SC to bureaucrats: Don't take oral instructions from netas

The Supreme Court on Thursday drastically reduced political pressure on top bureaucrats by ruling that they must get an assured minimum tenure in posting.

"Fixed tenure of bureaucrats will promote professionalism, efficiency and good governance," the SC bench observed. "Much of the deterioration in the functioning of bureaucracy is due to political interference," the SC said.

The SC also directed the Centre and state governments to pass an order within three months on giving fixed tenure to civil servants.

The apex court also empowered top bureaucrats to record in writing the oral instruction of political bosses on files so as not to be hounded later on for a particular decision.

The SC said that such recording of political instructions by bureaucrats will also help in promoting transparency and will allow general public to access correct information.

The verdict, which is on the line of apex court's earlier order on police reforms for giving fixed tenure to senior police officers in Prakash Singh case, will go a long way in giving freedom and independence to the functioning of bureaucracy.

Sahara cannot be trusted any more: Supreme Court

Holding that it was playing 'hide and seek' and cannot be trusted any more, the Supreme Court today directed the Sahara group to hand over title deeds of its properties worth Rs 20,000 crore to SEBI warning that failure to comply would mean Subrata Roy cannot leave India.

Making it clear that there is no "escape" from depositing the investors' money with the market regulator, the apex court also asked the group to also give valuation reports of the properties to SEBI which will verify worth of assets. 

A bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar, which was about to restrain Roy from leaving the county till documents are handed over, however, said that he will not be allowed to go abroad without its permission if order is not complied in three weeks. 

Rape survivor now mother, seeks DNA test on 6 accused

 After motherhood was forced upon her and her six tormentors were arrested, this minor gang-rape survivor from Jabalpur is gearing for more battles.

Rani Thakur (name changed) wants nothing less than amendments to the law to ensure a secure future for her newborn baby. Her lawyer has faxed a petition to the Union law ministry and the law secretary, demanding "provisions ensuring mandatory DNA test of rapists and grant of maintenance for the child by the biological father under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012 (PCSOA)".

And, unaware of the hurdles and loopholes in law, the 16-year-old single mother is waiting for a miracle.

Prosecution lawyer D K Jain said Rani told him she was taken in by the glib talk of an old acquaintance, Ankit Mudia, during a train journey from Gotegaon town to Jabalpur. Mudia, who was doing his graduation from Jabalpur, persuaded her to accompany him to his house there and search for a job. Once Rani reached Mudia's one-room accommodation in Baldeo Bagh, she discovered five more men lying in wait for her. And her ordeal began.

The six accused allegedly held Rani captive for three months and turned her into a sex slave. During this time, the teenager was not allowed to step out or talk to anyone in the neighbourhood.

The men panicked when they suspected Rani had become pregnant. Mudia took her to a gynaecologist for an abortion, but the doctor refused. The accused then took Rani by train to her father Babloo Thakur's home in Gotegaon and left.

"A police inquiry later revealed the boys, all college students from well-off families, had rented the room only for the shady activity," said Jabalpur superintendent of police Harinarayan Chari Mishra.

The six men were arrested after the rape survivor lodged a complaint at Madan Mahal police station on June 25. Rani was five months pregnant at the time.

"The matter is pending before the special judge, Jabalpur," Mishra said. "The court framed charges against the accused on October 18."

The next hearing has been scheduled for November 12, said Jain, who has pitched for the legal reforms. With four minors raped every day in MP, this is the least one would expect from the Centre, he said.

Medical Negligence -SC

The Supreme Court on Thursday awarded a whopping Rs 5.96 crore as compensation to be paid by Kolkata- based AMRI Hospital and three doctors to a US-based Indian-origin doctor for medical negligence which led to the death of his wife in 1998. 

A bench of justices SJ Mukhopadhaya and V Gopala Gowda asked the hospital and the three doctors to pay the amount within eight weeks to Kunal Saha, an Ohio-based AIDS researcher. 

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in 2011 had awarded Rs 1.73 crore to the doctor whose wife Anuradha Saha died in 1998 following faulty treatment administered at the hospital. 

