One Nation, One Election: BCI Chairman’s Key Reform Proposals

by News

The Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), Manan Kumar Mishra, has submitted recommendations to the High-Level Committee for ‘One Nation, One Election,’ outlining key changes needed for the successful implementation of simultaneous elections across India. This ambitious proposal suggests holding elections for both the Central and State governments concurrently, requiring significant adjustments in the legal and administrative frameworks.

Mishra’s first suggestion revolves around the need for a Constitutional amendment. He underscores the importance of aligning the terms of State Assemblies with that of the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Parliament. This would necessitate modifications to several articles in the Constitution, including Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356, which pertain to the duration and sessions of parliamentary and state legislatures. Additionally, he recommends examining Articles 243K and 243ZA, which address the establishment of State Election Commissions for Panchayats and Municipalities.

Another crucial aspect of Mishra’s proposal is the empowerment of the Election Commission of India (ECI). He suggests enhancing the resources and authority of the ECI to efficiently manage the logistics and execution of simultaneous elections. This might require a restructuring of the Election Commission to handle the increased workload and complexity.

The third suggestion focuses on amendments to electoral laws, particularly the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and other relevant statutes. Mishra proposes provisions for coordinated polling schedules, uniform campaign periods, and expenditure limits for both parliamentary and state elections to ensure fairness.

Political funding reforms take center stage in Mishra’s fourth recommendation. He emphasizes the need for transparent procedures governing political funding and campaign finances to promote equitable electoral practices and reduce the influence of monetary power.

Administrative preparedness is another critical aspect highlighted by Mishra. He stresses the importance of comprehensive coordination between the Union and State governments for effective execution. This involves overseeing security measures, polling station management, deployment of election personnel, and logistical requirements.

Mishra also underlines the significance of public awareness and voter education for the success of ‘One Nation, One Election.’ He suggests extensive initiatives to educate the public about this new electoral paradigm, acknowledging that a shift of this magnitude demands careful planning, consensus-building among political entities, and a thorough assessment of its potential impact on democratic principles.

The letter delves into the advantages and challenges associated with simultaneous elections. Advantages include cost and administrative efficiency, continuous governance, voter convenience, decentralization of power, greater policy focus, and reduced security concerns. However, potential disadvantages include the need for significant constitutional changes, an overemphasis on national issues, and the influence of national trends on State elections.

In conclusion, Mishra’s suggestions revolve around constitutional amendments, empowering the Election Commission, electoral law amendments, political funding reforms, administrative preparedness, and public awareness to pave the way for ‘One Nation, One Election’ in India. These changes, though substantial, aim to enhance the integrity and efficiency of the electoral process, reflecting a paradigm shift in the nation’s democratic landscape.

Delhi IGI Airport Petitions Delhi High Court to Cease Commercial Flight Operations at Ghaziabad Air Station

by News

The Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL), responsible for managing the Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI) in Delhi, has approached the Delhi High Court in opposition to the government’s decision to allow commercial flights from the Hindon Indian Air Force station in Ghaziabad. DIAL, led by the GMR Group, argues that this move will negatively impact not only IGI Airport but also the upcoming Jewar Airport and Hindon Air Force Station itself.

The dispute revolves around a decision made on October 31, 2023, by the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MCA) to permit the Airports Authority of India (AAI) to conduct scheduled commercial flights from Hindon. DIAL is also challenging a communication from AAI on the same day, inviting airline operators to increase flight operations and submit their schedules for slots at Hindon Air Force Station.

DIAL’s main contention is that allowing commercial flights from Hindon will make all three airports financially unsustainable, creating competition for passengers and revenue. The consortium argues that this contradicts the MCA’s own policy, which generally prohibits the establishment of a new airport within 150 km of an existing one. An exception is made only if the existing airport is saturated and unable to expand to meet passenger demands.

