Disproportionate assets case: Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court recuses himself from hearing DMK leader Anbazhagan's plea against appointment of Bhavani Singh as Special Public Prosecutor

Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court D.H. Waghela on Tuesday recused himself from hearing DMK leader Anbazhagan's appeal challenging the appointment of G Bhavani Singh, special public prosecutor (SPP) in the appeal filed by AIADMK general secretary Jayalalithaa against her conviction in the disproportionate assets case.

Mr. G. Bhavani Singh, SPP in the disproportionate assets case

The appeal was preferred by Mr. Anbazhagan against the order passed by a single judge asking him to approach Supreme Court on Tamil Nadu's action of appointing Mr. Singh as SPP.

The single Judge, Justice Byrareddy had directed Anbazhagan and Karnataka government to approach the Supreme Court for clarification on the issue of procedure of the appointment of the SPP as it was improper for him to interpret its order relating to the bail plea filed by Jayalalithaa.

On October 17 last year, the apex court had granted conditional bail to Jayalalithaa, who was convicted in the ‘disproportionate assets case’ and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of four years by the trial court on September 27, 2014 , saying that the hearing on her appeal against conviction in the High Court should be completed in three months from December 18.

 

Justice Byrareddy had also observed that since the apex court in its order on giving bail to Jayalalithaa was silent on the issue of procedure of appointing the SPP, the High Court wouldn't like to interpret the apex court's order.

The appeal filed by Mr. Anbazhagan was being heard by a Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Waghela and Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri from yesterday.

The recusal came was after Mr. Singh's counsel said that the Chief Should not hear the case as he (Chief Justice Waghela) had on the administrative side had on earlier occasion given consent to Karnataka government's decision of removing Mr. Singh from the post of SPP. Later this decision of the Karnataka government was set aside by the Apex Court.

Mr. Singh's counsel had filed a memo for recusal of the Chief Justice in the morning and recthe Chief Justice recused from hearing in the afternoon when Mr. Singh's counsel insisted that the Chief Justice should not hear the appeal by Mr. Anbazhagan whereas counsel representing other parties said that they have no object for Chief Justice from hearing the appeal.

High Court of Kerala stays further proceedings initiated by Bar Council of Kerala against K.P. Dandapani, Advocate General of Kerala

The Kerala High Court on Monday stayed all further proceedings by the Bar Council of Kerala against Advocate General KP Dandapani initiated on the basis of a complaint filed alleging "unfair practice" in allowing the Advocate General’s wife and son to conduct cases against the government. 

Justice CK Abdul Rehim issued the interim order of stay while considering the writ petition filed by the Advocate General (AG) in his personal capacity.

In the writ petition filed before the High Court, the Advocate General contended that the notice was issued by the secretary of the state Bar Council on the basis of a direction from the Chairman of the state Bar Council without jurisdiction. The notice was issued on January 21^st on a complaint filed by advocate J.S. Ajith Kumar of Devine Nagar at South Chittoor in Kochi on January 14^th.

The Advocate General Mr. K.P. Dandapani has contended before the High Court that only the Bar Council has the power to issue notice to lawyers and that the secretary or the chairman cannot do so independently as per Bar Council of India Rules.

Mr. Dandapani has contended that his wife and son are independent lawyers. "It is to be noted that Dandapani Associates is not a firm nor a company. It only denotes the name of the office simpliciter. The petitioner, his wife and son are having practice under individual capacities," the petition says. Filing of cases by an individual lawyer cannot be attributed to be a misconduct simply because his one of his relatives happens to occupy a constitutional post, argues Mr. K.P. Dandapani.

"There is absolutely no merit in the complaint. If the complaint taken as a whole, even if the allegations are admitted, will not prima facie spelt out any act of misconduct," the petition said.  According to Mr. Dandapani, even if the allegation that he in his capacity as the Advocate General helped his son to become the standing counsel for public bodies is taken for granted, it does not amount to misconduct or violate the code of ethics.

No materials have been produced and no particulars have been stated to show that the AG has any material gain directly or indirectly from the filing of the cases by his son and wife, the petition said, seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against Mr. Dandapani.

PIL challenging constitutional validity of 'Aadhaar' project : Supreme Court seeks Centre's response

The Supreme Court on Monday sought to know the Union government’s response to a public interest litigation filed by one Mathew George challenging the constitutional validity of the Unique Identification Authority of India and the ‘Aadhaar’ scheme, which the petitioner claimed, violated the citizens’ right to privacy.

Mr. Gopal Subramanium appearing for the petitioner contended before the Court that there is possibility of misuse of personal data of citizens by private agencies

During the course of his arguments on admission, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, representing the petitioner Mathew George, submitted before the Court that it was the “responsibility of the state” to protect citizens from violations of their right to privacy.

According to Mr. Subramanium, the work of collecting information about citizens has been outsourced to private parties, who can misuse massive personal data in their hands and corrupt them, as happened in a few cases. The scheme at present is not under government control, senior counsel Gopal Subramanium further argued.

The writ petition, filed by George, a retired army officer, avers that the security credentials of agencies collecting information from citizens were not thoroughly scrutinized.

The petitioner has specifically challenged the validity of Section 14-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which makes it compulsory for every citizen to get his/her details entered into the National Register of Indian Citizens. The petition says that this provision is unconstitutional, being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. “It is not the mandate of the Citizenship Act to collect statistics and details of residents and citizens in India which detail is to be collected only under the Census Act. Whether or not a person’s name has to be included as a citizen in the NRIC cannot be decided by the officer entering such details in the National Population Register; and further, it seeks to collect private data of the citizens without providing for any restriction on its disclosure, use and transmission,” the petition says.

Further, according to the petitioner, Aadhaar’s objective of creating a universal database would lead to infringement of “fundamental and core private rights” of citizens. 

Subramanium submitted that the standing committee chairman Yashwant Sinha had written a detailed statement cautioning the UPA government against the scheme. He said that UK, Australia and some European countries have scrapped similar schemes because of the fear of violation of privacy.

The petition states that while UID enrolment form itself does not seek information concerning ones’ religion, the same is easily discernable from a person’s name. Further, the application form of certain banks like the State Bank of India require a client to disclose information such as caste, income and religion.

This enables anyone having access to UID database to profile the population on the basis of any of the identity traits, contends the petitioner.

After hearing Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the Bench consisting of Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and Justice A.K. Sikri sought to know the government’s stand from Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar . He said he needed two weeks to clarify the official stand, whereupon the Bench posted the matter for further consideration on February 13.