HC stays execution of Sonepat rape convict Dharam Pal

Chandigarh, April 6
Dharam Pal has escaped the gallows, at least for the time being. Four days after the President rejected his mercy petition filed way back in 1999 in a murder case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today stayed his execution.

One of the grounds taken by Dharam Pal in his petition filed before the high court was that the Supreme Court was already “seized of the matter”. The development is significant as Dharam Pal’s case has two aspects to it: the “mercy petition” and other proceedings before the Supreme Court on the legal issue of execution of convicts on death row who have been in jail for several years.

"The rejection of a mercy petition by the President paves the way for the execution of a convict on death row. But, it is not a direction to the jail authorities to execute the sentence. The proceedings before the court are independent of the President’s decision on mercy petitions; and it’s for the courts to see whether the decision to hang the convict is judicious".

In Dharam Pal’s case, the mercy petition has been rejected. But it is yet to be seen by the court whether condemned prisoners behind bars should be hanged, even after long delay -- an issue that has been raised by militant Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar before the apex court.

Taking up Dharam Pal’s petition for conversion of the death sentence into life imprisonment, the Division Bench of Justice AK Mittal and Justice GS Sandhawalia also issued notice of motion for April 10.

The directions came just about six years after Dharam Pal was sentenced to death. A rape convict, he had later murdered the victim and four of her family while out on parole in 1993. The petition was filed in the high court this morning and was fixed for hearing almost immediately, keeping in view the urgency involved in the mater.

Dharam Pal’s counsel told the Court that till the morning of April 5, he was detained in Rohtak Jail, but in the afternoon he was shifted to Ambala Jail “where preparations were being made for executing his death sentence on Saturday afternoon or Sunday”.

Drawing a parallel between Dharam Pal and Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar’s case, his counsel Navkiran Singh elaborated that the apex court was “seized of the matter pertaining to all the death sentence convicts whose mercy petitions were pending with the President”.

Referring to Bhullar’s case, Navkiran Singh contended that his argument before the Supreme Court was that he has earned a right to get the sentence converted into life imprisonment, due to delay in execution of death penalty. In an attempt to substantiate his contentions, Bhullar was relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench in the case of Triveni Behan.

Navkiran added: “Along with the petition, several other petitions have been tagged and the matter has been finally heard by the Supreme Court on April 19, 2012. The judgment stood reserved.”

He also referred to a public interest litigation “Shamik Narain and others versus the Union of India”, in which the Supreme Court had ordered the continuation of interim stay on the death sentence awarded to four aides of sandalwood smuggler Veerapan. The case, he added, stood adjourned for six weeks to enable the “other Bench” to deliver judgment in pending matters.

Court’s Role
The rejection of a mercy petition by the President paves the way for the execution of a convict on death row, but it is not a direction to jail authorities to execute the sentence
The proceedings before the court are independent of the President’s decision and it’s for the courts to see whether the decision to hang the convict is judicious
In Dharam Pal’s case, it is yet to be seen by the court whether condemned prisoners behind bars should be hanged, even after long delay.

Punjab and Haryana High Court releases new rules for transfer of cases

Chandigarh, January 17 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has come out with a new set of rules and instructions on issues such as transfer of cases from one Bench to another and filing of written statements or replies.

The High Court Registrar-General has asserted that applications for transferring cases from one Bench to another have to be made on the judicial side. The Registrar-General has asserted some advocates, and even parties to litigation, were filing applications on administrative side before the Chief Justice for transfer of their cases from one Bench to another "on account of certain reasons".

The Registrar-General has added: "It is brought to the notice of all the members of the Bar and the general public that advocate/parties at the first instance may move on the judicial side in case transfer of a case is sought, by filing appropriate application before the Bench concerned, instead of moving an application on the administrative side before the Chief Justice".

The Registrar-General has also made it clear to the authorities concerned that their identity and credentials have to be specified in no uncertain terms in the replies and written statements, lest these are turned down by the branch concerned.

"It has been observed that despite earlier directions, in written statements and replies filed in this Court on behalf of the respondents, the authorised officers, who sign on such replies, do not display their identity and sign the same without mentioning their names and designation.

"The officers concerned, who sign the written statements/replies must disclose their complete identity, failing which the written statements/replies will not be accepted… Any official accepting such replies in contravention of these instructions will be held liable for disciplinary action.

