Archives

Crying Foul Over Violations, Secrecy In Games ! – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                                 October 01, 2010
Crying Foul Over Violations, Secrecy In Games !

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

women work2

Women At Work For No Pay ?
(Photo: nocwg2010)

New Delhi (UNI) – Violations of law that hit thousands of workers and drove thousands out of homes as New Delhi readied for Commonwealth games have yet to be remedied, activists say.

”Commonwealth Games hai! hai!”– cries of woe– rent the air as members of an Anti Commonwealth Games Front took to the streets on Friday, barely days before the event.

Such ”gross violations of human rights against Delhi’s poor and marginalised groups” called for a boycott of the 71-nation event on ethical grounds, a meeting at Jantar Mantar was told.

The protest coincided with the arrival of the ‘Queen’s Baton’ they dubbed ”a historical symbol of oppression and colonisation.”

They spoke of 200,000 now homeless and 300,000 without livelihood, not to mention labour law violations at CWG sites, beggars shipped out or young women trafficked in from States for sex work.

”In the run-up to the Commonwealth Games,” the Front, a coalition of 25 groups, said, ”the city has seen the most blatant violation of human rights of the urban poor.”

Many vendors, cart-pullers, waste-pickers, head-loaders, balloon sellers, cobblers, food stalls and eateries have simply been put out of work, it said in a statement.

The groups included Peoples’ Union for Democratic Rights, Samajwadi Jan Parishad, Housing and Land Rights Network, Indo German Social Service Society, National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights and Beghar Mazdoor Sangharsh Samiti.

”The government has completely lost its sense of priorities,” it said, citing Rs 70,000-100,000 crore– US$ 15-21 billion– spent on hosting the 12-day extravaganza.

They compared it, for instance, to Rs 11,270 crore allocated for housing projects for economically weaker citizens under Indira Awas Yojna 2010-11 and Rajiv Gandhi Awas Yojana 2010-2011.

They said CWG decisions– from bidding for the event to reserving lanes for participants or a somersault on turning the village into a student hostel– were ”taken in secrecy,” against democratic norms.

English: CWG Opening Ceremony 2010

CWG 2010 Opening Ceremony (Photo: Wikipedia)

While CWG construction workers ought to have been paid wages in keeping with the international stature of the event, a spokesman for a signatory group said most were deprived of minimum wages even by Indian standards.

Workers at CWG construction sites have experienced some of the most widespread violation of human rights, spokesman Subhash Bhatnagar for Nirman Mazdoor Panchayat Sangam said.

Unskilled workers in Delhi are entitled to a minimum daily wage of Rs 203 but got only Rs 110-130, volunteers said.

Experts say laws provide for paltry fines at the end of litigation– itself slow– not jail terms which can deter violations.

According to PUDR, the State agencies flouting labour laws as principal employers in CWG-related construction range from Delhi Development Authority to Delhi University.

Calling CWG one of India’s biggest corruption scandals, the groups said instead of accounting for the financial irregularities, the government ”is focusing” on ”success of the Games under the garb of ‘national pride’.”

It questioned the idea of supporting ”a sporting event that is making a selected few richer.”

The protesters dismissed suggestions that hosting the CWG will improve India’s performance in sports as ”completely false.”

They said for many schools across India a playground was a distant dream for children and the plight of most athletes ”is dismal if not pathetic.”

A placard they held demanded ”schools, not stadiums.”

English: CWG Delhi 2010 OC Building

2010 CWG Organising Committee’s home (Photo: Wikipedia)

Noting that India has spent at least Rs 4,500 crore on renovating stadiums for the Games, it said ”this money could have been more wisely spent to improve facilities for sportspersons across the country.”

It said Delhi residents have been put through ”a lot of inconveniences” to host an event they were neither consulted about nor asked for– but ”will eventually pay for.”

Alluding to remarks made by Delhi Finance Minister A K Walia in March 2010, the groups said the Delhi Government has gone bankrupt because of ”wanton spending” in the name of the Games. ”The city has become much more expensive and taxes have increased.”

It demanded ”full accountability from all agencies and departments involved in the CWG, full public disclosure of funds, transparency of transactions, protection of human rights of Delhi’s citizens.”

It also demanded ”compensation for livelihoods lost, adequate rehabilitation of the displaced close to their places of work, a post-Games legacy plan and cost recovery plan, and prosecution of officials responsible for embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds.”

