Tag Archive | Britain

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

 

Advertisements

‘Supreme’ Audit– ‘Shutting Stable Door After Steed Is Stolen!’ – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                  June 23, 2002

 

 

Snapshot from Audit Document of Comptroller an...

Snapshot from an Audit Document: Of 1209 paras CAG submitted in 1997-98, PAC discussed only 16 (Photo: Wikipedia)

‘Supreme’ Audit– ‘Shutting Stable Door After Steed Is Stolen!’

 By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – India’s Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has acknowledged at least two instances in which Parliamentary recommendations arising from its findings have gone unheeded for 25 years, suggesting that the country’s ”supreme” audit system is not as effective as it should be.

   Both instances pertain to the University Grants Commission– its ”inequitable” distribution of grants between Central and State Universities and its failure to produce ”utilisation certificates” for Rs 511.37 crore grants made between 1958-59 and 1988-89.

   The Public Accounts Committee of Parliament had recommended steps to mend each situation, but, according to a CAG report, the steps were not implemented in either case. Here are excerpts of the report:

   ”During 1969-70 to 1975-76 the share of development grant of Central and Deemed Universities was 41 per cent against 59 per cent of State Universities.

   ”(The) PAC in its seventy third report (Sixth Lok Sabha) while disapproving the inequitable distribution of grants had directed (the) UGC to play a positive role in creating conditions to enable the State Universities and Colleges to take advantage of the facilities of development grant.

   ”Despite this inequity in the disbursement of development grant, it increased constantly since then and during 1992-93 to 1999-2000 the share of 15 Central Universities alone stood at 53.43 per cent as against 46.57 per cent of 212 Deemed and State Universities.

   ”Thus, (the) UGC failed to take effective measures to eliminate disproportionate disbursement of grants, despite the recommendations of (the) PAC 25 years ago…

   ”As many as 50,877 utilisation certificates (UCs) involving Rs 511.37 crore pertaining to the period 1958-59 to 1988-89 were outstanding as on 31 March 1999. (The) UGC failed to provide updated information as the details are yet to be compiled.

   ”On the basis of recommendations of (the) PAC in its 73rd Report(Sixth Lok Sabha) it was decided to constitute peripatetic parties for on the spot liquidation of outstanding utilisation. However, no peripatetic party was constituted as of July 2000.”

   The CAG’s report did not name the officials responsible for the failure nor did it explain how or why the situation was allowed to remain unsorted for so many years.

   Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, one of the authors of India’s constitution, thought of CAG as ”the one man who is going to see that the expenses voted by Parliament are not exceeded, or varied from what has been laid down by Parliament in what is called appropriation Act.” He held the CAG’s duties to be ”far more important than the duties of the Judiciary”.

   The incumbent CAG, Vijayendra Nath Kaul, is an Indian Administrative Service officer appointed to the post three months ago by President K R Narayanan, to whom he reports. According to official documents, the CAG, as head of the Indian Audits and Accounts Department, is assisted by about 60,000 employees in over 90 offices across the nation. The Department has a Rs 846 crore budget– bulk of it spent on staff pay and allowances.

   The CAG’s reports on the accounts of the Union submitted to the President are laid before each House of Parliament, and those on the States submitted to the respective Governor are laid before the legislature.

   They contain objections and remarks over errors committed by government authorities in spending money– specifying non-spending, under-spending, overspending and misspending of allocated funds.

   In Parliament, they are routed either to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC)– which scrutinises sections on central ministries, departments and offices– or the Committee on Public Undertakings(COPU)– which goes over sections on central public sector undertakings (PSUs).

   Representatives from the ministries and departments appear before the Committees when matters relating to them are taken up to answer questions raised by members on the basis of the report of the CAG, who is present during the hearings.

   The Committees’ conclusions and recommendations are presented to Parliament and the Ministries concerned required to file action taken reports.

   A PAC official said matters reported by the CAG are usually gone into, the process sometimes involving more than one Action Taken reports.