Chief Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri has also made leave arrangements of Single Bench dealing with writ, civil and criminal roster. Chief Justice Sikri has made it clear that dates in ordinary motion cases will be given by the Court Master of the Court after seeking directions from the Bench when a Judge sitting singly is not holding Court. In case of urgency in ordinary motion cases, request for listing the case on the same date can be made before the Registrar (Administration) by the advocate or the party concerned.

Service benefit given
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has found faults with its own interpretation of rules on the administrative side. Dealing with the "promotion" case of judicial officer Jagdeep Singh Marok, a Division Bench has asserted on the judicial side that the interpretation placed by the High Court on the administrative side was "erroneous". Marok had asserted that he has wrongfully ignored for promotion to the post of Additional District Judge by the High Court.

17 Indians in Sharjah murder case can finally return home

Chandigarh/Dubai, January 17
A long-drawn legal battle finally come to an end today as 17 Indian boys, who have been languishing in Sharjah jail for more than three years, got the final approval from the Sharjah court and were cleared for deportation.

All of them had got death sentence, which the court had waived in 2011 after Dubai businessman SP Singh Oberoi paid blood money of one million US dollars to the parents of the victim Mishri Khan.

But, permission to leave the United Arab Emirates was held up as a civil petition seeking compensation for those injured in the Mishri Khan murder case was filed.

The case pertains to 2009 when a group of Indian workers clashed with a group of workers from Pakistan in which Mishri Khan of Sargodha was killed and two of his cousins — Mushtaq Ahmed and Shahid Iqbal — were grievously injured.

Subsequently 17 Indian boys were charged for a drunken brawl leading to murder and arson. They were subsequently convicted and sentenced to death. It was under pressure from the media that the Indian mission in UAE hired a team of lawyers to defend the Indian boys who pleaded innocent. An appeal was filed in the Sharjah Appeal Court against the orders of the Sharjah Court in April 2010.

It was during hearing of the appeal that the Sharjah Court asked the defence team if it was prepared for settlement under Diya - blood money - to which it reluctantly agreed holding that it had a fool proof case.

Oberoi paid up the blood money and the court also endorsed the settlement deal and waived the death sentence in 2011. But then the civil petition was filed and it took more than a year for adjudication and forced the 17 Indian boys to have an extended stay in the Sharjah jail even after their death sentence had been waived.

SP Singh Oberoi says that with the pronouncement of a joint compensation of AED 1,00,000 for Mushtaq Ahmed and Shahid Iqbal for grievous injuries they received in the clash will now get Indian boys released.

case file
Mishri Khan of Pakistan was killed and two were injured in a clash in Sharjah in 2009
The Sharjah police prosecuted 17 Indian boys. They were sentenced to death. All convicts are from Punjab and Haryana
On September 12, 2011, the court waived the death sentence of all the convicts after they paid the “blood money”
On September 23 when they were about to return to India, a civil petition seeking relief for the two injured was filed

Way to freedom for 17 youths

Sukhjinder Singh of Patti, Sukhjot Singh of Sanghera in Barnala, Ram Singh of Kanvi in Amritsar, Aarvinder Singh of Gurdaspur, Baljeet Singh of Sangwal in Jalandhar, Daljeet Singh of Aitiana in Ludhiana, Dharampal Singh of Jhoke Tehal Singh Wala in Ferozepur, Satgur Singh of Ghanaur Jattan in Sangrur, Satnam Singh of Roohli Kalan in Ludhiana, Kashmir Singh of Rattu Ke in Tarn Taran, Suban Singh of Lohian Khaas in Kapurthala, Kulvinder Singh of Ludhiana, Kuldeep Singh of Moga, Sukhjinder Singh of Kapurthala, Namjyot Singh of Ludhiana, Harjinder Singh of Phagwara and Taranjit Singh of Kaithal

Everything You Need To Know About Obama’s Gun Violence Prevention Proposals

In a press conference on Wednesday, President Obama outlined a sweeping effort to prevent gun violence in the United States. Surrounded by children who had written him letters voicing their desire to see gun laws passed, Obama announced that he will sign 23 executive orders and bring a set of proposals to Congress.

The President referenced one child’s letter that read, “I know that laws have to be passed by Congress, but I beg you to try very hard.”

“I promise that I will try very hard,” he said.

Obama also condemned lawmakers who vocally resist any new gun measures, pointing out that the gun policies of Ronald Reagan were more reasonable.

The initiatives cover everything from mental heath, to gun safety, to blocking the most deadly firearms from making it to market. Here are some of the most important efforts the President introduced today:

1. Making background checks universal. Obama wants every single gun owner to go through a proper background check, so it can be determined whether they have a criminal history or diagnosed mental illness. He wants Congress to close the gun show loophole that allows people at gun shows, and private buyers of used weapons, to avoid getting checked. He will also, through executive action, urge private sellers to conduct background checks, even if they aren’t mandatory.