UNI MJ NK 1950

Advertisements

Indian Hostages Running Short Of Water, Food: Captain’s Wife – By Mukesh Jhangiani

English: GULF OF ADEN (July 7, 2009) Coalition...

Gulf of Aden (Photo: Wikipedia)

                                                                                                                                    September 30, 2008

Indian Hostages Running Short Of Water, Food: Captain’s Wife

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – With 18 Indian seafarers reportedly running short of water and rations after their ship was seized by Somalian pirates 15 days ago, relatives and friends urged ‘immediate’ steps this evening to secure their release.

”Bring an end to the ordeal of these innocent seafarers,” Seema Goyal, wife of Captain Prabhat Goyal urged in a petition to Shipping, Road Transport and Highways Minister T R Baalu.
Chemical tanker Stolt Valor, a Japanese-owned ship flying the Hong Kong flag and manned by a crew of 22, was sailing from Houston, in the United States, to Bombay when it was hijacked in the Gulf of Aden on September 15.
The tanker was carrying phosphoric acid and lubricating oil for Indian end-users, including Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited at Kandla.
As many as 18 of the 22, including Captain Goyal, are Indian, one Russian, one Bangladeshi and two Filipinos.
The hijackers appeared to have originally demanded six million dollars but lowered the demand to 2.5 million dollars, Mrs Goyal told a meeting at the Indian Society of International Law.
She said Capt Goyal and crew members have been in touch with her from the ship’s bridge, presumably using a satellite phone.
”For last 18 days, these 22 sailors are living under the shadow of guns with constant threat to their lives, and look upon the government of India as their last hope.
”Yesterday, a crew member telephoned me and said they will be out of fresh water in a day or two, and rations, in another 3-4 days,” Mrs Goyal said.
”I do not understand what the delay is about,” Ms Goyal said after submitting a petition in the Shipping Minister’s office.
Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1958, the Director General of Shipping, who licenses recruiters of Indian seamen and officers, is also responsible for the welfare of Indian seamen, experts say.
The post has been vacant since the last incumbent, Kiran Dhingra, was transferred to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation 19 days ago.
The delegation of seafarers’ relatives and friends she led also met some Society officers, including secretary general Rahmatullah Khan and former treasurer Joginder Singh Gill.
She has also requested a meeting with United Progressive Alliance chairman Sonia Gandhi.
As many as 55 ships have been attacked off the coast of Somalia since January and 11 were still being held for ransom, published accounts indicate.
The International Maritime Bureau has issued an advisory urging ships to stay 250 Nautical Miles away from the Somali coast.
The ship was reportedly in a corridor made ”safe” by a coalition of US, British and French forces.
An official for the recruiting agent declined to comment on negotiations under way.
UNI MJ AB SK KP2054

Managers Told To Learn From Fall Of East India Co. – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                 March 18, 2011

Managers Told To Learn From Fall Of East India Co.

East India House in Leadenhall Street was the ...

East India Company’s original headquarters on Leadenhall Street in London (Photo: Wikipedia)

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – Indian business managers have been cautioned against the cancers of greed and corruption that had triggered the collapse of a forerunner of the modern corporation– East India Company.

The advice-cum-warning came from India’s top auditor at a convocation of Gurgaon-based Management Development Institute for 527 management students and researchers.

“What this country cannot risk is the deficit of ‘ethics’ in its corporates,” Comptroller and Auditor General Vinod Rai underscored, pointing out that “deficit in governance” does not apply “to government alone. It applies equally to the business community.
“No business can be sustainable in the long run and have a consistent growth trajectory, unless it is based on an edifice of credibility and integrity,” Mr Rai said.
The CAG’s remarks came last evening as a globalising India grapples with the need to encourage businesses on one hand and make them accountable to consumers, employees, investors and society, on the other.
Inept auditing, endless litigations, lax enforcement of laws marked by a virtual absence of any real punitive devices are among factors encouraging malpractices and driving up the cost of doing business.
The Auditor General who keeps track of irregularities in public spending recounted the instance of Satyam which, he said, symbolised a single word barrier to credibility !
Rai saw Satyam as the “one word” which “stood between our successful growth story and the credibility of our institutions.”
He recalled how “the story breaking in January 2009 created ripples in global economies about the quality of corporate governance, efficacy of regulatory bodies and probity in corporates.”
Rai’s 1500-odd-word convocation address did not dwell on the inadequacy of Indian regulation system exposed, critics say, as scam after scam involving business and other segments comes to light.
MDI Director V K Gupta, reached afterwards for comment, stressed the need for accountability, but did not see it happening right away.