Raising the amount of compensation, the apex court also asked the hospital to pay an interest at the rate of six per cent to Saha. 

The court said out of the total compensation amount, Dr Balram Prasad and Dr Sukumar Mukherjee will pay Rs 10 lakh each and Dr Baidyanath Halder will have to pay Rs 5 lakh to Saha within eight weeks. 

The rest of the amount, along with the interest, will be paid by the hospital, the apex court said, adding that a compliance report be filed before it after payment of the compensation amount. 

NCDRC had fixed the compensation on a direction by the apex court, which had referred Saha's appeal to it while holding the three doctors and the hospital culpable to civil liability for medical negligence which had led to the death of Anuradha. 

Anuradha, herself a child psychologist, had come to her home town Kolkata in March 1998 on a summer vacation. She complained of skin rashes on April 25 and consulted Dr Sukumar Mukherjee, who, without prescribing any medicine, simply asked her to take rest. 

As rashes reappeared more aggressively on May 7, 1998, Dr Mukherjee prescribed Depomedrol injection 80 mg twice daily, a step which was later faulted by experts at the apex court. 

After administration of the injection, Anuradha's condition deteriorated rapidly following which she had to be admitted at AMRI on May 11 under Dr Mukherjee's supervision. 

Saha, in his plea before NCDRC, had demanded a record Rs 77 crore compensation. 

While awarding Rs 1,72,87,500 compensation to Saha for his wife's death, NCDRC had held the US doctor responsible for contributing to the negligence committed by the three Kolkata doctors and the hospital and had ordered 10 per cent deduction in the amount of compensation making it Rs 1.55 crore. 

Another doctor involved in Anuradha's treatment, Abani Roy Chowdhury had passed away during the pendency of the case. 

As Anuradha's condition failed to improve, she was flown to Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai, where she was found to be suffering from a rare and deadly skin disease--Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN). She died there on May 28, 1998. 

Saha had then filed a criminal as well as civil case against the doctors and both the hospitals on the ground that they were grossly negligent in her treatment leading to her death. 

In 2009, though the apex court absolved the doctors and the hospitals of criminal liability for medical negligence, it had held them culpable of civil liabilities and referred Saha's plea for compensation under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act to NCDRC, which, had in 2006 dismissed, the case. 

After the NCDRC judgment, Saha had again moved the apex court and the three doctors had also filed an appeal before it. 

NCDRC, in its judgment, had stipulated that AMRI and Dr Mukherjee would pay Rs 40.4 lakh each to Saha, while two other doctors, Halder and Prasad, would pay Rs 26.93 lakh each to him. 

SC pulls up ex-Army chief VK Singh

The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up former Army chief VK Singh for making contemptuous remarks on the apex court judgment on retired Army chief's age row.

Calling VK Singh's remarks a serious affront to judiciary, the apex court asked him to explain his position by November 20.

One cannot be allowed to scandalize the court like this, it is not permissible, the top court said.

We welcome criticism of our judgment but we don't welcome motive attributed to the court judgment, the Supreme Court said.

The Supreme Court allowed the AG to draft contempt charges against the former Army chief for remarks casting aspersions on judges who heard his petition seeking correction of his date of birth.

The draft will be served on him possibly in the next hearing.

Fine not more than twice bounced cheque amount: SC

Courts cannot impose a fine of more than twice the amount in bounced cheques, the Supreme Court has held, stressing that the limit is inviolable and should be respected. "First and foremost is the fact that the power to levy fine is circumscribed under the statute to twice the cheque amount.

"Even in a case where the court may be taking a lenient view in favour of the accused by not sending him to prison, it cannot impose a fine more than twice the cheque amount. That statutory limit is inviolable and must be respected," a bench of justices T S Thakur and Vikramajit Sen said.

It set aside the Calcutta high court order which had directed a person to pay Rs 1,49,500 as against the cheque amount of Rs 69,500.

In this case a trial court had sentenced a person to six months imprisonment and directed him to pay compensation amounting to Rs 80,000 in a cheque bounce case.

The accused, Somnath Sarkar, then approached the high court which directed him to pay an additional Rs 69,500 to the complainant and his jail term was waived.