2. Improving state reporting of criminals and the mentally ill. While all states are required to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) people who should not have access to guns, some states are sluggish about putting the data into the system. Obama will put more money into the hands of the states so that they can improve their reporting systems, and issue stronger guidelines to let states know when they should report people. Obama will also, through Presidential Memorandum, work to make sure agencies are regularly entering data into NICS.

3. Banning assault weapons. This is likely the most difficult battle Obama will undertake. He wants to reinstate the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which outlaws military-grade weapons, like the AR-15 used by Newtown gunman Adam Lanza and by Aurora Theater gunman James Holmes. Obama wants Congress to pass the ban, and close some of the loopholes identified in its 1994 iteration.

4. Capping magazine clip capacity at 10 bullets. A military-grade weapon is dangerous, but so are its accessories: Obama proposes banning all extended magazine clips that hold over 10 bullets. Huge magazine clips allow a gunman to fire off hundreds of rounds without having to stop, even once, to reload. The high-capacity magazine ban was also part of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

5. Purging armor-piercing bullets. The sale of armor piercing ammunition has been banned for quite some time, but is still legal to posess such bullets. Obama is calling on Congress to outlaw ownership and transfer of these bullets, instead of just the sale. Those who oppose any gun laws try to spin a ban on armor piercing bullets as a ban on deer hunting ammunition, but such ammo has the ability to penetrate bullet-proof vests, and is more colloquially known as “cop killer bullets.”

6. Funding police officers. Obama wants Congress to reverse its course of austerity for public employees by approving $4 billion to fund police enforcement around the country.

7. Strengthening gun tracking. In order to track weapons that are used for crimes, Obama will issue a memorandum mandating that all agencies trace back firearms. This means that any agency in the country must trace guns used in crimes back to their original owners, as a way to help collect data on where criminal weapons are coming from. Obama will also ask Congress to allow law enforcement to do background checks on guns seized during investigations.

8. Supporting research on gun violence. Obama hopes to be able to gather more information on gun violence and misuse of firearms, and use that data to inform the work of law enforcement. He also wants to restart research, which has been long blocked by the National Rifle Association, on how video games, the media, and violence affect violent gun crimes. The Centers for Disease Control will immediately begin these efforts, but Obama also is calling on Congress to add $10 million to the pot of funding for such research.

9. Encouraging mental health providers to get involved. In order to make sure that those with homicidal thoughts are unable to access the weapons with which to kill, Obama seeks to encourage mental health professionals to alert authorities to such people. He will clarify that doing so is not in violation of patient privacy laws. He also wants to dispel the idea that Obamacare prevents doctors from talking to patients about guns.

10. Promoting safe gun ownership. The administration will start a “responsible gun ownership” campaign to encourage gun owners to lock up their firearms. He will also work with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make sure safes and gun locks on the market are effective. He’s also calling on the justice department to help him come up with new gun safety technology.

11. Funding school counseling. Obama is calling on Congress to fund the positions of 1,000 news school counselors. The funding will come both through the already-existent COPS Hiring Grant, and through a new Comprehensive School Safety program that Congress will need to sign off on. The latter would put #150 million into funding for new counselors and social workers in schools.

12. Encouraging safe, anti-bullying school environments. Over 8,000 schools could receive new funding — $50 million — under Obama’s plan to encourage safer school environments. Obama wants to help at-risk students by creating a “school climate survey” that will collect data on what services students need, and to remedy any problems by putting professionals into schools. The administration will also issue guidelines on school discipline policies.

13. Recognizing the mental health needs of low-income Americans. Medicaid recipients already qualify for some mental health services, but Obama would like to expand that service so that low-income Americans have the same access to professional help as those who have money to pay for it on their own. Obama will issue a directive to heads of state health programs, enforcing “mental health parity” — the idea that mental health should be treated as a priority as important as physical health.

No crime to rape wife in India under sex assault bill

NEW DELHI: The sexual assault bill introduced in Parliament, just 12 days before the Delhi gang rape, is out of sync with the spirit of zero-tolerance displayed by the protests at Raisina Hill and elsewhere. For, even as it tweaked the existing provisions in the Indian Penal Code(IPC), the bill retains the patriarchal mindset of the law enacted in 1860. While over 100 countries have criminalized marital rape, the bill shows India in a poor light as it perpetuates the notion that a man is entitled to rape his wife. 

