Common Cause updates
Common Cause updates
We present here a recapitulation of the activities of Common Cause and the significant developments in its various initiatives since the publication of the last issue of the journal.
Supreme Court 1. WP(C) 330/2001: Slaughter house pollution: At the hearing on February 6, 2015, the Court directed the Secretary, Consumer Affairs, to clarify whether the relevant standards of the Bureau of Indian Standards require any modification due to the passage of time. The Court also nominated the Secretary, Urban Development as the nodal officer for monitoring the functioning of the State Committees and directed him to affirm whether all the State Committees have been set up. He was also directed to report on the enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2000, and the implementation of the broad framework prepared by the Ministry of Environment and Forests for the State Committees for slaughter houses. The matter is now listed for March 27, 2015.
2. WP(C) 13/2003: Large scale government advertisements: The three-member committee appointed by the Supreme Court submitted its guidelines for regulating publicly funded government advertisement campaigns in October 2014. On January 8, 2015, the Court directed that the contesting parties file their response, if any, to the guidelines drawn up by the Court Appointed Committee. Common Cause filed an application for directions urging the Court to grant its imprimatur to the guidelines, which are balanced, comprehensive and objective, and direct the respondents to ensure their compliance. The Court has reserved the judgment on February 17.
3. WP (C) 122/2008: Judicial reforms: The Apex Court by its order dated December 10, 2014 summarily disposed of the petition, which comprehensively addressed the demand, supply and efficiency issues contributing to the progressive dysfunction of the system of administration of justice in the country. The Court relied on the Solicitor General's statement that most of the issues raised in the petition were also involved in the pending Criminal Appeal nos. 254-262/2012 Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. The Court also observed that the Judiciary has already considered most of these issues independently and finally. An application for the recall of this unwarranted order has been filed by Common Cause on behalf of the petitioners on February 16, 2015.
4. WP(C) 536/2011: Combating the criminalization of politics: At the hearing on February 17, 2015, the petitioners pressed for the effective implementation of the Court's landmark order of March 10, 2014 for time-bound disposal of pending criminal cases against sitting legislators. The Court was informed that the lead petition had requested the Registrars of the Supreme Court and the High Courts in June 2014 to lay down appropriate procedures and regulations with an in-built monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance of the Court's order by all the subordinate courts under their jurisdiction. Regrettably, these letters did not elicit any response. The Court was urged to put in place an effective monitoring mechanism to ensure the implementation of its order which can go a long way in combating the scourge of criminalisation of politics in India.
As regards the prayer for debarring persons charged with the commission of serious offences from contesting the elections, the Court seemed disinclined to assume the legislative role of Parliament. The arguments in the matter are continuing. 5. WP(C) 463/2012- Illegal allocation of captive coal blocks: At the hearing on January 12, 2015, a short note was filed by our counsel substantiating the allegations against Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI made in the IA for his recusal from the ongoing investigation and prosecution of related cases in the Supreme Court. This IA had been filed in the context of the revelations regarding Mr. Sinha's meetings with the accused in high profile cases, and his attempts to subvert the due process of law. The matter has been adjourned to February 23, 2015.
6. WP(C) 21/2013- Challenging the provisions of the IT Act, 2000: Our PIL challenging the vires of Sec. 66A, 69A and 80 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, has been clubbed with a group of petitions challenging various provisions of the Act. After several hearings over an extended period, the Court posted the matter for February 24, 2015 as part heard.
7. WP (C) 728/2013- Mala fide favours to RIL in KG Basin contract : At the hearing on January 16, we filed an IA requesting the Court to take on record the final report of the CAG on the operation of the PSC between the Government and RIL in respect of the KG Basin D6 Block, which was tabled in Parliament on November 28, 2014. The UOI filed its latest gas pricing guidelines. RIL was granted six weeks time to respond to the CAG Report. The matter has been posted direction on March 20, 2015.
8. WP(C) 114/2014- Illegal mining in the state of Odisha: The matter was taken up by the Green Bench on January 16, 2015, when the Court granted eight weeks time for filing objections to the report of the Central Empowered Committee filed in our petition. The next date of hearing is February 27, 2015.