Sarkar then moved a mercy plea before the Supreme Court saying that he was not capable of paying the amount.

The court after hearing his plea set aside the high court order and reduced the amount of Rs 69,500 to Rs 20,000.

"The high court has, in the case at hand, obviously overlooked the statutory limitation on its power to levy a fine," the bench said.

Allahabad HC bans idol immersion in Ganga and Yamuna

The Allahabad high court has banned with immediate effect the immersion of idols in the Ganga and Yamuna at Allahabad. While the order is applicable to Vijaya Dashmi on October 14 this year, the court has directed the state government to ensure its implementation across UP from next year.

The court directed the Allahabad district administration to identify and develop other places for immersions. It also asked the state to direct district administrations of areas through which the Ganga and Yamuna passed through to ensure that alternative immersion sites come up next year.

The directives on Monday came on a PIL seeking on pollution of the two rivers. A division bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Arun Tandon said it had recorded in its order on November 6, 2012 the stand of district administrations that alternative site would be found after Durga Puja. Therefore, the court had directed the state to find out suitable alternative place for immersion of idols before the next Durga Puja festival so that immersion of idols is avoided in the river Ganga and Yamuna.

However, the court said, after examining the affidavit of the Allahabad district magistrate it found that hardly any effective steps had been in the past one year to arrange for suitable alternative places for immersion. The date of immersion is fixed well in advance but the administration failed to make any alternative arrangement, it said

"We are of the view that the administration must find out alternative appropriate places with sufficient water and provide necessary facilities including the route, road lights etc for immersion of the idols," the court directed.

Give disabled 3% job quota: SC to Centre and states

In a landmark order, the Supreme Court on Tuesday prised open significant employment opportunities for the disabled by directing the Centre and states to implement within three months an 18-year-old law mandating 3% reservation for such persons in government jobs.

The 1995 Persons with Disabilities (In a landmark order, the Supreme Court on Tuesday prised open significant employment opportunities for the disabled by directing the Centre and states to implement within three months an 18-year-old law mandating 3% reservation for such persons in government jobs.

The 1995 Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act came into force on February 7, 1996 providing a minimum 3% reservation in government establishments to the extent of 1% each for persons suffering from blindness or low vision; hearing impairment; and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy.

The reservations will be implemented by all government departments, public sector undertakings and government companies at the Centre and states, enlarging opportunities for persons with disabilities eligible for benefits under the law.

The court rejected concern of the 3% quota breaching the 50% cap on reservations set by the SC itself in the Indra Sawhney (Mandal) judgment, indicating the reservations are to be carved out of existing Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, OBC and even general category seats currently lying vacant.

The National Federation of the Blind through advocate S K Rungta had moved the Delhi High Court seeking implementation of the law in letter and spirit while pointing out contradictions and deficiencies in the office memorandum issued by the Centre. The HC had allowed their petition. The Centre challenged the HC verdict in the SC.

The court rejected the Centre's argument that 3% reservation to disabled would see quotas exceed the 50% cap as it said 49% reservation to SCs (15%), STs (7%) and OBCs (27%) in government jobs was vertical in character, while the benefits to disabled were horizontal in nature.

An apex court bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justices Ranjana Desai and Ranjan Gogoi was moved by the distress caused to differently-abled persons and lamented the lackadaisical approach of the Centre and states in fully implementing the law.

"Employment is a key factor in the empowerment and inclusion of people with disabilities. It is an alarming reality that disabled people are out of job not because their disability comes in the way of their functioning, rather it is social and practical barriers that prevent them from joining the workforce," the court pointed out.

The bench added, "As a result, many disabled people live in poverty and in deplorable conditions. They are denied the right to make a useful contribution to their own lives and to the lives of their families and community."

The court said even though the Centre and states had a categorical obligation under the Constitution and various international treaties relating to human rights as well as treaties to protect the rights of disabled, it is unfortunate that "even though the Act was enacted way back in 1995, the disabled people have failed to get required benefit until today".

"We hereby direct the appropriate government to compute the number of vacancies available in all the establishments and further identify the posts for disabled persons within a period of three months from today and implement the same without default," said Justice Sathasivam, who authored the judgment for the bench.

