Common Cause updates

We recapitulate below the significant developments in various public interest litigations of the Society since the publication of the last issue of the journal.

-Editor

Supreme Court

i. WP(C) 13/2003: Large scale government advertisements:

In response to the public notice issued by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting inviting suggestions for framing of guidelines for publicly funded government advertisement campaigns, Common Cause submitted its proposition for the proposed guidelines to the Joint Secretary (P & A), Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, on June 19, 2014. A supplementary proposition on the subject was submitted on July 11, 2014.

ii. WP(C) 463/2012: Allocation of coal blocks for captive mining: 

In a landmark judgment delivered on August 25, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that neither the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, nor the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, empowers the Central government to allocate coal blocks. The Court also undertook a judicial review of the entire process of allocation and concluded that the allocations made on the recommendations of the Screening Committee as well as the allocations made through the Government Dispensation Route between 1993 and 2009 were arbitrary and illegal.

Coal blocks, where competitive bidding was held for the lowest power tariff for Ultra Mega Power Projects (UMPPs), were excluded from the purview of the verdict. However, the Court, at the instance of our counsel, directed that no diversion of coal for commercial exploitation will be permitted from the blocks allocated for UMPPs commercial exploitation.

The Court held further hearing to determine the consequences flowing from its verdict. The UOI accepted the inevitability of auctions for the blocks held to be illegally allocated, but sought an exemption for 40 blocks, where mining leases have already been granted by the state governments, and 6 others, where the end use plants are nearing completion.

Meanwhile, it transpired that Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI, had met at his residence a number of persons who are the accused in various high profile cases being investigated by the CBI, such as the Telecom scam and the Coal block allocation cases. In this context, the Society filed an application for directions, seeking the recusal of Mr. Sinha from the ongoing investigations and prosecutions related to the coal blocks allocation case.

Subsequently, credible information was received that the Income Tax Department had drawn up an appraisal report on the evidence gathered in the course of a raid on the premises of Moin Qureshi, a known Hawala operator and a frequent visitor at the residence of Mr. Sinha. Hence, an application for directions was moved to secure the production of the appraisal report, which is expected to throw light on Qureshi's interactions with Mr. Sinha and the latter's suitability to lead the investigations in the Coal Blocks Allocation cases, The application was eventually granted.

At the hearing on September 9, 2014, the UOI submitted that cancellation of allocations was the natural consequence of the August 25 judgment, while the affected private entities pressed for constitution of a committee to minimise the economic consequences of the judgment. Judgment in the matter was reserved.

The apex court pronounced its final order on September 24, cancelling 214 of the 218 allocations in question, as they suffered from the vice of arbitrariness and legal flaws.

iii. IA in Ashok Chavan's SLP (C) 29882/2011:

We had intervened in Ashok Chavan's SLP in the Supreme Court against the order of the Delhi High Court upholding the Election Commission's power to inquire into the correctness of the account of election expenses filed by a candidate. Disposing of the SLP, the Supreme Court held in its judgment dated May 5, 2014 that the Election Commission was well within its jurisdiction to inquire into the correctness of accounts and order disqualification if a candidate was found to have lodged incorrect accounts of expenditure. 

Pursuant to the Supreme Court decision, the Election Commission of India passed an order on July 13, 2014, holding that Ashok Chavan had failed to lodge his account of election expenses in the manner required by the Representation of the People Act and rules. The Commission directed Chavan to show cause within 20 days why he should not be disqualified under  section 10A of the RPA.   

Assailing this order of the Election Commission of India, Ashok Chavan has filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court for setting aside the finding of the Election Commission that he had failed to lodge his account of election expenses within time and in the manner required by the Act and the Rules, as well as the consequential order to issue show cause notice to him. The High Court has admitted the writ and stayed the operation of the Election Commission's order. 

The Special Leave Petition filed by the aggrieved opposite party against the order of the High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated August 13, 2014. The Apex Court, however, requested the High Court to dispose of the pending writ petition expeditiously.  Accordingly, the High Court has concluded the hearing and reserved judgment on August 26, 2014.