9. WP(C) 204/2014- Mismanagement of Defence lands: Counter affidavits have been filed by the UOI and the Directorate General of Defence Estates. At the hearing on February 16, 2015, the UOI was allowed three weeks time to file an additional affidavit with leave to the petitioners to file a rejoinder.
10. WP(C) 976/2014- Preventing the export of red sandalwood: In response to the notice issued by the Forest Bench, the Government of Andhra Pradesh filed its counter. We have filed our rejoinder refuting the averments made therein. There are no further orders of listing.
11. SLP(C) 24328/2014- Guidelines for appointment of CAG: At the hearing on February 11, 2015, a forceful plea was made on behalf of the appellants comprising Mr. N. Gopalaswami, former Chief Election Commissioner, and 10 former senior public servants, including Shri Kamal Jaswal, for prescription of an objective and transparent procedure for appointment to the high Constitutional office of the CAG. Unfortunately, the Chief Justice's bench was unwilling to deviate from the literalist position taken by the Apex Court while disposing of the two earlier PILs on the subject and dismissed the SLP.
Delhi High Court
1. WP(C) 866/2010- Post-retirement activities of judges: The Tribunals, Appellate Tribunals and other Authorities (Conditions of Service) Bill, 2014, prohibiting members of a tribunal/statutory body from acting as arbitrator, stands referred for consideration by the Standing Committee. The matter has been posted for February 25, 2015.
2. WP(C) 8363/2010- Misuse of BSP reserved symbol: Posting the matter for March 18, 2015 at the behest of BSP counsel's request, the Court made it clear that no further adjournments will be granted.
3. WP(C) 2992/2013- Strengthening the institution of the Lokayukta, Delhi: On February 19, 2015, the bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and J.R.S. Endlaw disposed of our petition following the Court's recent judgment in Sunita Bharadwaj, where it was held that the Competent Authority was free to accord a hearing to a public servant reported against by the Lokayukta. It was also held that if the Lokayaukta was aggrieved by the Competent Authority's decision, the only recourse available to him is to draw up a Special Report which has to be laid in the Legislative Assembly for such action as is deemed appropriate.
The Court drew a parallel between the provisions of the Lokayukta Act and those of the CAG Act and the Commissions of Inquiry Act to demonstrate that there are other Constitutional offices or powerful bodies whose reports also are only for the consumption of the legislature. Refusing to sit in appeal over the decisions of the Competent Authority, it expressed its helplessness in addressing the inherent weakness of the legislation which had made the Lokayukta a powerless body.
The Court, however, granted a token relief to the petitioner by way of the direction that the formality of laying the Lokayukta's Special Reports in the Assembly, where it had not yet been done, should be completed within six weeks.
4. WP (C) 7240/2013- Evidence of corruption by Shri Virbhadra Singh: Shri Virbhadra Singh's counsel had been challenging the maintainability of the PIL on the ground that it was motivated by Shri Prashant Bhushan's alleged animosity with his client. At the hearing on January 29, 2015, opting not to adjudicate as to the bona fides of the petitioner, the Chief Justice's bench discharged Common Cause and appointed two amicus curiae to assist it in assessing whether there was any public interest in the petition and to suggest the future course of action in the matter. The matter is posted for March 26, 2015.
Orissa High Court
WP (C) 9095/2014- Discretionary allotments of plots in Odisha: As reported earlier, our counsel had lodged a strong protest with the Registrar (Judicial) against the inexplicable deletions of our PIL from the cause list on August 14, 2014. The PIL was eventually taken up on September 8, 2014 and the counsel was asked to file the background of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the original petition by the next hearing after the Pooja vacation. The matter was not listed thereafter and suddenly, an order was passed on January 19, 2015 noting that since none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners, the matter be listed after four weeks in the interest of justice. It was also made clear that if the petitioner remained unrepresented on the next date, the petition would be dismissed for non-prosecution.