Rather than outlawing non-consensual sex in all circumstances, the bill is content to make incremental reforms to the clauses allowingmarital rape (Sections 375 and 376 IPC). In the anachronistic outlook of IPC, marital rape is committed only when the wife is below 15. The bill improves on this by increasing the cut-off age for marital rape by one year. 

The saving grace is that, although it forbids marital rape only in the aggravated circumstance in which the wife is below 16, the bill is unsparing when it comes to laying down the quantum of punishment. It proposes imprisonment from seven years to a life sentence for husbands raping wives below 16. This is an improvement on the existing clause under which a man raping his wife aged between 12 and 15 is liable to a term of no more than two years. 

Another significant reform relates to the indefinite period between a judicial separation and a divorce. From the existing penalty of two years, the bill has raised the prison term to seven years for somebody who has raped his wife after they had been judicially separated. 

The bill has also increased penalties for molestation (from two years to five years) and sexual harassment or eve-teasing (from one year to three years). However, as with marital rape, the bill has failed to rid these provisions of attitudes that don't belong in the 21st century India. 

In the provisions relating to molestation and sexual harassment, the bill has refrained from amending the expressly-stated notion that those offences are committed against the "modesty" of a woman. Section 354 IPC is about "assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty" while Section 509 IPC is about "word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman". 

The retention of this Victorian language — and the sexist notion of modesty — will continue to legitimize social sensibilities that are offended by a young woman staying out late in male company, as allegedly was the case the night on which the gang rape took place.

District Courts to re-open in new complex after winter break

Chandigarh, Mon. Dec. 10 2012 - After much delay, the District Court Complex in Chandigarh will be shifting to from its current residence in Sector 17 to the new building in Sector 43 in about two weeks. District and Sessions Judge, S K Aggarwal informed that the court will reopen in the new building after the winter break which starts on December 25.“Some pending tasks at the new building and beautification has been done. The shifting will be done in December and from 2013, the court will reopen in Sector 43,” said Aggarwal.President of the District court Bar Association, Advocate N K Nanda, said: “I have had a meeting with the sessions judge. We are not ready to shift in the new complex yet, but since our Judge insists, we shall abide by him.”Nanda added: “The inauguration of the new court building will be held in the next few days as and when we get a confirmation from the Chief Justice of India. However, we have requested some more time from the Sessions Judge to shift to the new building. For the same, we have been given till January 2, 2013 when the courts reopen after the winter break.”
‘Insisting’ judge stops further delay
The shifting to Chandigarh District Courts has been delayed previously. After a debacle over demand for new furniture at the new court complex and incomplete construction of lawyers’ chambers and the parking lot, the deadline of the courts to shift was extended to December 2012. And the new sessions judge is adamant to meet the deadline.There are certain other things for which the insisting attitude of the newly appointed sessions judge is proving very helpful. For instance, the formulation of a local commission to record evidences. “A panel of lawyers and retired judges with minimum ten years of experience has been formed, which will record the evidences in a particular case if the counsels want the witnesses to be examined the same day by paying a minimal amount,” said Justice S K Aggarwal.Video conferencing facility between the court complex and Model Jail was started recently even though it was to start in the new court complex. But the Judge said, “We will just have to unplug some wires and plug them back in the new building. If we have the resources, why not use them?”

Paras Downtown Square, Zirakpur directed to pay Rs 2 lakh to showroom owner

Chandigarh, December 9
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, has penalised the Paras Downtown Square in Zirakpur for discontinuing the payment of assured return to the complainant against the agreement reached between the two sides.
The opposite party (including various officials of the mall) has been directed to deliver the actual physical possession of the premises to the complainant and pay Rs 2,00,000 to the complainant for causing physical and mental harassment and adopting an unfair trade practice.
The complainant, Gurbir Singh, a resident of Mohali, alleged that he was “allured by the opposite parties to invest money and therefore, agreed to purchase a shop in Paras Downtown Square, Zirakpur, for self-employment. He paid the entire amount of Rs 79,84,200 as per the buyer agreement.”
“The opposite parties were bound to pay the assured return of Rs 1,35,446 per month to the complainant which was paid from September, 2008 to March, 2010 but thereafter, they stopped paying the same. The opposite parties also refused to deliver the possession of the shop premises to the complainant,” read the copy of the judgement.
The Commission directed the opposite parties to pay the entire amount due from the complainant as arrears of assured income along with interest at the rate of per cent per annum. The opposite parties have also been directed to pay Rs 25,000 towards cost of litigation.