Kalam had opposed capital punishment

July 28, 2015

New Delhi, Jul 28: Amid debate over whether Mumbai serial blasts convict Yakub Memon should be hanged, late A P J Abdul Kalam had supported abolition of capital punishment saying that as President of India, he felt pain in deciding on such cases as most of them had "social and economic bias".Kalam

Kalam had recently responded to a Law Commission consultation paper on capital punishment and was one of the few people who had supported abolition of death sentence. Most of the over 400 respondents had supported continuing with the provision of death penalty.

In his response to the paper, Kalam had said capital punishment was one of the most difficult tasks for him as President.

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court today delivered a split verdict on a plea by Yakub Abdul Razak Memon, the lone death convict in 1993 Mumbai blasts case, seeking stay of his scheduled execution on July 30 and referred the matter to the Chief Justice to take call on it.

While Justice A R Dave dismissed his plea, Justice Kurian Joseph stayed the death warrant issued on April 30 for his execution on July 30.

Quoting from his book "Turning Points", Kalam had said "one of the more difficult tasks for me as President was to decide on the issue of confirming capital punishment awarded by courts... to my surprise... almost all cases which were pending had a social and economic bias.

"This gave me an impression that we were punishing the person who was least involved in the enmity and who did not have a direct motive for committing the crime," he had said.

The former President, however, said there was of course one case where he found that the lift operator had in fact committed the crime of raping and killing the girl without doubt. "In that case I affirmed the sentence," he had said.

He was referring to the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee who was executed by hanging for the rape and murder of an 18-year- old girl at her apartment in Bhowanipur on 5 March, 1990.

The Commission had called a day-long meet earlier this month on death penalty to conclude the process of consultation. A final report would be submitted to the Supreme Court sometime next month based on the written submissions and the consultation.

In a consultation paper released on May 22 last year, the Law Commission had said that at this juncture, an exhaustive study on the subject would be a useful and salutary contribution to the cause of public debate on this issue.

The Commission said the study would have to address queries and concerns of courts and present an international perspective on the issue.

The Supreme Court, in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs Maharashtra and Shankar Kisanrao Khade vs Maharashtra, had suggested that the Law Commission should study the death penalty in India to "allow for an up-to-date and informed discussion and debate on the subject".

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
January 11,2020

Those owning a single house in joint names would continue to file their income tax returns (ITRs) in much simpler ITR-1 (Sahaj) and ITR-4 forms (Sugam) for assessment year 2020-21 with the government issuing a clarification in this regard.

The clarification has come days after the government modified the eligibility for filing the returns in ITR-1 and ITR-4, stating that those owning a property jointly, spending Rs 2 lakh on foreign travel and paying electricity bill of Rs 1 lakh in a year would not be able to file returns in the simpler forms.

They would have to file their returns with much more detailed information in other specified forms.

Following the changes in the eligibility for filing returns in the two forms, concerns were raised over it with taxpayers claiming that it will cause huge hardship for them.

"The matter has been examined and it has been decided to allow a person, who jointly owns a single house property, to file his/her return of income in ITR-1 or ITR-4 Form, as may be applicable, if he/she meets the other conditions," a Finance Ministry statement said.

"It has also been decided to allow a person, who is required to file return due to fulfilment of one or more conditions specified in the seventh proviso to section 139(1) of the Act, to file his/her return in ITR-1 Form," it added.

Tax practitioners welcomed the government’s move of going back to the previous position.

"This is a welcome clarification allowing middle class taxpayers owning a single house property to file simpler ITR forms, 1 and 4, and not the detailed ITR forms even if they own house property in joint names," said Shailesh Kumar, Director, Nangia Andersen Consulting.

It may be noted that taxpayers holding multiple house properties would have to file more detailed return forms.

In the major changes notified earlier this month by the Income-Tax department, individual taxpayers were disallowed to file return either in ITR-1 or ITR 4 if he or she was a joint-owner in house property.

In another change, those who deposited more than Rs 1 crore in bank account or spent Rs 2 lakh on foreign travel or paid Rs 1 lakh on electricity bill in a financial year were also barred from using the easy-to-fill return forms.

"By today's clarification, the government has maintained status quo. Now, the taxpayers can continue filing their returns in the same fashion in which they did last year," said Naveen Wadhwa, Deputy General Manager (DGM), Taxmann.

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
February 16,2020

New Delhi, Feb 16: Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener Arvind Kejriwal was on Sunday sworn-in as the Chief Minister of Delhi for the third time in a row at Ramlila Maidan here, after his party registered a massive victory in the recently concluded Delhi Assembly polls.

Kejriwal was administered the oath of office and secrecy by Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal.

The sprawling Ramlila Maidan reverberated with sounds of thousands of people cheering for the AAP leader.

Kejriwal who received a hero's welcome here had extended an invitation to the people of Delhi urging them to attend the swearing-in ceremony to witness "the son of Delhi" taking oath today.

The AAP nearly repeated its 2015 performance in the elections, sweeping the Assembly polls winning 62 seats in the 70-member Assembly, in the face of a high-voltage campaign by the BJP, which fielded a battery of Union Ministers and Chief Ministers in its electioneering spearheaded by Home Minister Amit Shah. 

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
June 25,2020

New Delhi, Jun 25: The Congress on Thursday asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi why has not India gained anything from the "strange bonhomie" which it claimed he shared with China.

Seeking to turn the tables on the ruling party, Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera said the BJP also shared bonhomie with the Communist Party of China (CPC) with several party-level exchanges taking place in the past.

He sought to know whether India's borders have become safe after these exchanges in the last many years.

The Congress leader asked what has the country gained out of these exchange delegations and why are the borders insecure despite the bonds that the two ruling parties of India and China share with each other.

"There is a strange kind of bonhomie between Narendra Modi and China, a two decade old bonhomie. Why doesn't the country get the benefit of that bonhomie," he asked at a virtual press conference.

Khera said all that the Congress will continue to question is about the political will that just does not get visible when it comes to China.

"Whatever is happening on the border today, is it despite the bonhomie which you have with China, or is it because of the bonhomie which you have with China. The country needs to know," he asked.

"We do want to ask you, if as president of the party, Rajnath Singh, Nitin Gadkari and Amit Shah have been sending delegations,  strengthening the bonds between the Communist Party of China and the BJP. What has the country gained out of these bonds? Why are the borders insecure despite these bonds that you have," he also asked.

The ruling has hit out at the Congress for signing an MoU with China's Communist Party and has questioned its "bond" with the ruling party in China.

Khera also asked what role did the India Foundation, an organisation run by National Security Adviser Ajit Doval's son has in strengthening the bonds with China.

"Why does India Foundation keep visiting these countries? Who do they meet? What's the outcome? What's the role of NSA Ajit Doval's son- Shaurya Doval? He keeps attending these meetings through India Foundation? These are important questions in the light of what is happening," he asked.

Khera said the prime minister is showing "red eyes" to those who are asking him questions instead of showing them to the enemy.

"It is time to stand with the Army and show red eyes to China," he said.

The Congress leader said questions will be asked to Modi especially when there are definitive reports, satellite images of incursions in the Ladakh region of India by the Chinese.

He alleged that China laps up the comment of Modi and uses it across the world that the Indian prime minister says that China is in its own territory and Galwan is theirs.

"After a lot of pressure, PMO contradicted what the prime minister said. This kind of a goof up is unpardonable," he alleged.

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.