NO NEED FOR CBI INQUIRY IN KANDHMAL : ORISSA

The Orissa Government today defended itself from ongoing attacks over the issue of Kandhmal violence. In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the state government said that there is no need for a CBI investigation into the Kandhmal violence as the government is keeping a close eye on the investigation done by state police.

In a 24 page affidavit filed in the apex court, the state government said that the communal clashes are a result of centuries old rivalry between Kandhas the Scheduled Tribes and Panas, the Scheduled Castes of the state. State government also said that they are giving financial assistance to the people whose houses have been damaged and the institutions like schools and hospitals. The government however said that they will not be paying any compensation to the churches as this is against the secular policy of the state government.

On the issue of rape of a nun, the state government said that they are monitoring the investigation on the top level. The government also informed the court that the nun is not cooperating the investigation. The government went on saying that they have already appointed a High Court judge to look into and give its findings on the killing of Swami Laxmananda and incidents of violence in the aftermath.

SC refers SIMI ban issue to larger bench

A matter related to ban on the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) was today referred by the Supreme Court to a larger bench. The ban on SIMI was in August lifted by a special tribunal whose order was subsequently stayed by the apex court. The reference was made by a two-judge bench of Justices S B Sinha and Cyriac Joseph in view of the fact that a larger bench of three judges of the apex court was already hearing the ban imposed on the SIMI by the Government in 2001.

The tribunal headed by Delhi High Court judge Justice Geeta Mittal on August 5 had lifted the ban on SIMI saying no new evidence was placed against the organisation to justify the ban. However, a day later, an apex court bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan stayed the tribunal's order an dissued notice to SIMI while asking the Centre to place before it all documents pertaining to the justification of the ban. The apex court's stay was opposed by Dr Shahid Badr, who was the President of the outfit till September 27, 2001 when the Centre had come out with its first notification to declare it as an proscribed organisation.

The Centre had been extending the ban every two years since 2001 on the ground that SIMI was continuing with its anti-national activities and Badr had earlier challenged the original ban before the apex court. Justifying the ban, the Centre had told the Supreme Court that SIMI was involved in subversive and anti-national activities including the recent blasts in Ahmedabad. The Govt said the tribunal failed to appreciate the 'background note', 'cabinet note' and 'intelligence reports' before arriving at its decision to lift the ban on the organisation.

The argument was opposed by Badr's counsel Jaiswal whosaid the tribunal had gone into all these three aspects andwas of the view that the averments in them were not supportedby evidence and deposition of the government witnesses. She said the background note of the Centre's February 7, 2008 notification extending the ban on SIMI till 2010, whichwas placed before the Tribunal in sealed cover, spoke aboutnine cases involving its members who were already acquitted after facing trial in the courts. However, the apex court had observed "the backgroundnote can be a general statement while issuing the notification.

The background note is only a synopsis which could be substantiated in future. "The Centre had complained to the apex court that it had given details about SIMI's alleged involvement in the July 2006 Mumbai train serial blasts to justify the ban, but the same was ignored by the tribunal. According to the Centre, the tribunal set up under the Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act, in its 263-page orderhas not pressed anything on the merits of the case even whenthe government has provided Intelligence Bureau report spointing towards members of SIMI indulging in terrorist activities.

SC puts brakes on trial in Rizwanur Rehman case

The Supreme Court today said that the trial in the Rizwanur Rehman case would not commencetill the Calcutta High Court decides a petition filed by industrialist Ashok Todi challenging CBI's decision to chargesheet him in the case. However, the apex court remained silent on the issueof framing of charges in the case in which the investigating agency in its report alleged that Todis used pressure tactics to drive Rizwanur to commit suicide.

A bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnanasked the High Court to dispose of the petition filed by Todi, Rizwanur's father-in-law, at the earliest. Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Todi whose daughter Priyanka married Rizwanur, had sought a stay on the trial court from framing the charges in the case. He submitted that the registration of the FIR by the CBI was illegal as the High Court had only asked the agency toprobe the cause of death of Rizwanur, whose body was found near railway tracks. Todi, along with six others, was chargesheeted by the CBI on September 22 for alleged abetment of Rizwanur's suicide.

