Supreme Court on 2G Scam : 'Why has A. Raja not been questioned'

Source : Indlaw.com

The Supreme Court slammed both the government and CBI for not taking the probe as well as CAG report in the Rs 1.76 lakh crore 2G spectrum scam seriously. 

A bench comprising Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly first questioned Mr K K Venugopal, appearing for the CBI, for not naming the two companies named by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) in his letter to CBI which was the basis of the FIR registered in October 2009 against unknown persons. 

The apex court also asked CBI counsel ‘why have you not questioned A Raja inspite of strong prima facie evidence against the ex-minister?’

Solicitor General of India Gopal Subramaniam was also reprimanded by the judges who asked him ‘why are you taking the CAG report non-seriously? CAG is also a Constitutional authority appointed by the Government and its findings cannot be treated in such a non-serious manner.’ The Supreme Court, adjourning the hearing till November 30, permitted CBI to file the status report in the Supreme Court in a sealed cover giving details of the investigation carried out during past 13 months, including the names of the companies and individuals who have been investigated and interrogated till date. 

The court permitted CBI to file status report when Mr Venugopal himself offered to file a status report. 

The apex court was irked with Mr Venugopal when he objected to the hearing of the PIL on merits. 

Justice Singhvi asked the CBI counsel, ‘Why were the two companies that have been named by the CVC not named in the FIR? The companies got the spectrum allocated for Rs 1500-1600 crore and sold the same for Rs 6000 crore within a few days. Was it not sufficient to name them as accused and investigate?’ Counsel for the petitioner Prashant Bhushan submitted before the court that the cut-off date was arbitrarily advanced from October 1, 2007 to September 25, 2007 leading to the elimination of 343 applicants out of total 575 applicants for spectrum allocation. 

The date was advanced in January 2008 with retrospective effect. 

Mr Bhushan also pointed out that on October 18, 2007 Tiger Trustee, a company owned by Reliance group of Anil Ambani, transferred 50 lakh shares for Rs five crore to some foreign company when it was having Rs 1000 crore in its bank account. 

The CBI has not tried to find out to whom these shares were transferred. 

The apex court was also surprised by the stand taken by DoT that accepting the advice of Law ministry for referring the matter to empowered group of ministers will lead to further litigation. 

Justice Ganguly reacted by saying, ‘Litigation is not a crime and it does not mean that you will not do the right thing only because people may go to the court.’ The Supreme Court brushed aside the objection of the CBI to the petition being heard on merit instead of confining to the limited issue of monitoring the investigation by the Supreme Court. 

Solicitor General of India Gopal Subramanium informed the court that the government was awaiting TRAI opinion on the issue of cancellation of licenses granted by former Communications minister A Raja.

Judges Appointed : Rajasthan gets new Chief Justice

Source : Indlaw.com

The appointment of Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice and four Andhra Pradesh High Court Judges was announced but more than 280 sanctioned posts nationwide have been vacant and the pendency of cases has been on the rise. 

Rajasthan High Court Judge Arun Kumar Mishra has been appointed Chief Justice of the High Court by President Pratibha Patil, a Law and Justice Ministry announcement said. 

Andhra Pradesh High Court Additional Judges Bejjaram Chandra Kumar, Nalla Bhuma Narayan Rao, Samudrala Govindarajulu and Noushad Ali, in that order of seniority, have been appointed Judges of the High Court, another Ministry announcement said. 

The Ministry said appointments take effect from the date of assumption of office. 

Vacancy in High Courts rose from 273 of 895 sanctioned posts-- reported by Law and Justice Minister M Veerappa Moily in Parliament in March 2010-- to 285 in September 2010-- reported by the Justice Department. 

Those and 2,980 vacancies in 16,990 District Courts have been a cause of concern in a nation facing serious discipline issues compounded by court delays and mounting pendency. 

The courts between them have an estimated 31.54 million cases pending, reflecting unresolved conflicts citizens live with-- a perspective on vacancies! The government knows that vacant judgeships contribute to increasing case pendency and arrears in courts. 

Dr Moily is on record having told Parliament that ‘delay in filling up the vacancies of Judges is one of the main reasons for accumulation of pending cases in courts.’ The government is often at pains to explain that appointment of Judges was turned over to the judiciary-- Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of the concerned High Court-- by a 1993 Supreme Court judgement. 

The government ‘periodically’ reminds the Chief Justices to initiate proposals in time to fill up existing vacancies and those anticipated six months ahead, Dr Moily says. 

The process to fill vacancies is supposed to begin six months before a retirement is due-- a date known the moment a judge is appointed. 

But as the government acknowledged in Parliament in 2009, eleven High Courts were yet to initiate proposals to fill up all posts ‘that were vacant in 2007.’ It has been over a year since Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stressed the urgency of filling up Court vacancies. 

‘The existing vacancies in High Courts are quite high in number and need to be filled up urgently,’ he told a Joint Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices. 

Notwithstanding the advent of internet and a clamour for transparency, opacity has remained a major issue. 

Even provisions of a Right to Information notified in 2005 and projected by Dr Singh as a major United Progressive Alliance achievement, have been questioned by the judiciary. 

Referring to the 1993 Supreme Court judgement by then Justice J S Verma, one expert says assuming there was merit in reducing executive role, it could well have been a move towards transparency. 

The expert saw no reason why public input is not encouraged by circulating names of proposed candidates before appointment-- a move that needed no Constitutional or legislative amendment, just norms. 

Experts agree that with 31 million plus cases pending, many for decades, and barely 18,000 judges sanctioned against a recommended 55,000 strength, vacancies may be the last thing Indian courts can afford.

Introducing Lex Crawler : The Best Legal Search Engine

It is our pleasure to introduce you to Lex Crawler.

This simple but effective tool allows users to search the Legal Internet with ease. Searches are refined specifically keeping in mind the needs of the legal fraternity, and the aim is to make the search accessible and simple.

Lex Crawler uses Google's effective search crawlers and spiders to index the best legal information available on the web. The information is then refined to specifically cater to searches related to Indian legal sites, which makes this resource a must have for all concerned.

As of now, Lex Crawler indexes free websites / resources but very soon we shall offer premium / paid content to our customers from a wide variety of Indian and International websites.

Click here to see how Lex Crawler works.

To submit your Link to enable us to index the same and add it to our list of sites Click Here.

Happy Searching.

--

Legal Blog

No Change in Judicial Appointment System : Moily to Rajya Sabha

Veerappa Moily
Union Law Minister

Source : Indlaw.com

Notwithstanding criticism of ‘dilatory and ineffective’ process of appointing Supreme Court and High Courts Judges, the government has no immediate plans to change the system, Rajya Sabha was told. 

‘There is, at present, no specific proposal to bring about any change,’ Law and Justice Minister M Veerappa Moily said in a written reply to Shiromani Akali Dal member Balwinder Singh Bhunder. 

Bhunder wanted to know whether the government will amend the Constitution to give the executive overriding powers in selecting Judges as the present procedure ‘has proved to be dilatory and ineffective.’ Moily said the procedure for Judges appointment based on a Supreme Court judgement ‘has been debated in various fora and there have been demands to change the same.’ ‘However, there is, at present, no specific proposal to bring about any change in the present system of appointment of Judges in the Supreme Court and the High Courts.'