tamilnadu bar council election

the bar council of tamilnadu and panichari bar council election held on 4 march 2011

Rs. 10-lakh costs slapped on landholder by Supreme Court for vexatious appeal

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has slapped Rs. 10 lakh in costs on a landowner for filing an appeal in a second round of litigation after he lost the first round questioning acquisition proceedings, upheld by the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court.

A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly imposed the exemplary costs, dismissing his appeal against a High Court judgment.

Writing the judgment, Justice Ganguly said: “The principles of Res Judicata [an issue already decided] are of universal application as it is based on two age-old principles, namely interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, which means that it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation, and nemo debet his ve ari, si constet curiae quod sit pro un aet eademn cause, meaning that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the court that it is for one and the same cause.”

The Bench said: “The principle of finality of litigation is based on the high principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle, great oppression might result under colour and pretence of law and there will be no end of litigation, and a rich and malicious litigant will succeed in infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and actions. This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right.” The doctrine of Res Judicata “has been evolved to prevent such anarchy. That is why it is perceived that the plea of Res Judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains the Rule of Law in ensuring finality in litigation. This principle seeks to promote honesty and fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse in the matter of accessing court for agitating on issues which have become final between the parties.”

In the instant case, M. Nagabhushana alleged that his land measuring seven acres and 23 guntas at Thotadaguddadahalli was located far from the alignment of the peripheral road in the Bangalore-Mysore corridor project constructed by Nandi Infrastrucutre Corridor Enterprises. This land was in excess of the framework agreement and hence not required for the project, he argued. He lost the first round of litigation up to the Supreme Court and he re-agitated the matter.

Dismissing the appeal, the Bench said: “The attempt to re-argue the case, which has been finally decided by the court of last resort, is a clear abuse of process of the court, regardless of the principles of Res Judicata.” The purpose of filing the appeal before this court was to hold up the land acquisition proceedings which, as held by this court in the All India Manufacturers Organisation case, were initiated to “achieve a larger public purpose.”

CJI comes under RTI Act: High Court

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the ambit of Right to Information Act and it is bound to provide information about the declaration of asset details by judges of the Supreme Court.

A three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah, Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice S. Muralidhar upheld the judgment of a single Judge and dismissed an appeal filed by the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court against this judgment. The Bench, however, granted leave to the appellant to file an appeal to the Supreme Court against this judgment since important questions of law required interpretation.

The single judge had on September 2, 2009 dismissed an appeal from the CPIO against an order of the CIC asking the Supreme Court Registry to furnish to RTI activist Subash Chandra Agarwal information in the CJI’s possession on assets of the judges.

“We are satisfied that the impugned order of the single Judge is both proper and valid and needs no interference,” the three-judge Bench said rejecting the submissions of the Attorney General, G.E. Vahanvati who contended “We cannot expose our judges to public scrutiny or inquiry because it would hamper their functioning and independence.”

Writing the 88-page judgment, Justice Shah said “The CJI cannot be a fiduciary vis-à-vis Judges of the Supreme Court. The Judges of the Supreme Court hold independent office, and there is no hierarchy, in their judicial functions, which places them at a different plane than the CJI.’’

“The declarations are not furnished to the CJI in a private relationship or as a trust but in discharge of the constitutional obligation to maintain higher standards and probity of judicial life and are in the larger public interest. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the asset information shared with the CJI, by the Judges of the Supreme Court, are held by him in the capacity of fiduciary, which if directed to be revealed, would result in breach of such duty,’’ Justice Shah said.

The Bench said “Judges of the superior courts should make public their assets as they are not less accountable than the judicial officers of the lower courts who are bound by service rules to declare assets. Judicial independence is not a judge’s personal privilege but a responsibility cast upon him. A Judge must keep himself absolutely above suspicion, to preserve the impartiality and independence of the judiciary and to have the public confidence thereof.”

The Bench said “the introduction of the stipulation of declaring personal assets is to be seen as an essential ingredient of contemporary accepted behaviour and established convention. Judiciary of undisputed integrity is the bedrock institution essential for ensuring compliance with democracy and the rule of law. Even when all other protections fail, it provides a bulwark to the public against any encroachments of its rights and freedoms under the law.”

“Accountability of the Judiciary cannot be seen in isolation. It must be viewed in the context of a general trend to render governors answerable to the people in ways that are transparent, accessible and effective. Behind this notion is a concept that the wielders of power – legislative, executive and judicial – are entrusted to perform their functions on condition that they account for their stewardship to the people who authorise them to exercise such power. Well defined and publicly known standards and procedures complement, rather than diminish, the notion of judicial independence. Democracy expects openness and openness is concomitant of free society. Sunlight is the best disinfectant,’’ the Bench observed.

The Bench quoted Edmund Burke who said “All persons possessing a portion of power ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an idea that they act in trust and that they are to account for their conduct in that trust.”

Keywords: right to information, RTI, Chief Justice of India, K. G. Balakrishnan, Supreme Court

At What age should I start talking to my son about SEX?

my son is 5 years old . i want him to get a head start on the nasty world of sex. I want to teach him all that there is to know.

is this too young?

How often should i have sex with my girlfriend?

My girlfriend and i have been together for 5 years, and we have a long distance relationship.We speak on the mobile phone everyday and i see her once every 2 to 3 weeksShe complains that i want to have sex with her anytime i see her and its is a big problem to her. But i said to her its not a big deal when only have sex like about 2 or 3 times a month, but she still complains to me and even considered breaking up with me because i want to have sex with her anytime i see her. What should i do?

Guarding fences: SSB

'Sashastra Seema Bal' (SSB) celebrates its 46th Anniversary on December 20, 2009 in New Delhi.

teenage smoking

21.1 per cent boys have ever used tobacco as against 14.7 per cent girls. Lead author and doctoral student at the Harvard School of Public Health, Amenah A. Babar, noted: “As a leader in global tobacco prevention, India faces many challenges in addressing the tobacco epidemic that has affected one of its most vulnerable populations -- India’s children.’’