A Metropolitan Magistrate in Kolkata has asked theaccused to appear before it on October 27. Todi sought a stay on the proceedings in the trialcourt alleging that the CBI was only allowed to find out thenature of the death of Rizwanur but it filed a charghesheet. Besides Todi, the chargesheet named his brother Pradeep, brother in-law Anil Saraogi, IPS officer and former Deputy Commissioner of Kolkata Police Ajoy Kumar, former Assistant Commissioner of Police Sukanti Chakraborty,sub-inspector Krishnendu Das and Rizwanur's neighbour S M Moinuddin alias Pappu. The lawyer appearing for the victim's family opposed Todi's plea and even wanted the Bench to give a time-frame tothe High Court for disposing of the pending petition.

Godhra fire: SC refuses to stay publication of Nanavati report

The Supreme Court today refused to pass any order to stay the implementation of Nanavati Commission report on Godhra fire carnage and subsequentcommunal riots in 2002 in Gujarat. An NGO, Citizen for Justice and Peace, had filed apetition seeking to restrain Gujarat Government from circulating and publishing the report contending that the Commission was not authorised to give its report in parts. A Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, however, said that there was no bar on the Commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act to give a preliminary report.

The Court said it would consider the grievances of the petitioner only after getting the response from the State government. The petitioner had claimed that the publication of the report by the Commission headed by Justice Nanavati, a retired apex court judge, would provide a ground to the state government to take a liberal stand against the accused inthe post-Godhra riots of 2002 that claimed over 1,000 lives.

While seeking a stay on the circulation of the report, the NGO run by social activist Teesta Setalvad had referred toanother report on the incident prepared by a Committee headed by Justice U C Banerjee, a retired Supreme Court judge. The Justice Banerjee Committee set up by the Lalu Prasad-headed Railway Ministry had concluded that the burningof S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express at Godhra was purely an accident. However, after the report was leaked the Gujarat High Court had stayed the Banerjee Committee report.

An appeal against the order has been pending in the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that since the Banerjee Committee report has been stayed, the apex court should maintain parity and pass an order to restrain the circulationand printing of the Justice Nanavati Committee report also. The first part of the Nanavati Commission report which was placed before the Gujarat Assembly on September 25 said the fire in the Sabarmati Express coach in Godhra was a conspiracy and not an accident, contradicting the findings of the Justice Banerjee Committee report.

The 168-page report of the Commission said the burning of S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express on February 27, 2002, killing58 `kar sevaks' was a pre-planned conspiracy hatched at Aman Guest house in Godhra. "There is absolutely no evidence to show that either the Chief Minister or any of the ministers in his council or police officers had played any role in the Godhra incident,"the report said."On the basis of the facts and circumstances proved bythe evidence, the Commission comes to the conclusion thatburning of S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express in which'kar sevaks' coming from Ayodhya were killed was a pre-plannedact," the report said.

SC upholds right of minority institutions on appointments

Upholding the power of St Stephen's College to appoint its own principal, the Supreme Court today ruled that minority educational institutions have a constitutional right to appoint heads of their institutions and the Government cannot encroach upon their right. "It's a valuable right guaranteed under Article 30otherwise you are encroaching into it," a two judge bench ofJustices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal observed, while dismissing the Delhi University's appeal challenging the High Court's order granting absolute right to College to appointits principal.

The apex court upheld the ruling of the Delhi High Court that the right of minority educational institutions to appoint the head of institution cannot be taken away by any rule, regulation or any enactment made by state even if the institute is receiving 100 per cent aid.

The University had appealed against the high court order on the ground that Article 30 which granted minorities the right to establish and administer their own institutions was "not an absolute right." Senior counsel P P Rao tried hard to argue before the apex court that the university had the right to frame regulations for prescribing standards of education and uniformity in the standards "in national interest. "But the argument did not convince the apex court which observed "You show us one minority college not maintaining the standards. Otherwise we will be making minority institutionsonly a farce."

The apex court's ruling has its genesis in the controversy relating to the appointment of Fr Valson Thampu, as an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) by the St Stephen's management. A single judge of the Delhi High Court had on March 12 on a petition filed by an aggrieved candidate aspiring to bethe principal, Sheetal P Singh, asked the college to adhere to the qualification prescribed by the UGC which was inconsonance with the impugned Ordinance. Under the Ordinance, the list of candidates for appointment of principal has to be approved by the university,thus vesting it with the final say in the appointment of the head of the institution.

