crux of this notable judgment also by a Single Judge Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti. Copies of orders/judgments also must be furnished in time so that the faith of the people in the justice delivery system does not crumble!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Advocates have right to practice before maintenance tribunals: Delhi High Court

Published

on

plea in Delhi High Court seeking repatriation of 56 pregnant nurses

In a major relief for lawyers all across the country, the Delhi High Court has just recently on April 16, 2021 in a courageous, cogent, convincing, commendable and composed judgment titled Tarun Saxena vs Union of India & Ors in W.P.(C) 4725/2021 & CM APPLs. 14574-75/2021 has declared as ultra vires Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which bars lawyers from representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals. It must be apprised here that this commendable judgment is in line with the judgment that was notably delivered by a

Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in March 2021 stating clearly

that the provision is ultra vires of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

In hindsight, it may be recalled that in a groundbreaking judgment which is also a grand victory for advocates,

the Kerala High Court had just recently on March 30, 2021 in a latest, learned, laudable and landmark judgment titled Adv KG Suresh vs The Union of India and 3 others in WP(C)No. 21946 of 2011(S) has declared as unconstitutional the bar on lawyers representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals constituted under the Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Maintenance Act). It

also rightly held that, “Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is declared as ultra vires of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.” A two Judge Bench of Kerala High Court comprising of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly pronounced this pathbreaking judgment thereby allowing a writ petition filed in 2011. This latest, learned, laudable and landmark judgment by the Delhi High Court further endorses this notable judgment of the Kerala High Court. While relying considerably on the aforesaid superb decision of the Kerala High Court, Justice Pratibha M Singh too while endorsing it lock, stock and barrel observed most convincingly that, “Since Section 17 has been declared ultra vires Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, it would obviously mean that an advocate would have the right to represent parties before the Tribunal under the Act. Ordered accordingly.”

To start with, a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Pratibha M Singh who has authored this oral judgment and the hearing has been done through video conferencing as pointed in para 1, then while stating the purpose of the petition puts forth in para 2 that, “The present petition has been filed challenging order dated 26th March, 2021 passed by the ADM, Karkardooma Courts under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter, ‘Act’).”

While dwelling on the grievance of the petitioner, the Bench then observes in para 3 that, “The grievance of the Petitioner in this case is two-fold:- (i) that advocates are not being permitted to appear before the Tribunal; and (ii) that evidence is not being permitted to be led before the Tribunal.”

As we see, the Bench then brings out in para 4 that, “Insofar as the first issue is concerned, ld.

Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Adv. K.G. Suresh v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 21946/2011, decided on 30th March, 2021]. He submits that Section 17 of the Act has been declared to be ultra vires Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.”

Furthermore, the Bench then observes in para 5 that, “Insofar as the second issue is concerned, the submission of ld.

Counsel for the Petitioner is that under Section 8(3) of the Act, the Tribunal has to permit the leading of evidence in support of the parties’ case and a direction in this regard may be passed.”

On the other hand, the Bench then points out in para 6 that, “Mr. Singh, ld. Counsel appearing for the Union of India, submits that under Section 8, the Tribunal follows summary procedure. Discretion is left to the Tribunal to follow the procedure in accordance with law considering the facts and circumstances of each case.”

Going ahead, the Bench then discloses in para 7 that, “Mr. Shukla, ld. Counsel points out that the order under challenge, i.e., order dated 26th March, 2021, wherein the ADM has merely directed the filing of the applications by the parties, was listed today at 02:00 pm.”

Quite aptly, the Bench then enunciates in para 8 that, “Firstly, this Court has perused the judgment of the Kerala High Court. The operative portion of the said

judgment reads as under:-

“57. As Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 has been brought into force from 15.06.2011, Advocates enrolled under the said Act have been conferred with an absolute right thereof, to practice before all the Courts and Tribunals. By virtue of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, coming into force, from 15.06.2011, the restriction imposed is taken away and in such circumstances, Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the freedom to practice any profession, enables the Advocates to appear before all the Courts and the Tribunals, subject to Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

In the light of the above discussion and decisions, Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is declared as ultra vires of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and thus, the petitioner is entitled for a declaration that he has a right to represent the parties before the

Tribunal/ Appellate Tribunal/Court, constituted under Act 56 of 2007.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.””

As a corollary, the Bench then envisages in para 9 that,

“In view of the above, since Section 17 has been declared ultra vires Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, it would obviously mean that an advocate would have the right to represent parties before the Tribunal under the Act. Ordered accordingly.”