The court directed the Centre to issue instructions to all departments, public sector undertakings and government companies "declaring non-observance of the scheme of reservation for persons with disabilities should be considered as an act of non-obedience and the concerned nodal officers responsible for the proper strict implementation of reservation for person with disabilities, shall be departmentally proceeded against for the default".  Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act came into force on February 7, 1996 providing a minimum 3% reservation in government establishments to the extent of 1% each for persons suffering from blindness or low vision; hearing impairment; and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy.

The reservations will be implemented by all government departments, public sector undertakings and government companies at the Centre and states, enlarging opportunities for persons with disabilities eligible for benefits under the law.

The court rejected concern of the 3% quota breaching the 50% cap on reservations set by the SC itself in the Indra Sawhney (Mandal) judgment, indicating the reservations are to be carved out of existing Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, OBC and even general category seats currently lying vacant.

The National Federation of the Blind through advocate S K Rungta had moved the Delhi High Court seeking implementation of the law in letter and spirit while pointing out contradictions and deficiencies in the office memorandum issued by the Centre. The HC had allowed their petition. The Centre challenged the HC verdict in the SC.

The court rejected the Centre's argument that 3% reservation to disabled would see quotas exceed the 50% cap as it said 49% reservation to SCs (15%), STs (7%) and OBCs (27%) in government jobs was vertical in character, while the benefits to disabled were horizontal in nature.

An apex court bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justices Ranjana Desai and Ranjan Gogoi was moved by the distress caused to differently-abled persons and lamented the lackadaisical approach of the Centre and states in fully implementing the law.

"Employment is a key factor in the empowerment and inclusion of people with disabilities. It is an alarming reality that disabled people are out of job not because their disability comes in the way of their functioning, rather it is social and practical barriers that prevent them from joining the workforce," the court pointed out.

The bench added, "As a result, many disabled people live in poverty and in deplorable conditions. They are denied the right to make a useful contribution to their own lives and to the lives of their families and community."

The court said even though the Centre and states had a categorical obligation under the Constitution and various international treaties relating to human rights as well as treaties to protect the rights of disabled, it is unfortunate that "even though the Act was enacted way back in 1995, the disabled people have failed to get required benefit until today".

"We hereby direct the appropriate government to compute the number of vacancies available in all the establishments and further identify the posts for disabled persons within a period of three months from today and implement the same without default," said Justice Sathasivam, who authored the judgment for the bench.

The court directed the Centre to issue instructions to all departments, public sector undertakings and government companies "declaring non-observance of the scheme of reservation for persons with disabilities should be considered as an act of non-obedience and the concerned nodal officers responsible for the proper strict implementation of reservation for person with disabilities, shall be departmentally proceeded against for the default".

Centre to adopt 'Hindi only' policy: HC

The Gujarat high court,  turned down a PIL seeking direction to the Centre to do away with English and conduct all its administrative functions in Hindi language.

Dismissing a PIL, the court observed that it cannot ask the government to adopt a particular language if there is no infringement on the petitioner's legal or fundamental rights.

Earlier also, this HC had made it clear that Hindi is not the national language of this country, but one of the official languages.

In this PIL, one Amrutlal Parmar from Rajkot wanted the HC to ask the Union government to undertake all administrative works in Hindi as it is the national language. He contended that although India became independent more than six decades ago, people are still obsessed with English.

Parmar said that Hindi has been almost neglected and the country uses English extensively for all purposes. To this, the bench of Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice J B Pardiwala explained to the petitioner that section 3 of the Official Languages Act, 1963, enacted by Parliament in exercise of powers conferred on it by Articles 343(3) and 120(2) of the Constitution, provides that English language may be continued to be used in addition to Hindi for all purposes.

Wife's refusal to quit job no reason for divorce: HC

 The failure of a wife to take job transfer to her husband's city, even if promised before marriage, does not constitute 'cruelty' for which divorce can be sought, the Bombay high court has ruled.

The court was hearing the case of a Mumbai man seeking divorce from his wife of 17 years. It dismissed the husband's plea as well as his Pune-based wife's plea seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The couple has lived apart for 16 years during which the husband remarried.

