Rape and murder of girl in temple is a small issue: New J&K Deputy CM

New Delhi, Mar 6: Justice S Muralidhar Thursday cleared the air over the controversy on his transfer from the Delhi High Court to Punjab and Haryana High Court, saying he had replied to Chief Justice of India S A Bobde's communication that he was fine with the proposal and had no objection to it.

The controversy erupted after the Centre issued Justice Muralidhar's transfer notification close to mid night of February 26 -- the day a bench headed by him had pulled up Delhi Police for failing to register FIRs against three BJP leaders for their alleged hate speeches which purportedly led to the recent violence in northeast Delhi.

Justice Muralidhar (58), who received a grand farewell on Thursday from a huge gathering including judges and lawyers amid big rounds of applause, said he wanted to clear the confusion on his transfer and narrated the sequence of events from the time he received CJI's communication till February 26.

The Supreme Court collegium, headed by the CJI, had in a meeting on February 12 recommended the transfer of Justice Muralidhar to Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Justice Muralidhar was number three in the Delhi High Court, his parent high court as a judge.

Explaining the transfer process, he said the 5-member collegium sends to the Centre a recommendation that a judge of a high court should be transferred to another high court. The judge concerned is not at this stage under orders of transfers. That happens only when the collegium's recommendation fructifies into a notification.

“In my case, the collegium's decision was communicated to me by the CJI on February 17 by a letter which sought my response. I acknowledged receipt of the letter, I was then asked to clarify what I meant. As I saw it, if I was to be transferred from the Delhi High Court any way, I was fine with moving to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

“I therefore clarified to the CJI that I did not object to the proposal. An explanation for my transfer reached the press...on February 20 quoting 'sources in the Supreme Court collegium', confirming what has been indicated to me a couple of days earlier,” he said.

The CJI's letter dated February 14 was delivered to Justice Muralidhar on February 17, the day when the family's pet labrador Sakhi breathed her last.

He said February 26 was perhaps the longest working day of his life as a judge of the Delhi High Court, where he has spent 14 years on the bench.

He said it began at 12:30 am with a sitting at his residence with Justice A J Bhambhani, under the orders of Justice G S Sistani, to deal with a PIL filed by Rahul Roy seeking safe passage of ambulances carrying the injured riot victims.

“When I received a call at my residence from the lawyer for the petitioner, I first called Justice Sistani to ask what should be done, knowing that the Chief Justice (CJ) was on leave. Justice Sistani explained that he too was officially on leave the whole of February 26 and that I should take up the matter.

“This fact is stated in the order passed by the bench after the hearing. Later that day, upon urgent mentioning, as the de facto CJ's bench, Justice Talwant Singh and I took up another fresh PIL on the CJ's board seeking registration of FIRs for hate speeches. After the orders passed on that day, the above two PILs remained on the CJ's Board,” he said.

Justice Muralidhar ended the speech saying the notification which was issued close to midnight of February 26 did two things.

“First, it transferred me to Punjab and Haryana High Court. Second, it appointed me to a position from where I can never be transferred, or removed and in which I shall always be proud to remain. A 'former judge' of arguably the best high court in the country. The High Court of Delhi,” he said, following a standing ovation by all the judges and the gathering, including his family members, former judges, lawyers, court staff and media persons.

Earlier in the day, a farewell programme was also organised by the Delhi High Court Bar Association.

While addressing the gathering at the bar's function, Justice Muralidhar concluded his address saying “When justice has to triumph, it will triumph ... Be with the truth - Justice will be done.”

Justice Muralidhar's mother, wife Usha Ramanathan, former Delhi High Court chief justice A P Shah, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan and former Delhi University VC Upendra Baxi were also present at the later function that was organised by the court.

Bidding adieu to Justice Muralidhar, Delhi HC CJ D N Patel said it was an occasion which has come with a saddening effect and his absence will be felt institutionally as well as personally.

Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra termed Justice Muralidhar as a “highly intellectual, courageous, upright and incorruptible judge” and sang bengali song 'ekla chalo re' to describe him.

Mehra said he joins Delhi High Court Bar Association in “strongly condemning” Justice Muralidhar's transfer.

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.

New Delhi, Mar 5: Retirement fund body EPFO on Thursday lowered interest rate on provident fund deposits to 8.5 per cent for the current financial year, said Labour Minister Santosh Gangwar on Thursday.

The EPFO had provided 8.65 per cent rate of interest on EPF for 2018-19 to its around six crore subscribers. The decision was taken at a meeting of the the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation's (EPFO) apex decision making body -- the Central Board of Trustee.

"The EPFO has decided to provide 8.5 per cent interest rate on EPF deposits for 2019-20 in the Central Board of Trustees (CBT) meeting today," Gangwar told reporters after the meeting here.

Now, the labour ministry requires the finance ministry's concurrence on the matter. Since the Government of India is the guarantor, the finance ministry has to vet the proposal for EPF interest rate to avoid any liability on account of shortfall in the EPFO income for a fiscal.

The finance ministry has been nudging the labour ministry for aligning the EPF interest rate with other small saving schemes run by the government like the public provident fund and post office saving schemes.

The EPFO had provided 8.65 per cent rate of interest to its subscribers for 2016-17 and 8.55 per cent in 2017-18. The rate of interest was slightly higher at 8.8 per cent in 2015-16.

It had given 8.75 per cent rate of interest in 2013-14 as well as 2014-15, higher than 8.5 per cent for 2012-13.