   As to the system countenancing a lapse of 25 years just to find that steps recommended by the PAC were not acted upon, the official appeared surprised by the allusion to the observation made in the CAG’s report.

   But Chhattrapal Singh, a Lok Sabha Member who has been in the PAC four years in a row, said such occurences owed to the non-binding nature of its recommendations. ”That’s the lacuna in the Parliamentary system. It must be remedied by making the recommendations of the PAC mandatory.”

   A Bharatiya Janata Party Member from Uttar Pradesh, Singh said, ”To allow a choice in whether or not to implement recommendations after two eminent bodies– the CAG and the PAC– have gone into a matter raises questions about our earnestness to end corruption and improve administration.”

   Critics say such audit exercises mean little unless those responsible are brought to book– something over which India’s CAG is powerless. Critics say all that constitutional authority and elaborate auditing machinery notwithstanding there are several weaknesses in the system. And the situation is no different in the States.

   In countries such as  Germany, Japan, China, France and New Zealand auditing officers have powers to summon erring officials and make them pay from their own pockets for losses caused by them to the State. In some serious cases the erring official is imprisoned after institution of criminal proceedings in a court of law.

   In India, a group of Government appointed experts recently pointed to the fact that the CAG does not even have the power to summon government officials who commit irregularities to ask them to explain their decisions– let alone make them pay for the loss caused or punish those stealing public funds.

   Stressing that a primary audit function is to see that provisions of law, rules and regulation are properly applied in incurring expenditure or collecting revenue, experts reported that ”while audit notices systematic violation of law, rules and regulations by departmental officers it is unable to take an effective action to prevent them.”

   They cited the Bihar fodder scam. ”Serious financial irregularities and misappropriation of government funds were being committed by senior government functionaries and the Treasury officials all acting together in collusion.

   ”The Accountant General (AG) Bihar could not detect the irregularity in time as Treasury officers suppressed the vouchers through which money was drawn and did not transmit them to AG thus preventing its audit.

   ”(The) CAG has been making mention of excess drawal over voted provision in its Audit Report presented to Bihar Legislature but Public Accounts Committee, it is said, did not even me(e)t to discuss the report leave apart take preventive action.

   ”After the scam became public knowledge, (the) CAG has produced a well documented Audit Report but it is more a case of getting wise after the event– after crores in public money has been looted and shutting the stable door after the steed has been stolen.”

   The experts noted that the PAC’s functions included examining the Government explanation for extra expenditure and presenting a report to the legislature recommending regularisation– a necessity as all government expenditure must have the sanction of the legislature.

   But the group reported that ”In many States, (the) PAC’s have not been able to discharge even the  Constitutional obligation of regularising ‘excess expenditure’ over budgetary grants.”

   It cited how Rs. 94,314 crore excess expenditure was not regularised as of 1999– Rs 22,767 crore in Jammu and Kashmir, 13,618 crore in Uttar Pradesh, Rs 12,569 crore in Assam and Rs 6,059 crore in Bihar.

   ”Thus in almost all the States huge amount of public money has been spent  in violation of budgetary control envisaged in the Constitution and fraught with the risk of misappropriation of public money,” the group noted.

   The situation has arisen because no time limit is set for regularisation, experts said. ”There is no time limit prescribed for placing Appropriation Accounts certified by the CAG in Parliament or State Legislature and the regularisation of excess expenditure over voted grants by the PAC.”

   At the Central level, the Parliamentary PAC and COPU have not been able to examine all audit reports submitted by the CAG.

   In 1997-98, for instance, of 16 reports containing 1209 paras submitted by the CAG, the PAC selected 76 paras for review but was able to discuss only 16 of them.

   The implication: these committees are able to examine only a tiny fraction of the contents of the CAG’s multi-volume reports, ”which defeats the very purpose of parliamentary financial control and the accountability of Executive which Parliament is required to enforce”.

   But a senior official aiding the PAC said that even the CAG paras that are not ticked for detailed attention or examination are circulated to the departments concerned for their Action Taken Notes. The PAC, taking ”serious note of the prevailing laxity and the formalistic ritual with which the ATNs on the non-selected paras are generally furnished,” has decided to examine all ATNs, the official said.