East India Company (video game)

East India Company – now a video game (Photo: Wikipedia)

“Public opinion is going to play a role in India and the pressure will keep mounting unless the government takes heed,” said Prof Gupta, who teaches Human Resource and Management.
He said the Bihar election showed that what people want is development and clean administration, free of corruption.
Nevertheless, he said, “it may be another decade before accountability systems are put in place and function.”
The CAG noted businesses’ tendency to cut corners or take short cuts, but asserted that “any innovative enterprise which attempts to establish rapid growth with a lack of ethics is bound to fail in the long run.”
“Realise,” Mr Rai told new graduates, “that as managers and chief executives, you would be sitting in glass houses. Every action of yours would be carefully watched and recorded… it is essential for you to ensure that you will abjure unethical methods.
“The post reform period has witnessed a corporate culture of diluting or ignoring stringent ethical standards. It is often considered ethical as long as a corporate establishment, in its business practices, remains within legal confines to survive in business and beat the competition.
“This is misplaced corporate governance. Probity in business is as important a trait in an outstanding CEO as is to be articulate, positive, courageous, dynamic and professionally competent.
“You have to be a developer of talent and maintain cultural sensitivity. The culture to perform has to be deeply inculcated. Without meritocracy, you fall into the morass of nepotism and mediocrity.”
In this context, Mr Rai reminded students of the fate that befell the East India Company, “with which we are all familiar.”
Founded in 1600 and often believed to be the forerunner of the modern multinational, the company started as a humble trader in Asian spices and was soon managing Britain’s Indian empire.
“Today, there is no sign, not even a plaque in any building or location in London announcing the existence of the world’s one time most powerful corporation.
“What brought about the demise of this powerful company in an era which was otherwise promoting globalisation?
“The company’s legacy provides compelling lessons on how to ensure accountability and probity of today’s global business. The most fundamental challenge that all Institutions face is to ensure that employees promote the collective rather than their individual self interest.
“Private trading by its managers, became one of the cancers that gnawed at the company’s ethical fibre.
“Taking ‘presents’ to secure business became common place. These ‘presents’ influenced the quality and cost of the commodities traded. The cancer erupted into intrigue, corruption and speculation leading to its tragic decline and its non existence today.
“History has repeated itself with Barrings Bank, Bears Stearns, Lehman brothers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – personal greed versus corporate interest. You need to deliberate on this and ensure that such temptations do not befall you.”
UNI MJ NK 1944

AG Wanted Judges To Scream No! Instead Got Their Nod! – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                                                                  May 12, 2004

AG Wanted Judges To Scream No! Instead, Got Their Nod!

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – A government lawyer, who persuaded some of India’s seniormost judges during emergency that they had no business to intervene even if policemen took innocent lives, suffered ”profound anguish,” a contemporary jurist has reported.

English: Picture Of Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer

Justice V R Krishna Iyer (Photo: Wikipedia)

According to former Supreme Court Judge V R Krishna Iyer, Attorney General Niren De had urged the ”extreme position” hoping to shock and rouse the judges ”to rage against that violent view.”
Four of the five Judges heard but ”did not furiously resist. I felt sad as a jurist but found success as Counsel,” was how De put it, Justice Iyer recalls in a new book titled ‘Leaves from My Personal Life.’
The four: then Chief Justice A N Ray and Justices M H Beg, Y V Chandrachud and P N Bhagwati. Justice Hans Raj Khanna was the sole dissenter and paid by being superseded by his junior, Justice Beg.
Experts say the episode raises questions about the country’s judicial system and establishment, and the real or potential havoc to which the society may be exposed in absence of accountability in administration, adjudication and courts.
As Justice Iyer sees it, the April 1976 Judgement ranks ”in disgrace with” an American Supreme Court pronouncement that Negroes were slaves to be owned, not humans who could own.
The so-called habeas corpus case– Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla– arose out of appeals from eleven high courts which had held that, notwithstanding a presidential order under Article 359 of the constitution suspending the right to enforce fundamental rights, the higher courts could, in appropriate cases, entertain applications for habeas corpus.
In his argument, De focused on ‘liberty’ as provided in the Constitution, contending that the right to move a court having been  suspended, a detainee had no locus standi and a writ petition would necessarily have to be dismissed.
Justice Khanna pointedly demanded: ”Life is also mentioned in Article 21 and would Government argument extend to it also?” De replied, ‘Even if life was taken away illegally, courts are helpless.’
Justice Iyer says: ”This argument, by democratic standards, was unconscionably outrageous. Yes, but the judges were not outraged, save Khanna, the great dissenter. They merely listened, (unperturbed by) the prospect of monstrous mayhem on human rights and fundamental freedoms; and eventually upheld this shocking proposition in pronouncements at learned length.”
”Alas, the darkest hour of forensic downfall, except for the historic dissent of Justice Khanna, was when this disastrous jurisprudence marred our law reports,” writes Justice Iyer.
The judgement delivered on 28th April, 1976 is dubbed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties ”the biggest blow to the Supreme Court– by the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court held that, as long as the presidential order was in force, the individual had no remedy against detention, even in cases where he could show that the detention was vitiated by mala fides or was ultra vires of the statute.
Although the judgement has not been overruled, its effect has been reduced substantially by a 1978 amendment to the constitution which made the rights to life and personal liberty– Article 21– non-suspendable during emergencies.

