Archive for the 'Supreme Court Judgments' Category

Dismissal From Service Apt Punishment For Corruption: SC

Here is the excerpt from the news:

“The Supreme Court has held that dismissal is the only form of punishment for those involved in corruption and misappropriation of public money, even if the embezzled amount is meagre. The apex court said that though punishment should be proportionate to the crime, in cases of corruption, dismissal is the only punishment that could be imposed on a government employee.”

Here is the judgment from India Kanoon: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1473406/

Local copy in pdf format if the judgment disappears:  U.P. State Road Transport vs Suresh Chand Sharma -May, 2010

___________________________________________________

Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP – 1994

For reasons unknown, I decided to revisit, possibly, the most important judgment ever delivered by an Indian court.

These words of  Justice MN VENKATACHALLIAH renewed my determination to fight.

No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do.

Here is this seminal judgment again, reformatted and presented anew:

Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP – 1994

Original link to Judis: http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=11479

Given below is the 3rd report of the National Police Commission that this judgment draws on:

Third Report Of The National Police Commission (From BPRD)

Also given below is a fragment of the First Police Commission:

First Report Of The National Police Commission (Fragment From BPRD)

Compliance orders:

____________________________________________________________

Nandini Satpathy Vs PL Dani: Right Against Self Incrimination

Nandini Satpathy – former Chief Minister of Orissa – against whom a case had been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, was asked to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of Police [Vigilance] for questioning. The police wanted to interrogate her by giving her a string of questions in writing. She refused to answer the questionnaire, on the grounds that it was a violation of her fundamental right against self-incrimination. The police insisted that she must answer their questions and booked her under Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which prescribes punishment for refusing to answer any question asked by a public servant authorised to ask that question. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Nandini Satpathy had a right to silence and whether people can refuse to answer questions during investigation that would point towards their guilt.
Supreme Court Observations:
Article 20 (3) of the Constitution lays down that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against her/himself. Section 161 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], casts a duty on a person to truthfully answer all questions, except those which establish personal guilt to an investigating officer.
The Supreme Court accepted that there is a rivalry between societal interest in crime detection and the constitutional rights of an accused person. They admitted that the police had a difficult job to do especially when crimes were growing and criminals were outwitting detectives. Despite this, the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution is of utmost importance, the Court said. In the interest of protecting these rights,we cannot afford to write off fear of police torture leading to forced self incrimination.
While any statement given freely and voluntarily by an accused person is admissible and even invaluable to an investigation, use of pressure whether ?subtle or crude, mental or physical, direct or indirect but sufficiently substantial? by the police to get information is not permitted as it violates the constitutional guarantee of fair procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed that the accused has a right to silence during interrogation if the answer exposes her/him into admitting guilt in either the case under investigation or in any other offence. They pointed out that ground realities were such that a police officer is a commanding and authoritative figure and therefore, clearly in a position to exercise influence over the accused.
Supreme Court Directives
1. An accused person cannot be coerced or influenced into giving a statement pointing to her/his guilt.
2. The accused person must be informed of her/his right to remain silent and also of the right against self incrimination.
3. The person being interrogated has the right to have a lawyer by her/his side if she/he so wishes.13
4. An accused person must be informed of the right to consult a lawyer at the time of questioning, irrespective of the fact whether s/he is under arrest or in detention.
5. Women should not be summoned to the police station for questioning in breach of Section 160 (1) CrPC.14
An essential element of a fair trial is that the accused cannot be forced to give evidence against her/himself. Forcing suspects to sign statements admitting their guilt violates the constitutional guarantee against self incrimination and breaches provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). It is also inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. In addition, causing ‘hurt’ to get a confession is punishable by imprisonment up to seven years.