   He cited the CAG’s unselected para on the purchase of a Rs 1.42 crore house for India’s Consulate General at Frankfurt that came with  a ”heated indoor swimming pool with a sauna bath cabin and a separate shower room”. The problem: Recurring pool maintenance costs. The outcome: The Mission was ”instructed to exercise restraint to meet any unnecessary expenditure on the maintenance of the swimming pool”.

   The experts’ group suggested need to empower Audit Officers to pursue their findings by summoning the officers concerned for evidence on oath and, where default is established, taking steps for recovery of loss or disciplinary action under the Civil Services Conduct Rule or initiation of criminal action under the Penal code in cases involving criminal liability.

   For that matter, experts noted that the CAG itself is dependent upon public funds for functioning and therefore must be held accountable to Parliament for its spending decisions.

   In countries such as Britain and Australia, independent auditors audit CAG accounts and a Parliamentary committee oversees their work.

   But in India, there is no external audit of the accounts of the CAG’s office, proclaimed as India’s ”Supreme Audit Institution”.

The CAG nominates one of the Accountants General under him as an auditor for the CAG’s office. Experts believe that the accounts of the CAG must also be scrutinised independently.

   ”The operations of the office of the CAG itself should be subject to scrutiny by an independent body. To fulfil the canons of accountability, a system of external audit of CAG’s organisation should be adopted for both the Union and the State level organisations,” the expert report said.

   UNI MJ YJ HS1011

Snags in Hiring More Judges To Dispense Justice ! – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                    November 3, 2002

Snags in Hiring More Judges To Dispense Justice !

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – Notwithstanding Supreme Court directives, States claim they have ”serious difficulties” in raising the strength of judges to dispense justice to the wronged, whose ranks continue to swell.

Informed sources say the matter also figured at the Chief Ministers’ conference in the past fortnight and the Centre has been requested to make ”necessary submissions” before the apex court on financial constraints in implementing its judgement.

