Showing respect or hypocrisy

Showing respect or hypocrisy

When one step outside, she may notice that in public transport vehicles or commercial vehicles including cabs and autos in the city have one statement written over on their vehicles. The statement goes like this "This cab/auto driver respect women or This cab/auto treat women with dignity and respect". On an apparent reading, nothing wrong in these statements and seems to a positive and good initiative. But I find it to be odd for the simple reason that treating women with respect and dignity should have been our general behaviour and for showing this behaviour, one should not have been saying all this by writing it, rather the action and behaviour of the people, in general, should be evident by the fact that we are treating women with respect and dignity. Some people might say that I am unnecessarily pointing things, but to my mind, until the action speaks what one believe, there is no point in writing these things. These lines on the vehicles are same as the vehicles itself is, i.e. Non- Living.

The Supreme Court has Jurisdiction to decide the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal controversy.

Recently, The Hindu in a news article  covered the argument of the Central Government and the Karnataka Government regarding the issue of finality of the decision of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal, which was given in the year 2007. Central Government is arguing that the Tribual decision is final and Supreme Court cannot interfere in the matter due to the bar  Article 262 of the Constitution of India, which deals with Adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-State rivers or river valleys and provides under clause (1) that "Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley" and under Clause (2) provides that " Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause ( 1 ) Coordination between States". In view of the discretion granted to the Parliament of India enacted in the year 1956, The Inter-State Water Dispute Act. Accordingly, the tribunal was formed from time to time for various inter-State water disputes. One such Tribunal was the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal. 

The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) was constituted by the Government of India on 2^nd June 1990 to adjudicate the water dispute regarding inter-state river Cauvery and the river valley thereof  for the settlement of the water sharing dispute between the states of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry (now Puducherry), which gave its award in the year 2007 in which it ordered that the waters of the river Cauvery be allocated in three States of Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and U.T. of Pondicherry for their beneficial uses as mentioned hereunder:- i) The State of Kerala - 30 TMC ii) The State of Karnataka - 270 TMC iii) The State of Tamil Nadu - 419 TMC iv) U.T. of Pondicherry - 7 TMC 726 TMC In addition,Tribunal reserve some quantity of water for (i) environmental protection and (ii) inevitable escapages into the sea as under:- i) Quantity reserved for environmental - 10 TMC protection. ii) Quantity determined for inevitable - 4 TMC escapages into the sea. 14 TMC Total (726 + 14) 740 TMC. This order of the tribunal is to be come into operation on the date of the publication of the decision of this Tribunal in the official gazette under Section 6 of the InterState Water Disputes Act, 1956. However, the award could not be notified by the central government as in the year 2007 itself, as parties to the tribunal filed SLPs challenging the tribunal order, which was admitted by the Supreme Court. These SLPs is still pending in the Supreme Court, the faith of it will be decided by the Supreme Court in the coming future. I will not be taking a side of any party and I will not be providing any solution for the problem in this article. My sole argument in this article is that the Supreme Court has the power to decide the faith of the Tribunal award/order despite the bar created by the parliament under Article 262(2) of the constitution by enacted the Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956

The Inter-State Water Dispute Tribunal Act, 1956 under Section 6 of the 1956 Act which deals with Publication of Decision of Tribunal and provides that "The Central Government shall publish the decision of the Tribunal in the Official Gazette and the decision shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute and shall be given effect to by them."  and further that "The decision of the Tribunal, after its publication in the Official Gazette by the Central Government under sub-section (1) , shall have the same force as an order or decree of the Supreme Court." and by Section 11 of the 1956 Act, which deals with the Bar of jurisdiction of Supreme Court and other Courts and provides that "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have or exercise jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to a Tribunal under this Act." The Central Government is arguing their case on the basis of the aforesaid Art. 262 of Constitution of India, 1950, Section 6 & 11 of the 1956 Act. On apparent reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution and the Inter-State Water Dispute Tribunal Act, 1956, it seems that the Central Government is taking the correct stand as per the law of the land. But as it is saying that devil is always in the detail, one cannot read the provision of law in isolation, especially the provision of the constitution can never be read in isolation, one has to look into other provision of the Constitution as well as the precedents.