Hans Raj Khanna

Justice Hans Raj Khanna (Photo: Wikipedia)

Justice Iyer’s narrative underscores the importance of Judges never letting a lawyer or a litigant– no matter how mighty– sway them from the rule of law.
De’s confession came at a chance encounter shortly after the apex court bench held that under Emergency no person has any locus to move any writ petition for habeas corpus to challenge detention.
At a dinner attended by judges, writes Justice Iyer, De ”came up to me– I was sitting in a corner and sat to tell me something deeply sombre and pathetically confidential which he wanted to unburden and reveal to me to relieve his conscience.
”What was it about? You are a socially sensitive judge and can appreciate my profound anguish, he said. ‘What was the agony in my soul, which gave me sleepless nights? It was about my defense of the Emergency.
”I did not want a ghastly law which would banish judicial jurisdiction in the face of subjective executive violence. I thought of the strategy of shocking the judges into sanity, into rousing their revulsion, into reading down the deadly law, into claiming space for judicial invigilation as haven of human rights.
”So I urged the damned extreme position hoping that humanist jurisprudence would be the indignant robed reaction.
”So I pressed, against my heart but with the expectation of awakening the aghast protest of the Bench. If the police abused power the court would not sit and watch with cauterised conscience but would act in fiat justicia spirit– so, I thought, would be their response.
”I wanted the robes to rage against that violent view I propounded and come down on such Emergency inhumanity. But, to my surprise, barring Khanna, the other justices heard but did not furiously resist. I felt sad as a jurist but found success as Counsel.
”Sir, frankly I passed through mental stress which I now confide in you because your conscience would have rebelled.”
”The narration ended, the dinner was over. And Niren De passed away not long after.”
Additional Solicitor-General Fali Sam Nariman had resigned from his post in protest a day after Emergency was declared on June 25, 1975.
Justice Iyer records: ”Nariman, the admirable and conscionable advocate resigned his post as Solicitor General. But I believed the Attorney General’s confessional version.
”Then why did he not give up his office? Good men, gripped by grave crises, sometimes cave in, maybe,” offers Justice Iyer.

”Niren De was a serious, sound advocate who argued later for democracy and against gross misuse of Presidential Power of supersession of State autonomy, but failed.
”Anyway, the ADM Jabbalpur ruling ranks in disgrace with the Dred Scott case where the American Supreme Court pronounced that Negroes were slaves to be owned, not humans who could own.”
Justice Iyer cited the dissenting judgement of Justice James Richard Atkin on deciding between the citizens’ rights to know the basis of their detention in war time and the rights of the executive government in times of emergency to deprive citizens of their liberty without being held to account in the courts.
Justice Iyer says Justice Atkin ”has the last word in Liversidge v Sir John Anderson.”
Justice Atkin’s words: ”I view with apprehension the attitude of judges who on a mere question of construction when face to face with claims involving the liberty of the subject show themselves more executive minded than the executive.
”Their function is to give words their natural meaning, not, perhaps, in war time leaning towards liberty, but following the dictum…: “In a case in which the liberty of the subject is concerned, we cannot go beyond the natural construction of the statute.”
”In this country (England), amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace.
”It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which on recent authority we are now fighting, that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law.
”In this case I have listened to arguments which might have been addressed acceptably to the Court of King’s Bench in the time of Charles I,” a 17th century British monarch regarded by many members in Parliament as a despot.
Justice Iyer warns: ”Our freedoms are in peril if our courts suffer (from) pusillanimity or arrogance.”
UNI MJ MIR RAI1030