DIAL claims that this exception does not apply to Hindon, as IGI Airport can handle projected traffic, and there’s no evident need for a new airport focal point. Additionally, DIAL emphasizes that Jewar Airport, a greenfield airport with a projected capacity of over 100 million passengers per annum, is already under development within the 150 km radius of IGI Airport.

According to the plea submitted to the court, the total passenger capacity of approximately 250 million passengers per annum in the National Capital Region (NCR) is expected to be sufficient until 2050 with the development of IGI, Jewar, and the existing airports.

The court has issued notices to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Airports Authority of India, and the case is scheduled for the next hearing on March 5. This legal battle brings attention to the complex dynamics of airport management and expansion, highlighting concerns about potential economic repercussions and adherence to government policies in the aviation sector.

Delhi Lawyer Faces 7-Year Suspension for Forging Court Decrees and Misleading Clients

by News

The Delhi Bar Council has taken decisive action against Advocate Peeush Kulshreshtha, deciding to suspend his license for seven years due to serious professional misconduct. This decision follows Mr. Kulshreshtha’s engagement in unethical practices, including the presentation of forged decrees and the provision of false assurances from 2009 to 2022.

The case was initiated by a complainant who accused the advocate of misconduct. The complainant, whose husband’s father had passed away, alleged that Mr. Kulshreshtha initially represented her husband but later ceased appearing, leading to an ex-parte decision. The advocate allegedly provided false assurances and concealed the actual outcome, promising the complainant and her husband ownership of a disputed shop and assuring to facilitate the mutation process.

When the matter reached the Disciplinary Committee, Mr. Kulshreshtha did not appear. Despite multiple attempts to involve him, including filing a police complaint, the advocate intentionally avoided participating in the proceedings. The Disciplinary Committee noted the inappropriate conduct and deliberate absence, indicating a lack of interest in contesting the matter on its merits.

The Bar Council deemed the allegations against Mr. Kulshreshtha extremely serious. The creation of forged court decrees not only defrauded his clients but also represented a misuse of his license, undermining the law and justice delivery system. The Council referred to a relevant case, emphasizing the gravity of such professional misconduct and the necessity for deterrence and correction.

According to the Bar Council, advocates are not granted licenses to engage in illegal activities that tarnish the legal profession’s image. Upholding the standards of the legal fraternity is crucial, and any member falling below these standards deserves punishment proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

In light of these findings, the Bar Council found Mr. Peeush Kulshreshtha guilty of gross misconduct and suspended his advocate license for seven years. Additionally, he has been directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the damages suffered. This decision reinforces the commitment to maintaining the credibility and reputation of the legal profession, ensuring that advocates adhere to the highest ethical standards.

BCI Chairman Writes Letter to CJI, Requests to declare National Court Holiday on Jan 22 for Ayodhya’s Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha Mahotsav

by News

Bar Council of India Chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, has written a letter to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, requesting the declaration of a nationwide holiday for all courts on January 22. This appeal is tied to the upcoming consecration ceremony of Lord Ram at the newly constructed Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.

Scheduled for January 22, the Pran Pratishtha Mahotsav (consecration ceremony) will witness the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and various dignitaries. In the letter, Mishra refers to the Supreme Court’s November 9, 2019, judgment, which granted Hindus a clear title to the entire Ram Janmabhoomi. The court affirmed that the Babri Masjid area was indeed the birthplace of Lord Ram.

Highlighting the significance of this event, Mishra argues that declaring a holiday on January 22 would symbolize a “harmonious blend of legal processes with the cultural ethos of the nation.”

In simpler terms, the Bar Council of India is asking the Chief Justice to let courts across the country take a break on January 22. This is because an important ceremony is happening in Ayodhya – the consecration of the idol of Lord Ram in the new Ram Mandir. The Bar Council refers to a past Supreme Court decision that confirmed Hindus’ ownership of the Ram Janmabhoomi. According to them, making January 22 a holiday would demonstrate a good balance between following legal rules and respecting our cultural values.