The court judgement on March 21 favoured a ten per cent annual increase in judges strength over the next five years, which is estimated by Law and Justice Ministry officials as likely to cost thousands of crores of Rupees.
Considering population, India is rated by experts to have among the lowest number of judges in the world, only 10.5 per million people in India as against 50.9 in Britain, 57.7 in Australia, 75.2 in Canada, and 107 in the United States.
The never-ending pendencies and all too frequent adjournments– which delay and proverbially deny justice– symptomise the teetering state of the country’s judicial system. It may have unseated a prime minister but it is known to routinely let common criminals– blue collar and white collar– slip away.
Top law professionals acknowledge that the shockingly low– 6.5 per cent– conviction rate in serious crimes tells potential law-breakers they have a 93.5 per cent chance of getting away.
”That,” says Prof Satyaranjan Sathe, Honorary Director of Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, a Pune-based private research group, ”is one of our biggest worries– there is not much out there to deter a violator.”
— January 2, 1975: An explosion at a public function at Samastipur, Bihar kills India’s Railways Minister. The case is transferred to nine judges, statements of two of seven accused have been recorded and key witnesses dropped– as untraceable or not having come forward.
— January 10, 1999: A reckless driver in the Capital mows down six human lives in a night. The accused is pursuing Business Administration studies abroad while the trial continues.
— July 25, 2001: Driving home from Parliament during lunch break, a Member is shot dead in broad daylight as she arrives at her official residence barely a kilometre away. Eleven men charged are in jail, awaiting trial.
— February 23, 2002: A co-accused in shooting a bartender in May 2000 for not serving a drink is arrested as prime accused in the murder of a young man who dances with his sister at a wedding. The first trial is on. The accused is in judicial custody in the second matter, charges for which are yet to be framed.
Not just thugs or criminals, even professionals, administrators or businessmen are not afraid to break the law.
— August 21, 1989: Political foes allegedly plant a report in leading newspapers about huge offshore accounts supposedly held by a future Prime Minister. Leading politicians are named conspirators, but not one is convicted in 13 years. The simplest thing might have been to start by nailing those who planted the story. As an on line critic put it, the Press ”played a nefarious role in broadcasting these forgeries” and should bring out these names.
— March 12, 1993: Explosions rock several areas in Mumbai, killing 300, with RDX smuggled into the country by bribing a customs official Rs 20 lakhs to look away. The trial continues.
— August 8, 1995: A judge orders Delhi Municipal Corporation to compensate survivors of an employee who died after 15 years of abuse, and deduct the payment from the salary of ”the responsible officer.” Lawyers say the system is lazy and ill-equipped to punish officers in such cases; Taxpayers usually end up paying. No lessons are learnt.
— November 19, 1999: An industrialist owning more than one companies is allowed by a court to shut down one of them– a soft drink plant– reportedly after denying wages to hundreds of workers for eight months. Fired employees are in courts seeking statutory wages.
— January 4, 2000: A list made public unmasks thousands of big-spending industrialists defaulting on huge borrowings from State-owned banks, creating non-performing assets now touching Rs 110,000 crore. Cases continue, at further expense to taxpayers.
Examples abound. Years pass before trials take place, giving the guilty ample time to manipulate evidence or break witnesses. After a while memories may fade anyway, making testimonies easier to shake.
Critics argue that such a legal system is itself the best bet for an offender trying to escape punishment.
Even in India’s trumpeted labour laws, for instance, ”deterrent punishment is usually not provided. But even where it is provided, Courts tend to take a lenient view of offences,” said a veteran labour administrator, requesting anonymity.
Labour tribunals, the Government official went on, may help employees against small employers, but ”when we face big employers, we are stuck in technicalities that consume years.”
The chilling reality was spelt out matter-of-factly by an employer to an employee considering legal recourse over years of harassment. ”Remember, I have the organisation behind me, I won’t even have to go to Court. Our lawyers will do that. I will just hand over the file to them. You, on the other hand, will be on your own– whether it takes five years or seven years or longer!”
Lawyers with decades of experience say such attitudes are not altogether uncommon, nor such threats empty.
Critics say India’s judicial system is in a mess, with cases going on and on for years, giving little respite to the wronged and plenty of leeway to wrongers. The issue has often figured in Parliament.
India’s senior and subordinate judiciaries between them have less than 13,000 officers ranging from Munsifs to the Chief Justice and almost 24 million cases pending.
More than a fourth of them– 26.7 per cent– or 5.3 million cases have been in courts longer than three years, Home Ministry officials say.
Worse. More than half a million cases have been pending for over a decade– the bulk in the High Courts of Allahabad, 2,88,472; Calcutta, 1,27,190; Punjab and Haryana, 49,951; Bombay, 28,131; and the Capital, 35,865.
But the figures do not even begin to tell the impact on millions of lives at the receiving end of such dispensation.
Forty-eight years after a complainant filed a petition, Madhya Pradesh High Court was yet to deliver the verdict. Bihar High Court had a 47-year-old case pending, Calcutta High Court, a 43-year-old case, and Rajasthan High Court, a 42-year-old case pending.
