No proposal to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court Judges from 65 to 68 years, says Union Law Minister Sadananda Gowda

Union Law Minister Mr. Sadananda Gowda on Friday said there was no proposal to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 68 years. 

Law Minister Sadananda Gowda has said there is no proposal to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 68 years

On whether the Centre was considering increasing the retirement age of judges of the 24 high courts from 62 to 65 years, the minister said a constitutional amendment bill in this regard was introduced in Lok Sabha on August 25, 2010 which lapsed with the dissolution of the 15^th Lok Sabha. 

In response to a question in Rajya Sabha, he said the Bill was later referred to a parliamentary committee, which recommended that the proposed Bill "in its present form should be passed without a delay" but the bill could not be taken up for consideration and passing in Parliament and had lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha. 

_________

"..the government has requested the Chief Justices of HCs that while sending proposals for appointment of judges, due consideration be given to suitable candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs, minorities and from among women" - Union Law Minister Sadananda Gowda

__________

Mr.  Gowda said that as on December 1, there were three vacancies in the SC which has an approved strength of 31. In the 24 HCs, the working strength stands at 629 against the approved strength of 984, resulting in 355 vacancies.

He said the Constitution does not provide for reservation for any caste or class of person in the higher judiciary. "However, the government has requested the Chief Justices of HCs that while sending proposals for appointment of judges, due consideration be given to suitable candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs, minorities and from among women," he said.

Union Government gives the green signal for 100 % Foreign Direct Investment in select projects of the Railways

(Pic Courtesy: Indian Railways) Minister of State for Railways, Mr. Manoj Sinha in written reply to a question in Rajya Sabha on Friday, has informed the House that the Union Government has decided to permit 100 percent Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in construction, operation and maintenance of: ·         Suburban corridors through Public Private Partnership (PPP). ·         High speed train projects. ·         Dedicated freight lines. ·         Rolling stock including trains sets and locomotive/coaches                        manufacturing and maintenance facilities. ·         Railway electrification. ·         Signaling system. ·         Freight terminal. ·         Passenger terminal. ·         Infrastructure in industrial park pertaining to railway line/siding. ·         Mass Rapid Transport System.  He also said that currently there are no operational projects of Suburban corridor through PPP, High speed train and Dedicated Freight Corridors. Also, Rolling Stock manufacturing and maintenance facilities, Railway Electrification, Signaling system, Freight terminals, Passenger terminals, Rail sidings in industrial parks are not separate profit centers on Indian Railways. In view of this, no revenue generation figures of the last five years are available.

Cabinet clears amendments to be brought to the Indian Trusts Act, 1882

The Union Cabinet on Friday approved amendments to Sections 20 and 20A of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. 

(The Indian Trusts (Amendment) Bill, 2014 may be introduced in the ongoing session of Parliament)

Section 20 deals with the investment of trust money and restricts the trustees to investing this money only in the prescribed securities including “promissory notes, debentures, stock or other securities of any state government or of the central government or of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”.

Section 20A prescribes the limits of the power of the trustee to purchase redeemable stock at a premium.

According to a press statement issued by the Cabinet, “the amendments are intended to provide the trustees greater autonomy and flexibility to take decisions on investment of trust money. This would enable the Central Government to notify securities or class of securities, for investment by trusts and to remove the outdated provisions occurring in section 20 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882”.

The Indian Trusts (Amendment) Bill, 2014, proposing changes to section 20 and 20A looks set to be introduced in the current session of Parliament.

 

"Registration of an FIR and confinement is not sufficient to bar a person from contesting election", observes the SC while dismissing a plea challenging the 2013 amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed challenging the Delhi High Court’s verdict of February 6 earlier this year, upholding the constitutional validity of an amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 allowing undertrials, except convicts, to contest elections, which was earlier barred by the Apex Court.

 ________

"Registration of an FIR and confinement is not sufficient to bar a person from contesting election", said the Supreme Court

                                                                                                                                             ________

 

(Supreme Court of India, New Delhi)

 Dismissing the appeal, a Bench headed by Chief Justice H.L. Dattu said. "If there is conviction and sentence, we can understand but the registration of an FIR and confinement is not sufficient to bar a person from contesting election." 

Earlier, the Parliament had passed the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013 (Number 29 of 2013) adding a further proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 62 of the R.P. Act, 1951, to the effect that if a person who is enrolled in the electoral roll is confined in a prison or in lawful custody of police, he will continue to be an elector notwithstanding the prohibition against voting under the said sub-section.

The Amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 had been introduced last year by Parliament to get over the July 10 judgment of the Apex Court in The CEC vs. Jan Chaukidar and Ors [ CA Nos. 3040-3041 of 2004] wherein the Apex Court had held that a person, who is in jail or in police custody, cannot contest election to legislative bodies, bringing to an end an era of under trial politicians fighting polls from behind bars. The Apex Court had said that only a voter can contest election and a person in police custody has no right to vote.

The Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013 (Number 29 of 2013) contained a validation clause providing that nothing contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority shall have any effect on the amendments made to Section 7 and Section 62 of the Act by the amendment Act.  This effectively meant that the position as obtained prior to the Apex Court’s judgment of 10.07.2013 would continue to apply. 

Though the Centre had sought for a review of the Apex Court’s judgment of July 10, the Supreme Court, on November 19 last year, had dismissed the Centre's plea saying it is not necessary to look into the issue in view of amendments brought about by Parliament to the Representation of People Act.

Considering the challenge to the Amendments brought about to the Representation of the People  Act, the Delhi High Court had observed that not allowing an arrested accused or an undertrial to contest election on the ground that he has no right to vote while incarcerated "would leave the door open for vendetta politics". 

"Extending curtailment of the right to vote of a person in prison to the right to stand in election would, in our opinion, leave the door open for practice of 'vendetta politics' by ruling parties...All that a politician/ruling party-in-power would need to do to prevent rivals from contesting an election is to ask the police to file a case and to arrest the rivals," it had said.

The Supreme Court concurred with the ratiocination of the Delhi High Court and hence, dismissed the appeal.