Irrespective of the outcome of the writ petition in the High Court, the matter is bound to be agitated in the Supreme Court by the unsuccessful party. The Election Commission has made it clear that it will not take any part in the proceedings to defend the order impugned by Ashok Chavan since it is a quasi-judicial order.

Under the circumstance, Common Cause has taken the initiative to mobilise the civil society organisations and eminent citizens who were co-interveners in the IA referred to earlier and urged them to keep a sharp eye on the developments in the matter and be prepared to intervene when an SLP is eventually filed in the Supreme Court.

iv. WP(C) 204/2014: Corruption in the management of Defence lands:

At the hearing on August 19, 2014, the respondents were granted a last opportunity to file their counter affidavit in four weeks time. The matter is now listed for November 3, 2014.

v. WP(C) 245/2014: Challenging the Lokpal Search Committee Rules:

At the hearing on August 22, 2014, the CJI's Bench pulled up the government for delaying the process of constituting the Lokpal. The government has notified the amended Lokpal search committee Rules on September 2, 2014.

As per the amended rules, "The search committee may, for the purpose of short-listing of persons, adopt such short-listing norms as it may consider appropriate." The words, `from amongst the list of persons provided by the Central government in the Department of Personnel and Training', have been omitted.

Thus, one of the two reliefs sought in our PIL has already been secured. The matter has been listed for final disposal on October 14, 2014.

vi. WP (C) 215/2005: Living Will:

Pursuant to the Court's order of February 25, 2014, the matter was taken up by the Constitution Bench on July 16, 2014. The Bench, having regard to the prayers made in the writ petition, particularly, the prayer to declare `right to die with dignity' as a fundamental right within the fold of right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the issues pointed out in the reference order, issued notice to all States and Union Territories.

Delhi High Court

i. WP(C) 4653/2013: Writ against the C & A G's appointment:

The writ petition filed by Mr. N. Goplaswami, former Chief Election Commissioner, and 8 former senior public servants, including the Director, Common Cause, was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on August 13, 2014. The bench of Ahmed and Bakhru, JJ, held that the appointment of Mr. S. K. Sharma was neither in violation of the principle of institutional integrity, nor arbitrary. The Court differentiated the matter from the CVC case, which had been relied upon by the petitioners, and refused to undertake what it termed as a merit review of the impugned appointment, as distinct from a judicial review. The Court also refrained from issuing any directions to the Union of India for framing transparent and objective criteria for future appointments to the constitutional office of C. & A. G.

In view of the importance of the issues raised in the PIL, an SLP has been filed in the Supreme Court to secure the desired reliefs. The SLP has been listed for hearing on October 14, 2014 along with another petition on the lack of transparency in the appointments to the Central Vigilance Commission.

ii. WP(C) 7240/2013: Evidence of corruption by Mr. Virbhadra Singh:

Pursuant to an affidavit filed by us with fresh evidence of corruption against Mr. Virbhadra Singh, the Court at the hearing on August 6, 2014 directed the CBI and the Income Tax Department to produce the reports of investigation into the allegations. The CBI filed its final status report on September 1. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, an affidavit was filed on behalf of Mr. Singh, wherein it was alleged that the petition was motivated by Mr. Prashant Bhushan's personal animosity with him.

The Society has filed a rejoinder in rebuttal of the unfounded allegations. Meanwhile, Mr. Bhushan has withdrawn from the matter to foil the bid to divert the Court's attention from the substantive issues raised in the Petition. The matter has been listed for October 16, 2014.

Orissa High Court

WP (C) 9095/2014: Discretionary allotments of plots in Odisha:

Our PIL was listed before the Chief Justice in May 2014, but could not be taken up due to his elevation to the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the matter was listed on two occasions, but deleted each time at the last minute. Our counsel lodged a strong protest with the Registrar (Judicial) against the inexplicable deletions from the cause list on August 14, 2014. The matter was eventually taken up on September 8, 2014. Background information on the order passed by the Supreme Court in the original petition has to be submitted to the Court by the next hearing after the Pooja vacation.

July September 2014