Be it noted, the Bench then enunciates in para 10 that, “Insofar as the second issue is concerned, Section 8 of the Act reads as under:-

“8. Summary procedure in case of inquiry

1. In holding any inquiry under section 5, the Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it deems fit.

2. The Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. Subject to any rule that may be made in this behalf, the Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating and deciding upon any claim for maintenance, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the

inquiry.”” Of course, the Bench then hastens to add in para 11 that, “A perusal of the above provision shows that firstly, the procedure contemplated under Section 8 is a summary procedure. Secondly, it is an ‘Inquiry’ and not an adjudication which is usually done by the Courts. An ‘Inquiry’ is to be held under Section 5 to determine the amount payable.”

It is worth noting that the Bench then mandates in para 12 that, “Under The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules (Amendment) Rules, 2016, the steps to be taken as part of the Inquiry, include:

• Verification of the title of the property and the facts of the case as stated in the application by the concerned SDM, within 15 days from the receipt of the application.

• Submission of the report by the SDM to the Deputy Commissioner/DM for final orders, within 21 days from the receipt of the application/complaint.

• If, on receipt of the report, the Deputy Commissioner/DM is of the opinion that any child/legal heir of a senior citizen/parents is not maintaining the senior citizen/parents or is ill-treating him/her while continuing to occupy the premises of the senior citizen, show cause notice is to be issued by the DM as to why the child/legal heir should not be evicted.

• In the show cause notice, the ground on which eviction is proposed to be made should be specified so that the child/legal heir can respond appropriately.

• The show cause notice would call upon all persons who are either occupying the premises or claim interest in the premises, to provide reasons as to why they should not be evicted. Such a show cause would give at least 10 days’ time to the recipient of the notice to respond.

• As per Rule 22 (3)(2), the Deputy Commissioner/DM would consider the case put up by the noticees, including any evidence which may be produced, and after giving a hearing, pass a reasoned order on eviction.

Please read concluding on thedailyguardian.com

• Insofar as the nature of evidence is concerned, the Act or The Delhi

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules

(Amendment) Rules, 2016, do not specify as to whether the evidence

should be oral/documentary.

The statutory scheme, as set out above, itself shows that the process

is time sensitive and is summary in nature.”

To put things in perspective, the

Bench then while citing the relevant case law observes in para 13

that, “The constitutional validity of Rule 22(3) and 22(4) of The

Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules

(Amendment) Rules, 2016, has been upheld by a Division Bench of this

Court in Aarshya Gulati (Through: next friend Mrs. Divya Gulati) &

Ors. v. GNCTD & Ors. [W.P.(C) 347/1028, decided on 30th May, 2019],

wherein the Court has observed as under:

“60. Now the question is whether the State Government could have

formulated a summary procedure for eviction. We must bear in mind the

objective for which the Parliament has enacted the Act, that is

because of withering of the joint family system, a large number of

elderly are not being looked after by their family. Consequently, many

older persons, particularly widowed women are forced to spend their

twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to

lack of physical and financial support which clearly reveals that

ageing has become a major social challenge and there is a need to give

more attention to the care and protection of the older persons. Though

the parents can claim maintenance under the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, the procedure is both time consuming as well as

expensive. Hence, a need was felt to have simple, inexpensive and

speedy mechanism for parents / senior citizens to claim maintenance.

The Act also provide for protection of the life and property of the

senior citizens / parents. The “protection of property” must be

understood to mean where a senior citizen retains the property in his

name and possession for his welfare and well being.

61. So, the objective of the Act being, to provide inexpensive and

speedy procedure for the protection of life and property of the senior

citizens from the children / legal heirs, who are expected to maintain

parents / senior citizens by providing the basic amenities and

physical needs but refuse or fail to maintain / provide basic

amenities which conduct shall amount to ill-treatment and

non-maintenance and shall be a ground for parents / senior citizens to

seek eviction of children / legal heir from the property, which is the

only way for them to seek protection of their property so that, they

continue to have shelter over their head, and sustain themselves

independently without interference from their children / legal heirs.

Further, a senior citizen cannot knock the door of civil Court to

fight a legal battle to obtain the possession of the property as the

jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 27 of the Act.

In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana

High Court in the case of Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan, Chief Justice

(Retd.) and Anr. (supra) wherein in para 37 it is held as under:

63. So, it must be held that the Act empowers the State Government to

formulate summary procedure for eviction of children / legal heir of

senior citizens, in the eventuality of ill-treatment or

non-maintenance of Sr. Citizen / Parents.