Judgements in hundreds of cases are being delivered long after the hearing is over. At one count, Madras High Court alone had judgements pending in 566 cases, 229 of them six months after the hearing. A far cry, indeed, from what victims need !
”The consumer of justice,” India’s Chief Justice once observed, ”wants unpolluted, expeditious and inexpensive justice. In the absence of it, instead of taking recourse to law, he may be tempted to take the law in his own hands.”
In lay man’s terms: One should be able to walk into a court and walk out with a verdict within at most a few months.
Knowing that justice would be swift and punishment severe should deter perhaps a large many potential violators, reducing burden on courts and the exchequer and ending the prevailing cynicism.
Currently, experts fault mainly two key factors– complex and inefficacious laws and procedures and shortage of judges and courts.
They say Indian laws, procedures and practices tend to be cumbersome and ineffective.
The 93-year-old Code of Civil Procedures just amended seeks to compress the time frame for disposal of all civil cases within one year by setting a time limit for every stage of litigation and allowing at most three adjournments.
But it is yet to be seen how the changes work in practice.
On reforms in criminal justice system, a committee set up by the Home Ministry in November 2000 has yet to submit its findings. Its Chairman, V S Malimath, a retired judge who once served as a High Court Chief Justice in Karnataka and then in Kerala, has been busy the last two years writing effective procedures to punish crime.
The Judge recently told a conference of professionals that people ”have by and large lost confidence in the criminal justice system. Wherever I go people ask:
— How is it that when everyone around knows that the accused has committed the offence, the Courts find reason to acquit him?
— Why is it that when one Court finds the accused guilty, the High Court says he is not, and the Supreme Court says he is guilty?
— Why is it that it takes so many years, sometimes decades to dispose of criminal cases?
— How is it that the rich and the powerful who commit serious crimes are seldom punished?”
The paucity of courts is another key problem, experts say. And it’s compounded by vacancies. India’s 21 High Courts with a strength of nearly 650 judges have almost 150 vacancies and 12,000 plus subordinate courts have 1,684 vacancies. Almost a third of labour courts also remain unfilled.
Fifteen years ago, the Law Commission of India in its report titled ‘Manpower Planning in Judiciary: A Blueprint’ recommended raising the strength to at least 50 judges per million citizens.
As the Commission put it, India was persisting in a pattern of conscious judicial under-staffing followed by the British rulers in keeping with their colonial interests.
The findings were shelved. The case arrears kept mounting.
Some eighteen months ago, the authorities launched so-called Fast Track Courts to deal with long pending cases of heinous crimes and those involving undertrials in prison, the idea being that no one should be in prison longer than necessary.
More than 800 Fast Track Courts now working are reported to have cleared nearly 64,000 cases.
Experts say they see no reason why fast Track Courts should not cover undertrials on bail– to put them where they belong. They say the move has either not been considered or has been dismissed not to inconvenience those resourceful enough to obtain bail in heinous offences.
Imagine the effect, if the high and mighty on bail found guilty were sent behind bars– not walking free.
Seven months ago, on March 21, the apex court ordered a phased increase in the strength of judges over the next five years.
In mid-July, the Union Government announced it had ”initiated necessary action” to increase the strength of Judges in Union Territories in compliance with the judgement.
The first sign of trouble, sources say, came at a meeting convened by Finance Minister Jaswant Singh on September seven at which State Finance Ministers voiced ”serious difficulties regarding the Constitutional, financial and administrative issues involved in implementing the Supreme Court judgement of 21-3-2002.”
On an average, a court costs Rs 25 lakhs to set up– Rs 15 lakhs to build the court room, Rs five lakh to furnish it and install computers and another Rs five lakhs to build judges’ residence– and Rs 11 lakhs a year to run.
Officials estimate that the cost of adding the numbers of judges as per the apex court directive may exceed Rs 10,000 crores.
The State Finance Ministers expressed difficulties pertaining to pay scales and other service conditions of subordinate judiciary ”including increase in judge strength and all other matters related thereto.”
The States’ financial woes and fears of going ”broke” trying to implement the judgement, were mentioned by Law and Justice Minister K Jana Krishnamurthi at a news conference on the eve of the Chief Ministers’ conference. He indicated that ”we are having talks” with the States authorities after which the apex court would be approached for directions.
On October 18, the Chief Ministers’ conference ratified the Finance Ministers’ findings without making any counter proposals, leaving it to the Centre to find a cure.
According to sources, Senior officials in the Home Ministry are giving final touches to proposals setting afresh ”additional judge strength required as per pendency and workload,” taking into account existing judicial vacancies.
Sources say the proposals estimate that the number of additional judges needed on the basis of the pendency and the judges’ average case disposal rate is 1,314. Cost estimate: Rs 700 crores.
UNI MJ RP GC1010

Snags in Hiring More Judges To Dispense Justice ! – By Mukesh Jhangiani – November 3, 2002