The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1789) has categorically held that total exclusion of judicial review by a constitutional amendment would be void as the Judicial Review is a part of basic structure of the Constitution. When the power of judicial review cannot be taken away by way of constitutional amendment, it seems untenable that the very same power can be taken away a parliament enactment of a law, which itself found its source in the Constitution.  Further, even if we accept the central government argument about the finality of the Tribunal Award, the same will not stand in the supreme Court in view of the one particular provision i.e. Article 136, which overrides the subjective clause of Article 131 in chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution. The opening line of which says, "Subject to the provision of this constitution", this subjection will include the Art.262. Article 136, which is also a part of chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution starts with a non obstante clause i.e. "Notwithsanding anythig in this chapter gives very wide discretionary power to the supreme court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India" The Tribunal under the inter-state water dispte Act will certainly be a Tribunal for the purpose of Article 136 and the Supreme Court of India will definiatley will have the jurisdiction and should decide the appeal against the Cauvery Tribunal. 

Amit Gupta 

(Advocate, Delhi)

amit.gupta.983@gmail.com 

How to prepare and plan for Rajasthan Judicial Service Exam-2016

The time is running and the PT exam is to be held on 10th July 2016
Everyone must have developed a strategy to cover such a vast syllabus of RJS, if one has not, I wish to share one strategy with you. [Disclaimer :- I have the privileged of giving the RJS-2014 interview in my very first attempt, though i am not selected till date.]  Before writing about the strategy. For PT any judicial aspirant can go for the.  Rajasthan Judicial Services Examination SOLVED PAPERS (RJS SERIES) by Anand Prakash Solanki (Author) for detail you can click here (mind it that i am not saying you must buy it and even if you wish to buy this book, one should buy it from the local market as the book is costly on the amazon website)

The Syllabus for the PT and the Mains for law paper is the same which is as follows:-

Law Paper (I)/ CIVIL LAW- 

1. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, 
2. Code of Civil Procedure,1908, 
3. The Constitution of India, 
4. Evidence Act, 1872, 
5. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, 
6. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, 
7. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, 
8. Hindu Succession Act, 1956, 
9. Indian Partnership Act, 1932, 
10. Indian Contract Act, 1872, 
11. Indian Easements Act, 1882, 
12. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, 
13. The Limitation Act, 1963, 
14. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Chapter X, XI & XII and The Second Schedule), 
15. Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (Chapter II, III, IV, VI, IX, XII and XIII), 
16. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, 
17. The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, 
18. The Specific Relief Act, 1963, 
19. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, 
20. Interpretation of Statues, 
21. Law of Torts, 
22. Legal Maxims, 
23. Muslim Law, 
24. The Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974, 
25. The Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961, 
26. The Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, 
27. The Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (Chapter I, IV, VII, X, XI, XII and XIII), 
28. The Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, 
29. The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, 
30. The Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, 
31. The Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, 
32. The Registration Act, 1908, 
33. General Rules (Civil), 1986 and Judgment Writing. 

Law Paper (II)/CRIMINAL LAW-

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
2. The Electricity Act, 2003 (Chapter XIV),
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
4. The Indian Penal Code, 1860,
5. The Information Technology Act, 2000,
6. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, [now read JJ Act, 2015]
7. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
8. The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (Chapter XVII),
9. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958,
10. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
11. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
12. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
13. General Rules (Criminal), 1980 and Judgment Writing.

Almost 46 subjects/areas to be covered by any candidate.

One question which generally comes in the mind of any candidate as to how to cover such a vast syllabus is not new, even I was facing the very same problem. To lessen up the burden I have framed strategy to deal with this problem. I am  sharing the same with you, you can also share your thoughts on that by commenting below and by sharing it with other candidates. 

Firstly, one should try to cover the criminal law paper as it contains less number of bare Acts in comparison with the civil law paper i.e. almost 20 bare act/subject less than the criminal law paper, as both the paper have equal marks in the exam be it PT or Mains. This will be a big psychological relief to the candidate as one will feel that at least he/she covered half of the syllabus. 