On March 15, Thampu resigned, and the college issued afresh advertisement for the post of principal which according to the university was in violation of Clause 7 (2) of Ordinance XVII. According to the Delhi University the college prescribed a minimum age of 50-60 years qualification for the principal's post and failed to properly constitute the selection committee in violation of the regulations prescribed under theordinance. The university submitted that despite repeated reminders and notices, the college failed to comply with the regulations and in the meantime the latter filed a writ petition in theDelhi High Court challenging Clause 7(2)of the Ordinance XVII.

On August 21, the High Court quashed clause 7 (2)of the Delhi University's Ordinance XVIII which empowered itto appoint principals of all colleges under its jurisdiction.

SC refuses to stay expulsion of Amarinder Singh

The Supreme Court today refused to stay the expulsion of former Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh from the state assembly and the police investigations into the Amritsar land scam. The court, however, restrained the Election Commission from declaring his seat as vacant. The former chief minister was earlier expelled on September 3, from the House after a resolution was passed on the basis of the report of a special committee appointed by the Punjab assembly in the scam.

The apex court also stayed the direction of the special committee to the Director of Vigilance for submitting a report of the inquiry within two months to the panel. A three-judge bench of Justices B N Aggrawal, G S Singhvi and Aftab Alam said that the police shall proceed with the investigations in the case without being influenced by the observations and directions passed by the special committee,which had ordered an FIR into the case.

Counsel for Amarinder Singh pleaded that the police investigations and interrogations should be stayed as the Prakash Singh Badal Government was allegedly planning to arrest the former Chief Minister out of political vendetta. The apex court further transferred to itself the batch of writ petitions on the issue pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to itself and posted the matter for further hearing to December 2.

The bench granted four weeks to the parties to file their counter-affidavits and told them to file their rejoinders within two weeks. The Special committee in its report had held Amarinder Singh and two other Congress leaders Jagjit Singh Chaudhary and Jugal Kishore Sharma guilty in the land scam. The committee in its report had held Amrinder and two others guilty in the scam and had recommended registration of the FIR against them. It also allowed their custodial interrogation.

Singh was expelled for the remaining term of the 13th Assembly Sabha and the Election Commission was asked to declare his seat vacant for holding a by-poll to the Patiala constituency represented by the 66-year-old Congress leader. The alleged irregularities related to grant of certain exemptions, given by Capt Amrinder Singh as the Chief Minister, in connection with the development of 32.10 acres of land.

Chaudhary was a minister (local government) during the previous Congress regime headed by Singh. He was not the member of the House when a resolution was passed to expel Singh.

SC stays Allahabad HC order related to judge's appointment

The Supreme Court today stayed the proceedings in the Allahabad High Court related to a  petition challenging the appointment of Dr Satish Chandra as a judge of the High Court. A Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, in an interim order, stayed the direction of the High Court seeking the report of the collegium recommending the appointment of Chandra as the judge of the High Court. The Bench issued notices to the Centre and advocate Mahesh Chandra Gupta, who has challenged the appointment of Chandra as the judge contending that he lacks the essential qualification.

The apex court has also sought response from Chandra, who is now the sitting judge of the High Court. Allahabad High Court has challenged the order of its judicial side contending that its division bench has exceeded its jurisdiction. 

The High Court Bench comprising Justices Sushil Harkauli and Vikram Nath had directed the High Court (Administrative side) to place before it the report of committee which made a recommendation to the collegium, consisting of the Chief Justice of the High Court and its two senior most judge, to appoint Chandra as a judge of the Allahabad High Court. 

Senior advocate Harish Salve and Ashok K Srivastava, appearing for the High Court, submitted that when only the eligibility was challenged how could High Court seek the records of the collegium and sub-committee relating to the consultation process on appointment of a judge.  

Salve urged the Bench, also comprising Justices V S Sirpurkar and P Sathasivam, to hear the matter saying its a serious matter as the steps taken by the High Court amount to judicial review of the decision on appointment of judge. "How can the collegium report be sought. Then we are going into the merits (decision to appoint judge)," he said adding that the High Court can go into the issue of eligibility but not into the decision of the collegium which are confidential in nature. Chandra was appointed as the judge of the High Court on August 6.