Delhi High Court Imposes Restrictions on Bohemia Amid Contract Dispute with Saga Music

by News

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim order restraining Punjabi rapper Bohemia, also known as Roger David, from collaborating with any music label other than Saga Music. This legal development stems from a lawsuit filed by Saga Music against Bohemia, accusing him of violating their contract.

According to court documents, Bohemia had entered into an exclusive talent engagement agreement with Saga Music in December 2019, committing to work solely with them for a duration of 45 months. The agreement explicitly stated that Saga Music would own all intellectual property rights to Bohemia’s songs, videos, and performances. Moreover, Bohemia was not permitted to collaborate with any other artist or label without obtaining prior written consent from Saga.

Saga Music alleged that Bohemia breached the agreement by failing to produce any songs for them and continuing with musical tours. Additionally, Bohemia released songs in collaboration with other artists on his YouTube channel, a violation of the exclusivity clause in the contract.

The court, after considering Saga Music’s claims, issued an ex parte ad interim order, effective until the next hearing scheduled for February 23. This order prohibits Bohemia from creating music videos, songs, or engaging in public performances without obtaining prior written permission from Saga Music. It also prohibits Bohemia and his associates from making any defamatory posts about Saga Music on social media.

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal represented Saga Music in the legal proceedings, highlighting the potential irreparable harm Saga Music could face if an interim order was not granted.

In summary, the Delhi High Court’s decision serves as a temporary measure to safeguard Saga Music’s interests amid Bohemia’s alleged contract violations. The court has indicated its initial belief in the merits of Saga Music’s case, and the interim order is intended to prevent further harm to the label until a thorough examination occurs during the next hearing on February 23.

Judge did not receive the salary: Patna High Court judge moves to the Supreme Court

by News

A judge from the Patna High Court, Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra, has taken his case to the Supreme Court, stating that he hasn’t received his salary since being promoted to the High Court in November 2023. He argues that the delay is because he hasn’t been given a General Provident Fund (GPF) account, even though he completed all the required paperwork.

The Supreme Court has accepted Justice Mishra’s plea, where he is requesting the opening of a GPF account and the release of his salary. A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, issued notices to the Union of India, the State of Bihar, and the Registrar General of the Patna High Court. The court has set the case for consideration on January 29, 2024.

Justice Mishra, through his lawyer Advocate Prem Prakash, sought interim relief, but the court didn’t make any interim decisions. The judge claims that not having a GPF account has caused financial and mental instability, preventing him from receiving his salary since the promotion.

In his plea, Justice Mishra refers to Section 20 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, seeking a declaration that he is entitled to a GPF account. The Act states that every judge can subscribe to the General Provident Fund, with a provision for judges who held other pensionable civil posts before their appointment to continue their subscription to the Provident Fund they were enrolled in previously.

This case follows a similar issue involving seven sitting judges of the Patna High Court who approached the Supreme Court last year. They faced the closure of their GPF accounts based on a letter from the Law Ministry. In response, the Supreme Court, led by CJI Chandrachud, directed the immediate release of salaries for these judges.

Justice Mishra’s case emphasizes the importance of prompt administrative processes for judges, particularly concerning financial matters like the GPF account, which affects their livelihood and well-being. The Supreme Court’s decision on January 29 will clarify the resolution of this matter and may establish a precedent for judges facing similar challenges.

In a broader context, these incidents underscore the need for streamlined administrative procedures to ensure the timely and efficient handling of judges’ financial matters, safeguarding their rights and well-being within the judicial system.

Uttarakhand High Court Halts JJB Proceedings in Hyatt Hotel Rape Case Due to Minor’s Reported unsound mind

by News

The Uttarakhand High Court has intervened in legal proceedings related to a rape case involving a minor believed to be of unsound mind. The incident, which occurred in 2022, involved a 15-year-old boy accused of raping a female staff member at the Hyatt Hotel in Dehradun. The court’s decision to suspend the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) proceedings came after a revision petition challenged the JJB’s refusal to discharge the juvenile, citing Sections 328 and 330 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which pertain to the procedure for accused individuals with mental health issues.

Justice Pankaj Purohit issued the order after considering the revision petition. The court has summoned the JJB records and scheduled a further hearing for April 16. In the meantime, the proceedings before the JJB in connection with this case will remain on hold.

The rape case was initially reported at the Rajpur Police Station in 2022, alleging that the incident occurred at the Hyatt Hotel in Dehradun. Subsequently, a 15-year-old boy was arrested in connection with the crime. Due to concerns about the minor’s mental health, a medical panel was established at the behest of the JJB to assess the boy’s condition and his ability to participate in the trial. The medical board concluded that the accused was of “unsound mind” with a borderline mental disability and psychosis, rendering him unable to defend himself adequately.

Despite efforts to secure the minor’s discharge under the relevant CrPC provisions, the JJB denied the request and instead ordered the production of the accused for the framing of notice. This decision prompted a legal challenge in the High Court by the accused minor’s father. The minor’s counsel, Ravi Sharma, argued that the JJB should not have directed the accused boy’s production, considering the medical panel’s report indicating his unsound mind.

It was revealed in court that the JJB suggested recording the minor’s statement in the presence of a parent to accommodate his unsoundness. However, the minor’s counsel argued that having a parent present during the proceedings would not significantly aid the minor in defending himself.

Taking these arguments into account, the High Court accepted the revision petition and temporarily suspended the proceedings before the JJB. Legal representation for the juvenile accused included advocates Ravi Sharma, Abhimanshu Dhyani, Sahil Modi, and Anjani Kumar Rai. Deputy Advocate General Deepak Bisht, along with Mamta Joshi, represented the State in this case.

Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Press Freedom in Defamation Case

by News

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently made a significant decision, dismissing defamation proceedings against certain newspaper editors and journalists, including the Resident Editor of the Indian Express. In the case titled “Vipin Pubby v. State of Haryana and another,” retired Indian Police Service (IPS) Officer Param Vir Rathee initiated defamation charges.

Justice Anoop Chitkara of the High Court determined that the Gurgaon court’s summons against the journalists lacked merit. The individuals involved, including the current Indian Express Resident Editor Manraj Grewal, former Resident Editor Vipin Pubby, and others associated with Daily Ajit (Punjabi) and Ajit Samachar (Hindi), had the defamation proceedings quashed.

Justice Chitkara emphasized that the newspapers and reporters had not committed any offense by publishing a news report about Rathee. The court stressed the importance of protecting journalists’ interests, highlighting their crucial role as independent monitors of power, reporting information for the public good and safety.

The judge underscored news reporters’ duty to the citizenry, serving as vital contributors to a democracy’s functioning. Facing challenges and pressures from influential parties or government agencies, journalists require proactive safeguarding by constitutional courts.

Rathee had filed a defamation complaint in 2008, naming 18 major newspapers and objecting to a news item published in The Indian Express titled “Accused says he bribed ADGP, sought police protection.” The news reported that an accused confessed to the Central Bureau of Investigation that Rathee recommended police protection after taking a bribe.

Upon careful consideration, the High Court opined that The Indian Express had engaged in investigative journalism, presenting Rathee’s version alongside other perspectives. Rathee did not contest the accuracy of his version in the news item, nor did he claim ill intentions by the journalists.

The court acknowledged the journalist’s adherence to ethical standards, displaying reasonableness and impartiality by including Rathee’s viewpoint before crafting the news report. The reporter explicitly mentioned Rathee’s denial and the police’s corroboration, demonstrating responsibility and decency in reporting.

Consequently, the court found The Indian Express, its reporter, and editors entitled to the exceptions under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to defamation. It emphasized that the newspaper acted within the constitutional parameters of freedom of speech and expression.

In the case of Ajit newspaper’s managing editor Barjinder Singh Hamdard, the court quashed the summons, noting that Rathee failed to satisfy fundamental requirements under Section 499 IPC. The court found no evidence that the news published in Ajit Samachar reached the public and recognized the correct reporting of statements made by individuals involved.