Here is the judgment: Nandini Satpathy Vs PL Dani: Right Against Self Incrimination

_______________________________________

The Definition Of Torture, As Per The Supreme Court Of India

The Supreme Court in Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P, 1994, described how the police treated Nidhi, the victim, in the following manner:

“On a careful consideration of all the evidence on record in the light of the surrounding circumstances I accept the claim of Nidhi that she was tortured by the police officers on 24th, 25th and 26th July, 1993. On 24.7.93 she was pressurised by J.C. Upadhyaya S.H.O., Sukhpal Singh, S.S.I, and Narendrapal Singh S.I. and threatened and commanded to implicate her husband and his family in a case of abduction and forcible marriage thereafter. She was threatened with physical violence to her husband and to herself in case of her default and when she refused her family members were brought in to pressurise her into implicating them. On 25th July 1993 she was jolted out of sleep by Sukhpal Singh S.S.I. and made to remain standing for a long time. She was abused and jostled and threatened by J.C. Upadhyay, Sukhpal Singh and Narendrapal Singh with injury to her body if she did not write down the dictated note. Sukhpal Singh SSI even assaulted her on her leg with Danda and poked it in her stomach. She did not yield to the pressure.”

The Ho’nble judge then went on to define torture:

“Torture is not merely physical, there may be mental torture and psychological torture calculated to create fright and submission to the demands or commands. When the threats proceed from a person in Authority and that too by a police officer the mental torture caused by it is even more grave”

From this judgment, it is very clear that each time our families are threatened by the police with the old threat of “Pay up, or else…”, they are subjecting them to torture.

Torture, in the words of the Supreme Court of India is “is not merely physical, there may be mental torture and psychological torture calculated to create fright and submission to the demands or commands”

SC: The Definition Of Torture Given In Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P

_________________________________________

Role Of Judiciary In Good Governance: Former CJI YK Sabharwal

Here is the pdf:

http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/new_links/Good%20Governance.pdf

____________________________________

SC Judgment: Compulsory Registration Of All Marriages

Here is the judgment:  SC Judgment: Compulsory Registration Of All Marriages

___________________________________________________

Till The Courts Do Us Apart: SC Makes Marriage Registration Mandatory

Here is the story from TOI:

 25 Oct 2007, 1137 hrs IST,PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed all states and Union Territories to bring in suitable legislation within three months to make registration of marriage compulsory.
A bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat asked the states and UTs to file a compliance report along with an affidavit after the three months deadline.
The apex court passed the order after noting that several states had made registration of marriage compulsory only for the members of the Hindu community.
But by Thursday’s order, registration of marriage will be mandatory for all religions.

________________________________________________


Visitors Since Mar/14/07

  • 3,278,942

Cluster Map

Live Traffic

Archives

Top Rated Posts

Some Interesting Stats On Arrests Of Women

In 1930, the British govt arrested 17,000 women for their involvement in the Dandi Yatra (Salt March). During 1937 to 1947 (10 Years), they arrested 5,000 women involved in the freedom struggle. From 2004 to 2006, the govt of India arrested 90,000 women of all ages under 498A. On the average, 27,000 women per year are being arrested under this flawed law. These are stats from the NCRB.

Copyright Notice:

The content of this blog is copyrighted. You are required to obtain prior permission before locally hosting or reproducing online or in print, any or part of the content. You are welcome to directly link to the content from your site. Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape MyFreeCopyright.com Registered & Protected Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

Disclaimer:

The family of the writer was tortured by the Indian Police in an attempt to extort over a $100,000 by holding them in custody for over a week. The police, in cahoots with the magistrate and the PP, did this due to the ridiculous allegations made in a 498A case by his embittered ex-wife. She filed the case years after he and his family had last seen her. Thousands of 498A cases are filed each year in India by women seeking to wreak vengeance on their husbands and in-laws. Enormous sums are extorted from intimidated families implicated in these cases by corrupt Indian police officers and elements of the Indian judiciary. The author and his family haven't bribed any public official nor have they given in to the extortion. This blog aims to raise awareness of due process in India. The content of this blog constitutes, opinions, observations, and publicly available documents. The intent is not to slander or defame anyone or any institution and is the manifestation of the author's right to freedom of expression – with all the protections this right guarantees.

Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

You will need adobe acrobat to read most of the documents. Please download adobe acrobat reader. Get Adobe Acrobat For Your System
October 2019
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

%d bloggers like this: