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.

Supreme Court criticizes Leader of the Opposition in the Kerala Assembly, V.S. Achuthanandan for unduly delaying the ‘Palmolein case’ for his political gains

The Supreme Court on Monday strongly criticized Leader of the Opposition in the Kerala legislative Assembly, Sri. V.S. Achuthanandan for unduly delaying the ‘Palmolein case’ for his political gains. The Apex Court remarked that it appeared that the politician was trying to fish in muddy waters.

 

Supreme Court has criticized the Leader of the Opposition in the Kerala Assembly, V.S. Achuthanandan for unduly delaying the ‘Palmolein case’ for his political gains

 

Pointing out that Sri. Achuthanandan was frequently approaching the Supreme Court with additional documents, the Apex Court made it clear that such acts to unnecessarily delay the proceedings cannot be accepted. 

The Supreme Court also warned V.S. Achuthanandan that such acts on his part would only force the Court to take action against him.

 

V.S. Achuthanandan had approached the Supreme Court challenging the notification issued by the Government of Kerala to withdraw the ‘Palmolein case’. He has also sought for an order to the investigating agency to make the Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy an accused in the case.'

The palmolein case relates to certain irregularities in connection with the decision taken in 1991 by the then chief Minister of Kerala (late) Sri. K. Karunakaran with the junction of the then minister for Civil Supplies, Sri.T.H Mustafa and some Government Secretaries to import 30000 metric tonnes of Palmolein from Singapore to meet the requirements of the people of Kerala in connection with some festival which resulted in a heavy loss to the state exchequer.

The prosecution case is that the then Chief Minister, late Sri.K.Karunakaran got this decision approved by cabinet, without discussing and disclosing the real facts concerning the said import, and thus imported that much quantity of Palmolein through the exporter, Power and Energy Ltd., Singapore, with the assistance of Mala Export Corporation, Chennai, without inviting global tenders and totally in violation of the Store Purchase Rules, with the object of making unlawful benefits, and thus causing heavy loss to the state exchequer.

Reacting to Supreme Court's harsh criticism against him, Sri.V.S. Achuthanandan iss reported to have said that he is ready to correct any misconceptions the Apex Court may have about the Palmolein case.

 

Such court statements will not affect his fight against corruption, the Opposition leader added.

In a separate but related development, Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) president VM Sudheeran on Monday said that the Apex Court's observation in the ‘palmolein case’ is a strict warning against Achuthanandan's style of functioning.

 

Achuthanandan follows a method of misusing the judiciary for political gains, Sudheeran said in a press note released for publication in Thiruvananthapuram.

High Court of Kerala declines to exercise jurisdiction in a contempt case holding the same to be barred by limitation

A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala comprising of Acting Chief Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice AM Shaffique declined to exercise jurisdiction in a contempt of court case filed by one Sreenivas P of Karazhma in Mavelikkara as the same was barred by limitation.

In the petition filed originally before the court in 2009, Sreenivas, who is a devotee of the temple, had sought appointment of a permanent priest so as to dispose with the practice of engaging substitute priests. A Division Bench of the Court vide its judgment dated 03.12.2009 had asked the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to expedite the appointment of priests on a permanent basis.

Though the petitioner's case was that no permanent priests had been appointed in the past three years despite the positive direction of the High Court in its judgment dated 03.12.2009, he approached the Court alleging non-compliance by the TDB with the said judgment of the Court, only on 19.01.2015.

Declining to entertain the contempt case, the Bench held, "The direction was issued on 3.12.2009. This contempt case has been filed only on 19.1.2015. Section 21 of the Contempt of Court Act prohibits initiation of any proceedings after lapse of one year. The non-compliance of direction issued in 2009 cannot be entertained in this application filed in 2015."

Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which prescribes a period of limitation for bringing actions for contempt of Court, says :  

"No court shall initiate any proceedings if contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed."