ma(a)ladministration

The CAG (Comptroller & Auditor General) of India, the constitutional watchdog of the nation's assets is entrusted with the task of monitoring the manner in which public finances are handled. Its recent reports made headlines when it found fault with plenty of government decisions, like buying the Gorshkov ship. It's job in other words is to point-out ma(a)ladministration of the nation's finances, and is supposed to function as the watchdog of the nation's money.

In Chapter 3 of the Audit Report (Civil) Tamilnadu for the year 2005-06, the CAG report was reproduced in the Indian Express with the heading, Silly FIR's make CAG Angry. The relevant portion reads "Certain inconsistent information like a bicycle valued at Rs.91,943, a moped valued at over rupees 90 lakhs, and a motorcycle valued at rupees 11.10 lakhs were noticed. There was also a case where an FIR was filed for the loss of a Boeing 747 (Jumbo) aircraft, black in colour, valued at Rs.1600 in Kallikudi police station in Madurai district."

But when an RTI application was sent to the Kallikudi police station they stoutly denied any such claims, and when the CAG was confronted, and when a copy of the FIR was demanded by me this was what the CAG had to say, "It is stated that the observation was not based on examination of any FIR as such. It was only a systems audit. As the related FIR was neither examined, nor a copy obtained by audit, this office is not in a position to provide a copy of the same".

If this is the way an audit should be done, do we need another watchdog to watch the watchdog ? And another watchdog to watch the watchdog to the watchdog ? and another ........

Wise Judges Foolish Judgments

Yet another tryst with criminal law. Usual story. Boy-girl fall in love. rural setting. high caste, low caste. parental objections. Girl married-off within her caste. Husband incompetent.

On the 1st anniversary the girl called Megala elopes with her ex-lover, and crosses into Karnataka, get married and gets pregnant. The boys parents move a habeas corpus in the Madras High Court, and the police secure the couple from Karnataka and produce them before the Chief Justice's bench of the Madras High Court. The then Chief Justice and his brother judge, notice that as Megala is already married, she cannot live with the boy with whom she had eloped, and direct the police to register a case against the boy for offences of adultery and bigamy (As per the written orders of the court).

Now the inspector of police registers the court's orders as an FIR, and arrests the boy and the judicial magistrate remands him to custody. Although both the offences under sections 494 & 497 IPC are bailable the foolish magistrate refuses to grant bail because the FIR was instituted upon the Chief Justice's orders. The Sessions Judge does likewise. However Justice R.Balasubramanian, a sensible and dignified judge of the Madras High Court laughed at the case and granted bail.

The boy spends 11 months in jail, and the police laid a chargesheet against both the boy and the girl for adultery and bigamy.

Now look at what the law says,

(1) A complaint of bigamy can be initiated only by the husband or the wife. In this case complaint instituted by Chief Justice's bench.
(2) A complaint of adultery can be initiated only by the husband and only against the adulterer and not the wife. In this case complaint instituted by Chief Justice's bench.

In the meantime the boy bribes the cops and quits the country. Girl attends trial proceedings every fortnight. Boy proclaimed as an absconder and warrants of arrest issued by the court. Will the Tamilnadu police go to Dubai to nab him ?

Now decide for yourselves. We shall give Kasab a fair trial.

Does tamil actress Kushboo deserve the death penalty ?

Not many may be aware that tamil actress Kushboo, who entered tinseltown through the hit film varusham 16, had disclosed to the reporter of a weekly magazine that certain affluent families had gone to a hotel at Chennai for dinner, where a child belonging to one of the families wanted to go to the urinal, that she was sent alongwith an employee of the hotel, and that the child failed to return even after a long time. Kushboo further claimed that after casually completing dinner, when they searched-for the child, it was found that the child was subjected to rape and found murdered, and that the hotel management tried to suppress the crime. The family of the victim-child also decided to suppress the rape and murder considering the possible damage to the reputation of the family, according to Kushboo. When another weekly subsequently questioned her she reiterated her claim and stated that "I cannot elaborate further. It is an issue involving higher-ups. I cannot openly disclose it."

One Mr.Satheesh sent a written complaint (in the larger social interest) about the incident to the DGP, seeking to investigate the rape and murder reported by Kushboo. But the Chennai Joint Commissioner of Police Mr.Tripathy made an even more startling and spectacular claim that either the father or the mother of the victim- child should lodge a police complaint or else they cannot take action. So Satheesh approached the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's court in Chennai and filed a complaint seeking an investigation by the CBI, since even the Joint Commissioner was talking non-sense. But the court had the last laugh. It examined Satheesh and instead of directing the police to investigate it directed Satheesh to produce the reporter of the weekly magazine and Kushboo before the court for examination. The reporter responded to the court summons and deposed what had transpired between him and Kushboo. But for over 4 years now Kushboo is declining to appear in court despite repeated summons from the court, and the court is also declining to secure her presence by issuance of a warrant, apparently due to her proximity with the powers that be.