Use Norms – Not Discretion – To Punish Crime: ARC – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                         July 8, 2007

Use Norms – Not Discretion – To Punish Crime: ARC

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – Government experts have called for guidelines ”so that sentencing across the country for similar offences becomes broadly uniform.”

Inconsistency in punishments judges award is among issues figuring in the latest report of the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission on Public Order.

English: An unfair administrator barnstar

Justice v Discretion – A matter of balance (Photo: Wikipedia)

”To effectively deter crime, penalties must not be discretionary,” Commission Chairman M Veerappa Moily told United News of India Special Correspondent Mukesh Jhangiani.

According to the findings Moily gave Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last week, ”there is a view that in India there is a real problem arising from a lack of consistency in sentencing practices across the country.
”This is also compounded by broad executive discretion in commuting sentences and granting pardon,” the Commission said.
With Dr Singh’s approval, a 12-member Group of Ministers headed by External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was set up three months ago to consider the recommendations.
Feedback is yet to come.
The first such Commission headed by Morarji Desai functioned during 1966-70, but some of its key recommendations are yet to be implemented.
The Moily Commission underscored that sentencing guilty persons is an important and ultimate phase of the criminal justice system.
The trouble, experts say, is that not all laws specify a minimum punishment, which gives judges the leeway to let the guilty off with a slap on the wrist– undermining deterrence.
Thus offences like bribery and cheating are punishable under the Indian Penal Code with imprisonment ”which may extend to one year.” The fact that they are among the commonest crimes is a reflection of the level of deterrence law effects.
The IPC was enacted in 1860. But even the Biological Diversity Act 2002 makes contravention punishable with imprisonment ”which may extend to five years.” No minimum punishment.
”Criminal laws normally provide for a maximum sentence that may be imposed if an offence is proved,” the Commission said, adding that a minimum punishment is prescribed in only ”a certain category of offences.
”The courts have a wide discretion in deciding the quantum of punishment,” according to the Commission.
Advocates of such discretion say it ”is necessary in order to enable the judge to impose a punishment depending upon the circumstances of each case.” They say criminal courts do not have ‘total discretion’ in deciding the sentence and, for subordinate courts, the rulings of the High courts and the Supreme Court also act as guidelines.
They also argue that in a big and diverse country like India it may not be possible to codify each and every situation, and may be best to leave it to the courts’ judgement.
But critics say ”there are instances when such wide discretion has resulted in varying punishments for similar crimes in similar circumstances.”
They say there should be statutorily-backed guidelines to help judges arrive at the quantum of punishment in each case.
The Commission has recommended that the Law Commission lay down guidelines for Trial Courts ”so that sentencing across the country for similar offences becomes broadly uniform.” It has also recommended strengthening the training for trial court judges ”to bring about greater uniformity in sentencing.”
Western experience is that guidelines help ensure ”certainty and fairness” and avoid ”disparities” among defendants with similar records and criminal conduct, while allowing flexibility for mitigating factors.
Britain, for instance, set up a Sentencing Guidelines Council to frame or revise sentencing guidelines to which ”every court must… have regard.” In the United States, a Sentencing Manual and Table lay down a range in months within which the court may sentence defendants based on nature of their offence and criminal history.
Originally mandatory, the guidelines were made discretionary two years ago by a US Supreme Court decision, which cited Americans’ constitutional right to trial by jury.
Starting June 2006, the 2nd Commission has so far submitted five Reports:
— Right to Information – Master Key to Good Governance;
— Unlocking Human Capital – Entitlements and Governance – a case study;
— Crisis Management;
— Ethics in Governance; and
— Public order.
The Commission proposes to submit nine more and has been given a 7-month extension by the Union Cabinet up to March 31, 2008.
UNI MJ

 

Thousand-Wise, Billion-Foolish ? – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                                February 20, 2005

Yashwant Sinha, Finance Minister of India

Yashwant Sinha, India’s former Finance Minister (Photo: Wikipedia)

Thousand-Wise, Billion-Foolish ?