Secondly, one should then devote his/her time in covering all those subjects in the civil law paper, which are a central legislation as compared to the State legislation. This is advisable to all the candidates who do not belong to Rajasthan. This is because of the fact that even if you could not cover the whole syllabus at least you will be covering the central laws which, sometimes, will help a candidate in other judicial service also. 

Thirdly, if one is done with the above two things then the candidate may start with the Rajasthan specific state legislation. For Rajasthan specific law, one may start with the Rent law and then one can cover according to the thinness of the bare Act, that one can do by looking into as to how many sections one has to read in one bare Act.

Fourthly, even if one is not able to cover all the syllabus till the PT date, one should not worry about it as PT is more about clearing the cut off rather than scoring highest marks in PT.

I hope this information will help. if you wish to have more insight on it you can ask here. One can also follow this blog. 

72 HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICE VACANCY IN UTTAR PRADESH

The Allahabad HC has notified the vacancy for the Higher Judicial service. Applications   for   direct recruitment   against  72  vacancies   (SC­15,   ST­01,   OBC­19   and Unreserved­ 37) and 12 vacancies of reserved category of the recruitment year 2009 (SC­ 07, ST­01, OBC­04 in pursuance with the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1956­1957 of 2015 – Nawal Kishore Mishra & Others Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar General & Ors. Etc.)  of  the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service  in the  pay scale  of Rs. 51550-­1230-­58930-­1380-­63070 are invited from Advocates of not less than 7 years standing as on the last date fixed for the submission of application forms, who must have attained the age of 35 years and  must not have attained the age of 45 years as on  01.01.2017. 

The Detail  advertisement is here. 

The application shall be filled online from 19th May, 2016  to 18th June, 2016 till 23:59 hours after which the link will be disabled. The hard copy of the On­line submitted application form may be downloaded/printed upto 23rd June, 2016 till 23:59 hours.

The Instructions for filling the form is here

How to apply is here

For Bank Challan you can click here

A TALE OF A JUDICIAL SERVICE ASPIRANT

A TALE OF A JUDICIAL SERVICE ASPIRANT

Our Hon’ble Chief Justice is conscious of the fact that there is an acute shortage of judges at every level of the justice delivery system and he rightly requested the executive to increase the number of judges at every level, but before increasing the number of judges it is relevant to take note of the fact as to how the appointment, in the light of present number of vacancy, is being done in the lowest level of judiciary in the system.  [Before writing further I want to make a disclaimer that I am a lower judicial service aspirant and I am preparing for this exam from last 3 years in the Hindi speaking states]

            Presently the pattern of selection in almost all the lower judicial service exam is same that is:-

1.      
      Preliminary Examination (Objective Type):- Preliminary test for screening the candidates. It is also to reject all those who is not able to come within the merit list of 10 times students of the number of vacancies in any state (Rajasthan takes 15 times)

2.       Written Main Examination (Subjective Type):- Mains Examinations for judging the subjective and practical knowledge of the candidates on the law subjects + Language papers. (Subjects also vary from state to state for example Delhi has only 14 law subjects/bare acts + Uncodified tort law, whereas the Rajasthan has almost 35+ subjects.)

3.      
       Interview:- Personality Test/Interview for all those candidates who are in the merit of the three times of the number of vacancies. This is also subject to the criteria that candidates scored 40 to 50 % marks in the mains examination, depending upon the states. For eg. Delhi/Haryana requires 50% in aggregate, wherein Himachal/Madhya Pradesh requires 45% in aggregate and Rajasthan Requires 40% in aggregate.

However, in this so called pattern of examination, few more steps is added due to faulty preparation of the PT questions and some time faulty answers key to the PT and sometimes faulty checking of the mains papers, as held in DJS-2014. (As 12 more candidates were later declared qualified in the rechecking done under the chairmanship of one former Supreme Court Judge.) I am not saying there cannot be error on the part of examination authorities at all, but whenever there is an error the examination authorities gives chance to the candidates to raise objections to the same, but sometimes even after raising the objection, when the objector do not get the relief from the examination authorities, he is forced to file a writ before the concerned High Court for the same and by this the process of selection, which is supposed to be completed within 1 year at least get delayed by few months and sometimes by couple of years also.   