66. In the case in hand, it is seen that the Parliament has expressed

itself through the Act, the objective of which has already been

narrated above. It is seen from the objective of the Act and from

Section 22 whereby the State Government has been empowered to

prescribe “a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of

life and property of Senior Citizens”. This being so, the protection

of life and property basically pertains to law and order, which is a

State subject. Therefore, the obligation to prepare Action Plan has

been put on the State Government. So, it follows that a policy has

been determined by the Parliament for the protection of life and

property of the Senior Citizen by the District Magistrate on the basis

of Action Plan / Rules framed by the State Government. The action plan

to be prescribed is the one, which is speedy and to be implemented by

the District Magistrate, that is by an authority other than Civil

Court, as the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred. So, the

confirmation of such a power, even on an administrative authority, is

justified. While exercising the powers bestowed under the Act / action

plan / rules, the District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner ceases to

be an administrative authority as understood in normal parlance (even

though there is no bar). He performs quasi-judicial functions as

different from administrative functions. Further, the rules framed by

the Government of NCT of Delhi, indicate the parameters on which the

District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner shall act, which includes,

on an application by Senior Citizen / Parent(s) for eviction of his /

her son, daughter or legal heir from his / her property (as defined

under Section 2(f) of the Act of 2007), the District Magistrate, after

getting the title of the property verified through SDM, and on

consideration of the provisions of the Act of 2007, and forming an

opinion that the son, daughter or legal heir are ill treating him /

her by occupying their property, after following the principles of

natural justice, by giving hearing to all persons concerned, pass an

order of eviction.”

Thus, the remedy provided under the Act and the Rules is a ‘simple’,

‘inexpensive’ and ‘speedy’ remedy. The provisions have to be thus

interpreted in this context.””

Quite remarkably, the Bench then

holds in para 14 that, “In the present case, vide impugned order dated

26th March, 2021, the Tribunal has directed as under:

“Case called applicant presented HC order which says an councillor or

relative can represent applicant’s case in maintenance Tribunal, 10

minutes was given to applicant to submit application in writing.

Applicant gave an application stating that Mr. Sanjeev

Kumar is my choice to represent him in Maintenance Tribunal case.

Tribunal allowed applicant’s choice Mr. Sanjeev Kumar

to represent the case. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar was allowed to submit his

application in writing within 10 days, whatever applicant wants to

record as evidence. Respondent No.1 Mrs. Vinita Saxena wanted she had

already submitted an application. She was advised to submit her

submission to tribunal once again.

Respondent Ms. Taruna Saxena submitted that she

was not allowed to enter the house to haste after her father

applicant.

All applicant and respondent were advised to submit

application to Tribunal before 6th April, 2021. The next hearing of

case would be heard on 16th April, 2021, 1400 hrs.”

From the above, it is clear that the Tribunal has allowed the parties

to submit applications specifying as to what evidence they wish to

lead. The procedure being summary in nature, there is no doubt that

the Tribunal is vested with the power to exercise discretion upon the

facts and circumstances of each case. In a particular case, if the

Tribunal is of the opinion that the attendance of the witnesses and

proving of documents is required, it has the power under Section 8(2)

of the Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on record and

enforcing attendance of witnesses. This, however, would not mean that

in every case, the Tribunal would have to record oral evidence or take

on record documentary evidence. The nature of the proceedings itself

being summary, the discretion vests with the Tribunal to adopt the

procedure as may be suitable to the facts and circumstances of each

case. Moreover, even if lawyers are allowed to represent the

litigants, the summary procedure cannot be permitted to be converted

into a long-drawn trial and adjudication, so as to defeat the very

purpose of the legislation itself.”

To be sure, the Bench then points out

in para 15 that, “In the present case, the Tribunal has allowed

parties to file their applications in respect of any evidence which

they wish to record. The said applications would thus be considered in

accordance with law, in terms of the provisions of the Maintenance and

Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Rules made

thereunder.”

Finally, the Bench then holds in para 16

that, “With these observations, the present petition, along with all

pending applications, is disposed of.”

In a nutshell, this latest, learned,

laudable and landmark judgment by a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi

High Court comprising of Justice Pratibha M Singh has declared as

ultra vires Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which bars lawyers from representing parties

in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals. In other words, lawyers

are fully entitled to represent parties in matters before the

Maintenance Tribunals. Very rightly so!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Extrajudicial killings and law enforcement: An analysis

Published

on

INTRODUCTION

Another Encounter occurred yet again and the Rule of Law is still in handcuffs. Recently, Vikas Dubey a man who is not just an ordinary gangster but also had deep political connections was allegedly killed in an encounter (extra judicial killing) by the UP police and was deprived from fair trial mandated under Article 14, 21 and 39 of the Constitution of India. This very act of “extra-judicial killing” hampers the fundamental principles of a democratic, secular, and liberal state and is also violative of domestic rights, Indian penal provisions, human rights and humanitarian laws.

Right to life is a most essential fundamental right of any individual, without which no other rights can prevail. Extra judicial killings is a violation of this right and is designated as an act of killing a person by the law enforcer to stop the offender from undergoing the judicial process. This unlawful killing by the state forces is illegal in every aspect even in the cases where the accused was entailed in the most flagrant crime.

REASONS BEHIND THE INCREASING CASES OF EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLINGS

There are a lot of reasons behind the increasing rates of extra-judicial killings in India but some of the main reasons due to which encounters are at a search are discussed below:

1. Public Support: It emerges out of a lack of faith in the judiciary because many people believe that the courts will not provide timely justice. And the fact of getting away with the cold-blooded murders is the key reason behind police getting bolder day by day and has started killing people at their will.

2. Political Support: Many political leaders project encounter numbers as their achievement in maintaining law and order in the society and getting away with these problems.

3. Rewards: The police forces in India are often rewarded and awarded for encounters. Along with this the government also provides promotions and cash incentives to the team involved in such encounters.

4. Ineffective Institutions: The institutions set up for this purpose, such as the National Human Rights Commission and the state human rights commissions have been redundant for many years. The judiciary is being fully empowered to take up such cases in suo-moto power; however, this practice is rarely seen today. .

5. Hero Worshipping: The police have become heroes in the society, as people see them doing the job of cleaning up the Indian society by killing the criminals. They are also projected several times as heroes on the silver screen with big budget films made on them showcasing their “heroic” acts. Amidst the entire hero worshipping, the people, the media and even the judiciary seem to cast aside the fact that the killings are suspect unless they have been properly investigated and the real story is established.

ANALYSIS

Rights of Police authorities:

The police officials possess the right to injure or kill the criminal, for the sole purpose of self-defence or at the time where it is imminently necessary for the maintenance of peace and order in the society and for the safety and security of the people. In India, every human being has a right to private defence which is also a natural and an inherent right of an individual provided to them under Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

However, the Supreme Court in Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India ruled that the right to private defence cannot be used for retaliation but can only be exercised to defend oneself and the distinction has to be drawn between the private defence and the use of excessive force.

Also, the police authorities has the right under Section 46 of Criminal Procedure Code(CrPC) to use force, which can even extend up to the cause of death of a person, or as may be necessary to arrest the person accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Thus, there is no provision prevailing in the country, which directly empowers the lawful authorities to encounter an offender irrespective of the grievousness of the crime committed by the person.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

India was intended to be a country governed by the rule of law according to the design established by the Constitution of India. As per the procedure rule of law, the constitution is the supreme power of the land and the legislative and the executive derive their authority from the constitution. In India, there is a procedure of criminal investigation prescribed by the law which is embedded in the constitution under Article 21, as the right to life and personal liberty. It is fundamental, non-degradable and is available to every person. Even the state does not have the authority to violate the right. Hence, it is the responsibility of the police officials to follow the constitutional principles and uphold the rights of life provided to every individual whether an innocent or a criminal.

SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES

The Supreme Court in the year 2014 in the case of PUCL v. State of Maharashtra dealt with numerous writ petitions questioning the genuineness of 99 encounter killings by the Mumbai Police in which approximately 135 alleged criminals were shot dead between the years 1995-1997. In this case the SC laid down certain guidelines which will act as a standard procedure to be followed for thorough, effective, and independent investigation in the cases of death during the police encounters. Some of the guidelines include the process for recording tip off (intelligence) regarding the criminal activities pertaining to the commission of a grave criminal offence. It also includes the guidelines to inform NHRC or State Human Rights Commission to report the encounter death.

CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD

After analysing the rights of the police, the increasing cases of extra judicial killings in India, and the constitutional duties listed in the Indian Constitution, there are some loopholes in the system that needs to be identifies and corrected. The procedure should be transparent, and the act of encounter killing must be investigated independently as they affect the credibility of the rule of law. There is a need of an hour to ensure that there exists a rule of law in the society that needs to be adhered to by every state authority and the masses collectively. There is a need to ensure proper physical custody of the accused in order to prevent any attack by them on the police personnel. Moreover, there is a dire need for complete overhauling of the criminal justice system and bringing out required police reforms. There should be Standard guidelines that need to be laid down to train the police personnel in a better way and equip them with all relevant skills so that they are in a position to effectively tackle every dreadful situation. The most important thing is the Human rights angles need to be kept in the mind while dealing with arrested individuals/persons.

Continue Reading

Trending