 

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – Authorities preparing India’s 2005 Budget have been urged to stop exempting dividends Indian and foreign promoters earn– to the tune of thousands of crores of rupees.

Virtually unnoticed by millions of toiling Indian taxpayers, hundreds– perhaps thousands– of promoters have netted thousands of crores of rupees free of tax over the past eight years.

Critics say in an economy which suffers from managerial and resource inadequacy and does not ensure citizens’ access to water, housing, jobs, an effective system of justice and other basics, such policies smack of a class bias.

On one hand, authorities tax wage earners and even productivity awards, and have cut provident fund interest.

On the other, lakhs of crores are sunk in non-performing assets– loans the rich haven’t repaid– and thousands of crores fly out as company reserves distributed to individuals are exempted.

According to a news report this week, some multinationals running operations in India have declared huge dividend payouts– windfalls for bulk shareholders abroad.

The joyride started in February 1997 with then Congress Finance Minister P Chidambaram abolishing dividend tax on recipients as part of what the market hailed as a ”dream budget.”

In fact, says one critic, this was the prospect that brought the cheer and the accolades.

Since then, governments– National Democratic Alliance as well as United Progressive Alliance– have– with one exception– exempted recipients, encouraging companies to declare higher dividends– or tax-free cash year after year.

One e-published source claims the average dividend payout from Indian companies moved up from 20 per cent to 25 per cent in financial year 2004.

According to India Infoline, a hundred companies paid Rs 4,334.18 crore dividends for 2003-04– up 54.1 per cent over the Rs 2,811.3 crore paid in the previous year.

Advocates of dividend tax exemption claim it eliminates double taxation of profits– in the hands of the company and again in the hands of shareholders.

But opponents say taxing dividends declared by companies is not the same as taxing recipients’ dividend income.

A 19th century United States court ruling held that ”the capital stock of a corporation, and the shares into which such stock may be divided and held by individual shareholders, are two distinct pieces of property.

”The capital stock and the shares of stock in the hands of the shareholders may both be taxed, and it is not double taxation,” US Judge Rufus Peckham declared in 1896 in Bank of Commerce v State of Tennessee.

Asked to comment, a top Indian economist, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, ”There is no valid argument against taxing dividend or to favour exemption, especially considering that even wage earners who take home far less, are taxed.”

Yet, through that single exemption, critics say, the NDA and the UPA governments between them have contributed to thousands of crores of rupees of revenue shortfall over the years.

One man who tried to end that spree was NDA Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha who allowed exemption in February 2001– but abolished it a year later.

In that budget speech– his last– Sinha confessed he was troubled by the ”inherent inequity” in the system which ”must go.”

മലയാളം: ജസ്വന്ത് സിംഹ്

Jaswant Singh (Photo: Wikipedia)

The inequity: ”Income is exempt in the hands of the recipient” and ”allows persons in the high-income groups to be taxed at much lower rates than the rates applicable to them.”

Sinha said, ”these issues have been troubling me over the past four years, and I am now convinced that the existing system must go.” He moved to abolish tax on dividends distributed by companies and levy it on ”such income… in the hands of the recipients.”

”Few are aware,” Sinha remarked in a newspaper interview in July 2002, ”that there are people in this country who have been earning anything between Rs 10 to Rs 20 crore by way of dividends. They have been earning in crores without having to pay any tax. You think it is unjustified to tax them?” he countered.

His previous Budget, Sinha went on, registered a revenue shortfall of Rs 40,000 crore, of which ”something like Rs 22,000 crore could be directly ascribed to concessions.”

Sinha’s public remarks notwithstanding, such qualms did not appear to weigh with either his NDA successor, Jaswant Singh, or UPA incumbent Chidambaram.

In a telephone interview this week, Sinha told UNI he believed that ”all income should be treated alike from the point of view of tax.”

He said ”the hue and cry that followed the 2002 budget was largely on account of the fact that I re-introduced tax on the dividend. Many opinion makers invest in stocks and resented the tax.”

But the exemption was reintroduced in 2003 on expert advice supplied by a group led by Dr Vijay Kelkar, an economist and former International Monetary Fund executive director.

The group recommended exempting dividend both in the hands of shareholders as well as companies distributing it.

Singh was petitioned by the Legal Cell of All India Tax Payers’ Association which spelt out the incongruity in taxing everyone– even agriculturists– but exempting dividends to promoters.