I am here citing 4 judgments of the different HCs, which dealt with the objections to PT questions or the answer key differently.

Firstly, the Orissa HC, wherein it allowed the objections to the PT questions and directed to hold fresh PT examination.

Secondly, the Himachal Pradesh HC, wherein it has said that we cannot sit as an expert upon the objections to the PT questions despite the facts that some answers to the PT questions was on the face of it wrong.

Thirdly, the Allahabad HC, wherein it has considered the objections and directed to revised the result, herein the Allahabad HC also said that “The Commission need not hold the main examination or interviews for the candidates who have already appeared at the said examination and are found to be eligible to appear even after the declaration of the revised result of the preliminary examination BUT IF ANY CANDIDATE HAS APPEARED AND IS NOT FOUND TO BE ELIGIBLE AS HE HAS NOT SECURED THE REQUISITE MARKS AFTER THE REVISED RESULT, HIS CANDIDATURE CAN ALWAYS BE CANCELLED. The main examination, it is reiterated, should be held only for such candidates who now become eligible to appear at the main examination after revision of marks in the preliminary examination but could not appear earlier.” It is pertinent to mention herein that even the interview in the concerned UP –J exam 2015 has been completed by the PSC.  

Fourthly, the Delhi HC judgment wherein the HC allowed the objection to 4 questions in the PT exam and directed to delete those questions and to revised the result and to come up with fresh cutoff. Herein the HC has directed to add all those candidates, who comes in the merit after the revised result i.e. within the 10 times of the number of vacancy and all those who was qualified in the previous result will continue to be eligible for writing the mains despite the facts that they are after the revised result is not eligible as they are now out of the merit.

This has led to 7 steps in the judicial service exams

             i.                    PT

ii.                  Writ before HC ( also Appeal before SC sometimes against the order of the HC)

iii.                Mains

iv.                Writ against the mains result (also Appeal before SC sometimes against the order of the HC) - as held in DJS-2014

v.                  Interview

vi.          Writ against the interview result (as held recently in the Patna Higher Judicial Service exam)

          vii.              Final Result (and even after final result if you are selected for Kerala judicial service exam you might even be asked to compete again even after your training is about to end. Read here)

With respect to Delhi Judicial Service exam, there is already a pending matter in which suggestion is being given for making the judicial service exam more transparent.  The Supreme Court may come up with a comprehensive guideline also, but is only Delhi Judicial exam needs this reform. The time is running for everyone, for an aspirant for the judicial service exams, for a litigant fighting the case and for the society as a whole. And the time has come to frame comprehensive uniform guidelines for conducting the judicial service exam. The examination authority can either be PSC or the HC but the manner should be uniform for both. The uncertainty created by the manner in which examination authorities are dealing with the objections and the manner of checking the papers has done more injustice to the candidates who qualify the PT or Mains earlier (as the already admitted candidates will have to wait more/ he or she may have taken off from the job/work for the exam, or maybe he or she needs to travel for the exam) than the justice to those who are being admitted subsequently after revising the result. I am not suggesting that the candidates should not be admitted after removal of the fault of the examining authority, but what I am suggesting is that there should not be a fault at all by the examination authorities in view of the modern technology being available. So that no one suffer due to this uncertainty. I hope the Hon’ble Chief Justice will look into this injustice to people like me, but for that I believe, I also have to file a WRIT before the Supreme Court of India.

Regards

One of the Judicial Service Aspirant.

Why to follow this blog?

Law a word which every individuals has different meaning, some say it a common sense some say its complicated. The best way to know about it to have one friend who has a very vast knowledge of law and who deals with law in his day to day life.

Here in this blog, I will post my own experience and the thing which one should keep in mind while preparing for the exam.

If you have any question, you can ask here.

the new one

i don't know why i m writing blog here but may be you people will help me to understand the depth of bloging