BCI lashes out at Chelameswar after his retirement

Agencies
June 25, 2018

New Delhi, Jun 25: The Bar Council of India (BCI) has lashed out against Justice J Chelameswar for his "controversial" and "irrelevant" statements in the media, three days after his retirement as a Supreme Court Judge, saying such comments are liable to be "deprecated" and "cannot be tolerated" by lawyers.

Justice Chelameswar, who demitted office on June 22, had disapproved of the Centre's decision not to elevate Justice K M Joseph to the Supreme Court, terming the action as "not sustainable".

The judge, who had held an unprecedented presser along with three other senior Supreme Court judges in January to highlight the litany of allegations including discrimination in allocation of cases to benches, had also said that the credibility of the highest judiciary was "occasionally" in danger.

Efforts to reach Justice Chelameswar for his comments did not frucitify.

In a statement, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra has criticised the statements of Justice Chelameswar after he demitted the office, and said it was not expected from a person who had held a high post and went against its dignity.

"Self-restraint by the judges of the highest court seems to be a forgotten virtue. They have to prevent themselves from issuing statements without giving any thought to the consequences such statements could entail.

"The manner in which Justice Chelameswar went to the media and gave controversial and irrelevant statements immediately upon retirement, was not expected of a person holding such a high post and was in fact against the dignity of the post he had held.

"Such statements and comments are liable to be deprecated. Such statements cannot be tolerated, accepted or digested by the advocates including the rest of the countrymen," the statement, also signed by four other office-bearers of BCI, said.

The statement said the judge had used a "controversial" word "bench fixing" and pointed out that there were instances in which "a handful of lawyers" had filed matters and mentioned it before him and tried to get it listed.

The BCI said the judge should have raised an objection at that time but did not do so.

The statement said Justice Chelameswar "has resorted to usage of such controversial words like 'bench fixing'. Now if a handful of lawyers of the highest court filed matter/s and mentioned it before (him) and other chosen judges, and tried to get it listed, then that would have been bench fixing. Such instances have been repeated not once but on two-three occasions."

Justice Chelameswar "should have raised an objection at that point of time", but had not done so and "in fact accepted and agreed to hear certain matters himself which led to the beginning of a wrong practice," the BCI alleged.

It also alleged that “the fact that Justice Chelameswar met CPI leader and Rajya Sabha MP D Raja immediately after his press conference, clearly deciphers the mystery and the motive behind the controversial statements being issued" by him, the BCI said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 24,2020

New Delhi, Jul 24: India reported the highest single-day spike of 49,310 coronavirus cases on Friday, according to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The total COVID-19 positive cases stand at 12,87,945 including 4,40,135 active cases, 8,17,209 cured/discharged/migrated.
With 740 deaths in the last 24 hours, the cumulative toll reached 30,601.

Maharashtra has reported 3,47,502 coronavirus cases, the highest among states and Union Territories in the country. A total of 1,92,964 cases have been reported from Tamil Nadu till now, while Delhi has recorded 1,27,364 coronavirus cases.

According to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), 3,52,801 samples were tested for coronavirus on Thursday and overall 1,54,28,170 samples have been tested so far. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 31,2020

New Delhi, May 31: The fourth phase of the coronavirus-triggered lockdown, which began on May 18, saw 85,974 COVID-19 cases till 8 am on Sunday, which is nearly half of the total cases reported in the country so far.

Lockdown 4.0, which will end on May 31 midnight, has accounted for 47.20 per cent of the total coronavirus infection cases, number crunching from the Union Health Ministry data reveals.

The lockdown, which was first clamped on March 25 and spanned for 21 days, had registered 10,877 cases, while the second phase of the curbs that began on April 15 and stretched for 19 days till May 3, saw 31,094 cases.

The third phase of the lockdown that was in effect for 14 days ending on May 17, recorded 53,636 cases till 8 am of May 18.

The country had registered 512 coronavirus infection cases till March 24.

India is the ninth worst-hit nation by the COVID-19 pandemic as of now.        

The first case of COVID-19 in India was reported on January 30 from Kerala after a medical student of Wuhan university, who had returned to India, tested  positive for the virus.

India registered its highest single-day spike of COVID-19 cases on Sunday, with 8,380 new infections reported in the last 24 hours, taking the country's tally to 1,82,143, while the death toll rose to 5,164, according to the Union Health Ministry.

The number of active COVID-19 cases stood to 89,995, while 86,983 people have recovered and one patient has migrated, it said.

"Thus, around 47.75 per cent patients have recovered so far," a senior Health Ministry official said.

With the fourth phase of lockdown ending on Sunday, the Home Ministry on Saturday said 'Unlock-1' will be initiated in the country from June 8 under which the nationwide lockdown will be relaxed to a great extent, including opening of shopping malls, restaurants and religious places, even as strict restrictions will remain in place till June 30 in the country's worst-hit areas.

While announcing the extension of the lockdown in containment zones across the country, the Home Ministry said temples, mosques, churches and other religious places and shopping malls will be allowed to open in a phased manner from June 8, while a decision on opening of schools and colleges will be taken in July in consultation with states.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.