No Unauthorised Broadcast of ICC World Cup Matches : Delhi High Court

Justice Gita Mittal

Source : Indlaw

The Delhi High Court today restrained around 144 cable operators across the country from telecasting the ongoing cricket World Cup as they were unauthorisedly accessing signals of ESPN Software India Pvt Ltd (ESIPL) and showing it to the viewer. 

Justice Gita Mittal said that after this order, anyone found showing the telecast of cricket match will be prosecuted under the contempt of court. 

'Anyone showing the broadcast of ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 through any unauthorised means or any other channel will be held for contempt of court and liable for prosecution.' Justice Mittal said. 

The court was hearing a petition filed by ESIPL, the company seeking an order to restrain cable operators from unauthorisedly broadcasting the tournament. 

The ICC Cricket World Cup, being co-hosted by India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, is being telecast on ESPN, STAR Sports and STAR Cricket channels from February 19 to April 2. 

The Court directed the cable operators to file status report within a week and gave permission to ESIPL to take action against all other cable operators not party to the suit but unauthorisedly utilising the feed of ESPN, STAR Sports and STAR Cricket without licence. 

ESIPL, in its petition, urged the court to ban the 144 cable operators from accessing signals of the cricket matches without taking a licence from the company. 

The court restrained the 144 cable operators from transmitting and/or telecasting in any manner whatsoever without licence from ESS (ESPN STAR Sports) the telecast of ICC Cricket World Cup 2011. 

The court also restrained the other cable operators who have not been named in the petition and issued injunction against unnamed cable operators indulging in the illegal telecast and directed the police to render assistance to ESIPL to enforce the court order.

IIT Bound to Provide Copy of ORS to Candidates under Right to Information Act

Justice Muralidhar

The Delhi High Court in Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi v. Naveen Talwar, has held that IIT cannot deny a copy of the Optical Response Sheet to its students, and the applicants statutory rights under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be curtailed. While affirming the Central Information Commission's order, the High Court, inter alia, held;

9. This Court is not impressed with the above submission. The defence the Petitioner may have had, if a notice had been issued to it by the CIC, has been considered by this Court in the present proceedings. This Court finds, for the reasons explained hereinafter, that there is no legal justification for the Petitioners refusal to provide each of the Respondents a photocopy of the concerned ORS.

10. It is next submitted that under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, there is a fiduciary relationship that the Petitioner shares with the evaluators and therefore a photocopy of the ORS cannot be disclosed. Reliance is placed on the decision by the Full Bench of the CIC rendered on 23rd April 2007 in Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Harish Chander.

11. In the first place given the fact that admittedly the evaluation of the ORS is carried out through a computerized process and not manually, the question of there being a fiduciary relationship between the IIT and the evaluators does not arise. Secondly, a perusal of the decision of the CIC in Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Harish Chander shows that a distinction was drawn by the CIC between the OMR sheets and conventional answer sheets. The evaluation of the ORS is done by a computerized process. The non-ORS answer sheets are evaluated by physical marking. It was observed in para 41 that where OMR (or ORS) sheets are used, as in the present cases, the disclosure of evaluated answer sheets was "unlikely to render the system unworkable and as such the evaluated answer sheets in such cases will be disclosed and made available under the Right to Information Act unless the providing of such answer sheets would involve an infringement of copyright as provided for under Section 9 of the Right to Information Act."

12. Irrespective of the decision dated 23rd April 2007 of the CIC in Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Harish Chander, which in any event is not binding on this Court, it is obvious that the evaluation of the ORS/ORM sheets is through a computerized process and no prejudice can be caused to the IIT by providing a candidate a photocopy of the concerned ORS. This is not information being sought by a third party but by the candidate himself or herself. The disclosure of such photocopy of the ORS will not compromise the identity of the evaluator, since the evaluation is done through a computerized process. There is no question of defence under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act being invoked by the IIT to deny copy of such OMR sheets/ORS to the candidate.

13. It is then urged by Mr. Mitra that if the impugned orders of the CIC are sustained it would open a "floodgate" of such applications by other candidates as a result of which the entire JEE and GATE system would "collapse". The above apprehension is exaggerated. If IIT is confident that both the JEE and GATE are fool proof, it should have no difficulty providing a candidate a copy of his or her ORS. It enhances transparency. It appears unlikely that the each and every candidate would want photocopies of the ORS.