In a verdict touching on a modern dilemma for couples, a division bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Gautam Patel said it could not accept the hypothesis underlying the husband's argument.

The premise, the court said, was that "it is the bounden duty of a wife, as a legal obligation, to extirpate herself from her settled life and job to follow her husband. Her needs, wishes and desires must be relegated to second place, suborned to the husband's personal and family needs. Her identity, as it were, is only as a wife, not as an independent woman with her own job and earning."

"This is a thoroughly retrograde view, one that undermines a fundamental premise of parity and equality in marriage," the court said.

The couple wedded in December 1996, but differences emerged soon after. The husband said the wife, a government employee in Pune, did not take a transfer to Mumbai despite promising so earlier. The wife said she strived to maintain a balance between her job and marriage and commuted between Mumbai and Pune on weekends and holidays.

The husband sought divorce in 1998, while the wife petitioned for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the petitions were dismissed by the Pune Family Court, whose decision was subsequently challenged in the high court in 2002.

The judges, while dismissing both appeals, said: "In support of her petition, she deposed that she would apply for a transfer but not give up her job. This was in 2004. Even as late as this, and though it cannot shore up her claim for restitution of conjugal rights, the evidence indicates her willingness to continue with the marriage. To say, therefore, that there was cruelty on her part is, in our view, entirely incorrect."

The high court refused to grant divorce on the grounds of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage', saying that only the Supreme Court has the power to do so.

It called the matrimonial differences between the couple "unfortunate" while noting that they have lived apart for 16 years. It said the husband has remarried during pendency of appeals and thus thrown "into jeopardy" yet another life.

HC evicts Rs 50 per month tenant who refused Rs 1cr offer to move out

The Bombay high court has directed a Juhu tenant, the lone occupant of a dilapidated building, to vacate her flat within one month. The tenant, Esther Manickam, who has been paying a monthly rent of Rs 50 for decades, was offered Rs 1 crore by the owner to move out of old building but she had refused.

Justice Anoop Mohta refused to grant the tenant any relief against the demolition notice served by the BMC for the old building which has been declared dangerous.

"The structure if it is required to be demolished and as except Esther all have already vacated, there is no reason that the building in question (should) be repaired by the owner only to permit her to occupy one flat in question," said Justice Mohta. The judge cited earlier orders of the court that allowed "the corporation to evict occupier/owner of dilapidated building even by force".

The court said the tenant's offer to repair the premises was of "no assistance as it would cause further complications and especially when no one else is occupying the other portions". The court said it cannot direct that the building be maintained just because a lone opposing tenant wants to continue to occupy a dangerous building.

Esther, who has been staying in the Juhu flat measuring 340 square feet for decades and paying a monthly rent of Rs 50, refused to move out of the building despite the landlord's offer of Rs 1 crore.

The BMC, earlier this year, had served a demolition notice on the building which had been classified as dangerous. A report by VJTI also said that repairs were not viable for the old building. But Esther rejected the Rs 1 crore offer and insisted on a flat in a new building on the same premises. The landlord and the developer refused to give her that saying that 13 other tenants of the building had accepted the same offer.

The court said it could not overlook the expert's opinion and said that Esther's claims in her applications were "contradictory, inconsistent and in fact self destructive".

"Esther, though at her risk is occupying the premises alone and compelling the landlord/owner to maintain the whole premises/building in spite of the clear offer given to her, is unjustifiable," said the judge.

"The owner of the property is entitled to deal with the property. Even otherwise, tenants cannot object to transfer and/or even to create third-party rights or interest in such property by the landlord. The owner, therefore, if he wants to develop the property, but for want of insistence to have permanent alternate accommodation in the same premises, (and hurdles are created) to the whole project, is entitled to oppose the action of the tenant," the court said.

"The costs already incurred by paying a huge amount just cannot be overlooked merely because one tenant/occupant is opposing to develop and/or not permitting the owner to develop the property." The court added that the owner of the property cannot be compelled to give a specific offer to a tenant.

The court refused to give Esther any reprieve from the demolition proceedings and allowed her four weeks' time to vacate her flat on the condition that she files an undertaking to move out.