That makes it a case in point. With the ToI reporting that

What more in the name of the law ?

My tryst with Indian criminal jurisprudence

One Mr.Krishnaswamy, an inspector of Police had charged a person called Manickam with the offence of theft of a motorcycle in crime number 314/01 of Taluk police station, Erode District, Tamilnadu, which (theft) had occurred at 9.30 PM on 25.11.01. While reading the papers, I was amazed to notice that Manickam had been lodged in Trichy Central Prison from 9.11.01 to 27.12.01 as an undertrial in another case in crime number 1153 of 01.

So the claim of inspector Krishnaswamy was a downright lie, with the sinister intention of implicating Manickam in a case that the police could not solve. So, on behalf of Manickam I moved an application under section 482 CrPC in the Madras High Court, and got the chargesheet against Manickam quashed. I have since advised him to move the High Court for a compensation of rupees 25 lakhs as he had been in jail for over 3 and a half years as an undertrial in the case, and even the maximum penalty for the offence of theft is only 3 years imprisonment. I have also advised him to seek action against the said inspector for forgery and fabrication of records, and for implicating him falsely. I have come across more startling aspects in the said Manickam's case, which I am reserving for future posts, lest the significance of this post gets diminished.

Well, this was my first case as soon as I entered practise. Wondering what else I've come across. Look forward to my future posts. I promise it shall be a tell-all.

My experiments with untruth

folks,

Irony of ironies that my 1st post begins on a subject like this. It's a curious case of a judge, a union minister, an lawyer (guess who) and a young lass called Dhanya Rajendran of TIMES NOW news channel whose defiance of the judiciary in pursuit of truth stunned me.

On 30.6.09 the Times of India reported as follows,

In a stunning disclosure, a Madras High Court judge told an open court on Monday that a Union minister had called and tried to influence him to grant anticipatory bail to a medical student and his doctor-father in a CBI case concerning a forged marksheet.Justice R Regupathi threatened to write to the government and the Prime Minister about the matter if the advocate appearing in the case failed to submit a written unconditional apology by Tuesday. "A Union minister talked to me. He sought to influence me to release this petitioner on anticipatory bail," Justice Regupathi told startled advocates and officers in the court. He did not name the minister.

The hearing began on Monday with Justice Regupathi saying he was not inclined to grant any relief and pointing out to their counsel that the pleas had already been rejected by him earlier on June 15. He said he would reject it this time as well. To this, the advocate complained that the judge was passing orders on the basis of the submission of prosecutors alone. An enraged Justice Regupathi, noting that most of the orders passed by him since morning were in favour of the petitioners, said pressure was being exerted on him in this case. "A Union minister TALKED to me about the matter," he said. "You yourself know everything." The judge said unless an unconditional apology was tendered, he would incorporate every detail in his order. He said he would also write to the Prime Minister and the government about the pressure being exerted on him.

Thereafter the Madras High Court was abuzz with details of the courtroom bickering between the lawyer and the judge. Speculations continued about who the minister was, with the DMK even going on to claim that if he belonged to the DMK, the party would take action against him. The 1.7.09 edition of the Times of India claimed in an article titled "who is the mantri", pointed-out surrogately that the minister was none other than the DMK minister A.Raja. Even Jayalalitha claimed that it did not require super-human intelligence to know that it was A.Raja.

On 1.7.09, the TOI reported that the Chief Justice of India KG.Balakrishnan had claimed,

"It is a gross impropriety for a politician or anyone to call up the judge regarding a pending case. It is an interference in the course of justice. We in judiciary do not brook any interference in the course of justice. " Justice Regupathi declined to answer Dhanya's telephonic queries, and even as former attorney General Soli Sorabjee demanded that the judge should name the minister, A.Raja denied any involvement.

Then the U-turn happened on 6.7.09. Chief Justice KG.Balakrishnan claimed that Justice Regupathy had written to Gokhale the Chief Justice of Madras, which was forwarded to him, and that the said letter clarified that,

(1) The minister did NOT really talk to him (Regupathi),

(2) The advocate representing the bail-seekers had HELD OUT A PHONE to him saying that the minister was on the line and wanted him to grant anticipatory bail to his clients,

(3) That Justice Regupathi refused to take the phone and was, therefore, not really spoken to by the minister.

Now was that a googly ? Which version do you believe ? Regupathy-Raja combines or Gokhale-KG Balakrishnan co-productions.