14. It is then submitted that evaluation done of the ORS by the Petitioner is final and no request can be entertained for re-evaluation of marks. Reliance is placed on the order dated 2nd July 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3807 of 2010 [Adha Srujana v. Union of India]. This Court finds that the question as far as the present case is concerned is not about the request of the Respondents for re-evaluation or re-totalling of the marks obtained by them in the JEE 2010 or GATE 2010. Notwithstanding the disclosure of the ORS to the Respondent, IIT would be within its rights to decline a request from either of them for re-evaluation or re-totalling in terms of the conditions already set out in the information brochure. The decision dated 2nd July 2010 by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3807 of 2010 has no application to the present case.

15. The right of a candidate, sitting for JEE or GATE, to obtain information under the RTI Act is a statutory one. It cannot be said to have been waived by such candidate only because of a clause in the information brochure for the JEE or GATE. In other words, a candidate does not lose his or her right under the RTI Act only because he or she has agreed to sit for JEE or GATE. The condition in the brochure that no photocopy of the ORS sheet will be provided, is subject to the RTI Act. It cannot override the RTI Act.

16 of 21 SC Judges are on the Boards of Big Corporates: Former HC Judge

Source : Indlaw

Former Bombay High Court Judge B G Kolse-Patil today alleged that 16 of 21 Supreme Court judges are on the boards of big corporates like Tata, Birla and Ambanis. 

Addressing a news conference at Vasantrao Kale College of Journalism here, Mr Patil said neither judiciary nor administration can provide relief to common man and alleged that people in judiciary are members of corporate sector. 

He cited an instance of a case before Supreme Court bench pertaining to the dispute between Ambani brothers. When the Delhi High Court passed an order saying that the apex court judges should declare their assets, the Judges on the bench of Ambani case were shareholders of Reliance Group of companies and after the passing of the order, the Judges recused themselves from the case, he said. 

Mr Kolse-Patil also criticised Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and charged that he is the most dishonest Prime Minister. 

He said about 100 crore people are living below the poverty line, while the Prime Minister keeps talking about the country's economic growth. 

He argued that the country was far away from socialism. The word has become 'untouchable' as people in power do not dare to remove this word from the constitution, he pointed.

Death for Kasab Confirmed : Bombay HC dismisses Kasab Appeal

Source : Indlaw

Nearly two years and three months after the deadly 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks that left 166 dead and 280 injured, the Bombay High Court today confirmed the death sentence of Pakistani fidayeen Ajmal Amir Kasab and upheld the acquittal of two other accused in the case, Lashkar-e-Toiba operatives Fahim Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed. 

In a 1,208-page order, a division bench comprising Justices Ranjana Desai and Ranjit More confirmed the death sentence this morning. 

Earlier, Additional Sessions Judge ML Tahilayani (currently Principal Sessions Judge), who presided over the trial of the November 26-29, 2008 terror attacks, awarded death sentence to Kasab on May 6 last year. 

The trial court had sentenced Kasab to death on five counts besides several life imprisonment sentences and other sentences. 

The court had also acquitted Ansari and Ahmed for want of evidence. 

’The appeal of Kasab has been dismissed and the death sentence has been upheld,’ the bench said in its order after nearly four months of hearing. 

’This is, indeed, a rarest of rare cases involving uncommon and unprecedented crime for which sentence of life imprisonment is inadequate,’ the bench said. 

’We feel that we would never be as confident as we are today in confirming the death sentence,’ the bench said, justifying the capital punishment awarded to Kasab. 

Kasab, however, has one month’s time to appeal in the Supreme Court. 

’We would inform him about the judgement and he has to take a further decision,’ his court-appointed lawyer Farhana Shah said. 

Maharashtra government’s counsel Ujjwal Nikam said, ‘It is victory of truth. He deserves only death penalty.’ 

‘The punishment must befit the crime. The punishment must reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The rights of the victims must also be kept in mind. Examined in the light of the settled principles and after drawing the balance sheet, we are of the considered opinion that in this case, the lone mitigating circumstance i.e. young age of Kasab must recede in the background. Even after according maximum weightage to the age factor, we feel that there is no alternative but to confirm the death sentence,’ the bench noted. 

It said, ‘In any case, in our short interaction with Kasab through video conferencing, we observed his demeanour. He did not appear to be repentant at all. He was perfectly sane. He was in proper frame of mind.’