Palaniappan Chidambaram (1)

Palaniappan Chidambaram (Photo: Wikipedia)

The Association warned that letting huge tax free sums accumulate in the hands of industrialists would increase the gap between rich and poor– violating Article 14 and the spirit of Article 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution.

Those Articles provide for equality before law and forbid pursuit of economic policies that result in concentration of wealth to common detriment.

The Association said the move for full fledged exemption had not even found takers in the US.

Last week, the petitioners again represented to the authorities, urging withdrawal of exemption of tax on dividends in recipients’ hands, saying it amounts to discrimination between a common taxpayer and industrialists.

The Association says the dividends declared by companies end up in the pocket of the private management controlling the majority of shares, adding to individual incomes.

It says ten or twelve per cent tax companies must pay to declare dividend is not much price for promoters to transfer company reserves to individual accounts.

Individuals in control of companies can thus help themselves to more and more tax free income– increasing the gap between rich and poor and possibly undermining companies and jobs, it says.

UNI MJ RA GR1013

Cutting 2/3rd Undertrial Cases By Mid-2010 – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                     November 26, 2009

English: SVG version of the coat of arms of th...

CIArb Coat of arms (Photo: Wikipedia)

Cutting 2/3rd Undertrial Cases By Mid-2010

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India
New Delhi (UNI) – A move to cut two thirds of undertrial cases by the middle of next year was announced by Law and Justice Minister M Veerappa Moily today.

The announcement may mean freedom for many of 170,000 Indians in jail for periods longer than entailed by petty offences they are alleged to have committed.

The plight of such undertrials has evoked concern for years, without much remedy at hand given the painfully slow system of justice at work.
Dr Moily spoke about the plan at two separate events in the Capital, one marking the National Law Day and another opening an India Chapter of a United Kingdom-based arbitration institute._
Addressing the Bar Council of India, a statutory body of a million lawyers across the nation, Dr Moily regretted the Justice system’s failure to give every citizen equal protection of law.
Advocates celebrating the day were reminded that ”a necessary corollary to the guarantee of the rule of law is Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Article says: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
”Unfortunately, Justice delivery system in its working in India has not been able to guarantee this protection to every citizen– man, woman and child,” Dr Moily noted.
Dr Moily estimated the number of undertrials in prisons in India at more than 300,000– 70 per cent of the jail population, which means only 30 per cent inmates are serving sentences after conviction.
Roughly 200,000 inmates have been in jail for several years, essentially because of delays in the justice delivery system, officials say.
The second event was the opening of the India chapter of the London-based Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) for ”faster resolution of pending court cases.”
Declaring the Chapter open, CIArb Director General Michael Forbes Smith stressed ”assured level of training and experience” and maintaining the highest standards of professional conduct in the practice of private dispute resolution.”
The 94-year old Institute with 11,000 members across more than 100 countries is a ”not for profit, UK registered charity working in the public interest through an international network of 31 Branches and Chapters.
Indian courts have close to 31 million cases pending, a factor many litigants find discouraging, as indeed do many businesses contemplating to invest in India owing among other things to a promise of cheaper labour.
Indian Arbitration yet to pick up Arbitration is an alternative way to settle disputes, but despite ripe grounds– court delays and huge arrears– it has yet to pick up in India.
A good many arbitral awards are known to have ended up in courts again, rendering the alternative not much of one.
Investors are often known to decline a resort to Indian rbitration.
As one of the speakers at the opening pointed out, arbitration in India does not appear to have emerged as a cost-effective and speedier alternative to courts.
Retired Chief Justice of India J S Verma told audience it’s ”quite disturbing” to know the fees of some professionals, as indeed how much richer, more affluent some judges are ”post-retirement.”
Justice Verma, introduced as one of the few Judges who accepted no post-retirement office of profit, stressed that arbitration was not intended to make ”us richer after we retire… The mindset has to improve.”
Asked how arbitrators who violate ethics are dealt with, the CIArb Director General told United News of India Special Correspondent Mukesh Jhangiani that a conduct panel goes over complaints.
Depending on merit, a case may be referred to a disciplinary tribunal and possibly result in debarment, Smith said. But he could not immediately recall such instances.
He said complaints are sometimes made by disappointed parties seeking to appeal the arbitrator’s award by means of a personal attack on the ability or competence of an arbitrator.
UNI MJ KJ