Home Ministry accepts Election Commission’s recommendation to make bribing of voters in elections a cognizable offence

The Home Ministry, taking forward the process of electoral reforms, has formulated a draft cabinet note on making bribing of voters, in cash or kind, a cognizable offence under the Criminal Procedure Code. A cognizable offence, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, is an offence for which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest without a warrant.

As the law stands at present, bribing voters, in cash or kind, during elections is a non-cognizable offence under sections 171B/171E of the Indian Penal Code, which attracts only up to one-year of imprisonment or fine as a punishment.

The Election Commission of India (ECI), in 2012, had requested the Union Home Ministry to initiate steps to amend the first schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to make bribing of voters, in cash or kind, a cognizable offence and also to increase punishment up to two years.

The suggestion of Election commission has been accepted by the Government. The Home Ministry, in a letter dated December 22, 2014, has informed the poll panel that the process to amend the Cr. PC has been "initiated". The ministry's letter was in response to the poll panel's query, dated December 11, 2013, regarding the status of the suggestion to make electoral bribery a cognizable offence. 

If the suggestion of the Election Commission to amend the the first schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to make bribing of voters, in cash or kind, a cognizable offence comes to pass, it would act as a tougher deterrent for candidates to engage in bribing of voters, given the fact that the Police would then have the authority to register a crime straightaway on receipt of information about the incident of bribery and even arrest such candidate/s without waiting for a warrant from the jurisdictional magistrate.

U.S. Court, upholding his “immunity as the sitting head of a foreign government”, dismisses lawsuit filed against PM Modi seeking damages for “crimes against humanity” in the 2002 riots

In a major relief to Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi, a U.S. federal district judge has dismissed the suit filed by the American Justice Center, a human rights group, and others against him, for his alleged complicity in the 2002 riots in Gujarat, at a time when he was the was the Chief Minister of the state. 

 

Dismissing the case against Mr. Modi, a U.S. Court held that he “is immune from the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court in the suit while in office."

U.S. Federal district Judge, Analisa Torres (of the Southern District of New York) dismissed the lawsuit against Mr. Modi holding that a “sitting head of state’s immunity from jurisdiction is based on the Executive Branch's determination of official immunity without regard to the specific conduct alleged.” 

The claims were dismissed by the American Court under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 and Alien Tort Statute. 

Last September, even before Mr. Modi had touched down on U.S. soil after a nine-year visa ban, the New York Court had issued summons against him. 

The complaint filed by the American human rights group, ‘American Justice Center’ sought compensatory and punitive damages and charged “PM Modi with committing crimes against humanity, extra-judicial killings, torture and inflicting mental and physical trauma on the victims, mostly from the Muslim community.” 

Although Judge Torres did not specifically say in her judgment that Mr. Modi was not culpable of any acts linked to the Gujarat killings, her dismissal of the case stemmed from the U.S. State Department’s “suggestion of immunity” to the head of the government, which was made on September 30. 

The United States administration had taken the stand that Prime Minister Modi, as the sitting head of government of a foreign state, “is immune from the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court in the suit while in office.”

 

Judge Torres, on Wednesday dismissed the plaintiffs’ argument that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provided immunity only to foreign states and not to individual government officials; that Mr. Modi was not entitled to common law immunity in this case because he committed human rights violations that exceeded his official authority and because the alleged acts took place before he was Prime Minister; and that the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 and the Alien Tort Statute override or create an exception to Executive Branch determinations regarding the immunity of foreign officials. 

The Court found the plaintiffs’ claims to be “to be without merit. Accordingly, in light of the determination by the Executive Branch that Prime Minister Modi is entitled to immunity as the sitting head of a foreign government, he is immune from the jurisdiction of this Court in this suit. The complaint is DISMISSED.”

Delhi High Court expresses its concern over rising hate crimes in Delhi against persons from the north-east

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, in the course of hearing a Public Interest Litigation expressed its concern over hate crimes against persons from northeastern states, and sought suggestions from the Centre to put a stop to the menace.  

 

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice R S Endlaw expressed its concerns over the spurt in hate crimes in the capital after senior advocate Upmanyu Hazarika, appointed by the Court as amicus curiae (friend of the Court) in the PIL filed seeking  a direction to the Government to ensure safety of northeast citizens living in Delhi, informed the Court that the attacks on such persons have not stopped and the Government needs to bring in legal reforms. 

The Bench directing the government to give suggestions on how to deal with the issue of hate crimes, posted the matter for further hearing on April 8.