In conclusion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision is a significant affirmation of journalists’ role in a democracy and the importance of safeguarding their interests. The court’s emphasis on proactive protection for journalists highlights the challenges they face in reporting the truth and reinforces the constitutional principles of freedom of speech and expression. This ruling sets a precedent for responsible journalism, balancing the right to information with the protection of individuals’ reputations.

PIL Questions Recent Amendments to Criminal Laws in Supreme Court

by News

A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging three recent criminal law amendment Acts—Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. These Acts are intended to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act, aiming to reform India’s criminal justice system.

The laws, passed in the winter session of Parliament and approved by the President on December 25, are yet to come into effect. While information is available on the Rashtrapati Bhavan website, it has not been published in the Gazette of India, and rules are still pending.

Vishal Tiwari, the petitioner, raises concerns about the laws, pointing out defects and discrepancies while emphasizing that they ignore recommendations from the Law Commission. The petitioner stresses that the laws were passed without proper parliamentary debate, as many members were suspended during that period. Additionally, the petitioner notes that the titles of the proposed bills are unclear and do not convey the purpose of the statutes.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, according to the petitioner, largely retains offenses from the Indian Penal Code of 1860. The new CrPC, as per the petitioner’s arguments, could make obtaining bail during police custody more challenging.

The three laws were initially introduced in Lok Sabha on August 11, 2023, and later referred to a parliamentary committee for further examination, headed by Brij Lal. Following this, they were approved by the Lok Sabha on December 20 and subsequently passed by the Rajya Sabha on December 21.

In summary, a PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court questioning the validity and effectiveness of the new criminal law amendment Acts, emphasizing concerns about their passage without proper parliamentary discussion and the potential implications of changes to bail procedures.

Allahabad High Court Mandates Police Checks for Lawyer Licenses

by News

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing the criminal background of individuals applying for a license to practice law. The court took action after a concerning incident where a person with a history of fourteen criminal cases, including four convictions, managed to obtain a license to practice as a lawyer. The court’s directive involves incorporating a police report as part of the evaluation process for aspiring lawyers.

The division bench, comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vinod Diwakar, expressed concern about the lax procedures that allowed an individual with a significant criminal record to enter the legal profession unnoticed. In response, the court instructed the Uttar Pradesh government and the State Bar Council to implement a thorough due diligence process.

The court’s order specifies that a police report should be solicited from relevant police stations for both pending and new applications for a law license. Drawing parallels with the process of obtaining passports, the court suggests that a provisional license can be issued while awaiting the police report. If the subsequent report reveals adverse information, the provisional license can be revoked.

This legal development unfolded during the court’s consideration of a petition that highlighted the case of an individual with fourteen pending criminal cases, four of which resulted in convictions. The petitioner raised concerns about the person securing a law license by concealing this criminal history. The court, noting the urgency of the matter, directed the State Bar Council to expedite disciplinary proceedings, ideally concluding within three months.

The court stressed the potential harm to society and the legal community if individuals with criminal backgrounds are allowed to practice law unchecked. It cited the Advocates Act, emphasizing its prohibition against admitting individuals with such histories to the legal profession. The court expressed surprise at the lack of a robust procedure within the Bar Council to enforce its own rules, highlighting the need for the council to evolve measures for rigorous background checks.

The judges underscored the obligation of applicants to disclose any criminal charges or convictions during the application process. Failure to provide such information could result in the rejection of the application. The court questioned the apparent absence of a well-defined procedure within the Bar Council to ensure compliance with these principles.

In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court’s directive serves as a crucial step towards ensuring that the legal profession remains free from individuals with a questionable criminal history. By mandating the inclusion of a police report in the licensing process and emphasizing timely disciplinary proceedings, the court aims to fortify the integrity of the legal fraternity in Uttar Pradesh. The State Bar Council has been urged to implement these measures promptly to safeguard the reputation of the legal profession and protect the interests of society at large.