Calcutta High Court gives the go-ahead for conduct of BJP Rally in Kolkata; Amit Shah hails HC order as 'a victory of the masses'

President of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Amit Shah has today said that the permission given by Calcutta High Court for the conduct of his rally in Kolkata is "a victory of the masses". 

The rally assumes significance in view of the significant rise in the support base of the BJP in West Bengal recently. The BJP since the Lok Sabha elections held earlier this year has been trying to make headway in the State. Of the 42 seats, it managed to win two – SS Ahluwalia (Darjeeling) and Babul Supriyo (Asansol). Supriyo has since been elevated as Minister of State for Urban Development in the recent expansion of the Union Council of Ministers. Significantly, BJP after a long gap has also been able to win an Assembly seat (in West Bengal) from Basirhat Dakshin constituency. Samik Bhattacharya is the only MLA of the party in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly.

(File Picture: Amit Shah, BJP President)

Earlier, the Trinamool Congress-run city civic body, Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and other emergency services like the Fire Department, apart from the police, had initially declined permission for the Uthan rally planned to be held by the party outside Victoria House in central Kolkata citing certain 'deficiencies'. Reasons of traffic inconvenience and width of the staircase leading to the dais were stated. The authorities also reasoned that Shah couldn’t hold a public rally outside Victoria House on Sunday because the sketch of the podium that the BJP had submitted for permission does not exactly show the width of the staircase and the site plan was not according to scale. The certificate of the decorator hired was also not submitted. While rejecting BJP's plea, the fire department had said there must be "minimum 20 feet clear open space" between the boundary wall and the proposed stage. 

This had prompted the party (BJP) to move the Calcutta High Court challenging the non-issuance of the NOC by the authorities on the ground of discrimination by the administration. The Party had contended that the technical objections raised may be on valid grounds, but then these objections could be rectified after a dialogue with the civic authorities. In Court, Counsel for the BJP, Mr. S K Kapoor said the government's argument followed neither fact nor law. The court said BJP's applications to KMC and fire department were not in order. Kapoor assured that his client will comply with rules to ensure the rally is held on November 30.

The Calcutta High Court passed an order on Friday appointing two special officers – director general of state fire services Sanjoy Mukherjee and KMC joint commissioner (development) S Santra, to ensure the compliance of fire services and municipal rules in the public meeting, while observing that the government should not be rigid in the compliance of these rules while granting permission. The court asked officers to take a reasonable call on the "20-feet space rule".


On the same day, Counsel for the fire services Department, Pranab Dutta sought a stay on the Single Judge’s order following an oral appeal to Chief Justice Dr. Manjula Chellur. She however refused to pass an order based on verbal petition and asked Dutta to file a formal application. 

Following the High Court directive, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the state fire services department were left with no choice but to give the green signal for the conduct of Amit Shah's rally.

State BJP vice president Tathagata Roy said the ruling Trinamool Congress’s “conspiracy” to scuttle the rally stood exposed. Observers point out that he Victoria House venue has a great symbolic importance in the BJP-TMC face off. This has been favoured venue of TMC leader and West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee over the years, from where she would make a show of her strength in the month of July, year after year.

The stage is now literally set for a grand face-off with the BJP all set to take on the ruling Trinamool Congress in West Bengal ahead of the Assembly elections in 2016. BJP leader and National Secretary of the party, Siddharth Nath Singh hinted as much when he said “Amit Shah-ji will sound the bugle for the 2016 Assembly polls in order to make West Bengal TMC free after 2016 polls."

PM Modi advocates SMART Policing at a conference of top Cops and Intelligence officials in Guwahati

Advocating the concept of 'SMART' policing, while addressing a national conference of Directors General of Police in Guwahati., Prime Minister Narendra Modi today laid out a plan for SMART policing.

(File picture: PM Modi. Picture courtesy: India Today)

He said, by 'SMART' policing, he meant 'S for strict but sensitive, M for modern and mobile, A for alert and accountable, R for reliable and responsive and T for techno-savvy and trained.'

Stressing on the importance of good intelligence, he said "Good intelligence negates the need for weapons or conflict."

PM Modi also claimed that the media keeps "projecting only negative picture of the police", who do a lot of good work which is often not highlighted.

Extolling the role played by India's policemen, he said, "Since independence, 33000 police men have died in the line of duty". Police welfare is another issue which needs to be given importance, added PM Modi. "It was imperative to "change the perception about policemen in the country" said PM Modi, and expressed his "gratitude to all those police officers who are serving the nation".

News Link here

Winter Session of the Kerala Assembly to commence on Monday; Opposition likely to corner Government on a host of issues

The twelfth session of the thirteenth Kerala Legislative Assembly will commence on December 1, Monday. 

Kerala Legislative Assembly

Earlier, Speaker G. Karthikeyan, on Wednesday, had called a meeting of the leaders of all political parties represented in the Assembly to solicit their cooperation for the smooth conduct of the upcoming session of the House starting on December 1.

The 14-day-long winter session beginning on December 1 is likely to be a stormy affair with the CPI-M led LDF Opposition all set to take on the UDF Government on a host of issues, including the alleged bar licence bribery involving Finance Minister K M Mani. Pouncing on the issue, the LDF had demanded Mani's resignation and had warned the government that it would launch a series of agitations if he did not quit the post. CPI Legislature Party leader C Divakaran on Friday had said that Finance Minister K M Mani, who is under a cloud of suspicion following the revelation by Biju Ramesh, Bar Owners’ Association leader that Mani had accepted bribes, should keep away from attending the Assembly session.

The outbreak of avian flu leading to mass deaths of ducks, causing huge losses to farmers in Alappuzha, Kottayam and Pathanmthitta districts would be another major topic of debate in the Assembly, which has been convened primarily to take up legislative business.

The long drawn-out students' agitation at the University of Calicut, which has virtually stalled the administration in the University is also likely to be raised on the floor of the House. CPI(M) politburo member and Deputy leader of the Opposition in the Assembly Kodiyeri Balakrishnan has been quoted in the media as making a statement to that effect.

The session is scheduled to devote 11 days for transacting legislative business, Speaker G. Karthekeyan said. As many as 18 ordinances issued by the government when the House was not in session has to be replaced. The same has been accorded top priority, and placed at the top of the list of the legislative business to be transacted. Earlier, CPI Legislature Party leader C Divakaran on Friday had criticized that what has been going on in the state is an ‘’ordinance raj". Some of these ordinances are anti-people and government was seeking the approval of the Assembly, Divakaran said.The CPI leader added that Rs 3000 crore worth additional taxes were imposed on the people by enhancing the fair value of land, stamp duty and registration fee.

The Bills to be introduced to replace the Ordinances issued by the Government when the House was not in session, include, inter alia, the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, the Kerala Maritime Board Ordinance, 2014, Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Ordinance, 2014, Kerala Land Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, Kerala Taxation Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, Kerala Tolls (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (Passenger Group Personal Accident Insurance, Improved Passenger Amenities, Employees' Social Security and Cess on Ticket) Ordinaance, 2014. 

The University Laws (Third Amendment) Bill and the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) Bill are  the two Bills reported by the Subject Committee of the Assembly that is also scheduled to be taken up in the upcoming session.

Arresting RSS cadres in violation of its Nov. 7 judgment, at the most, an act of bad taste and bad faith, but no contempt of Court made out, says the Madras High Court, while dismissing a contempt petition filed by the RSS

The Madras High Court, dismissing a contempt petition filed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), held that the act of police in arresting RSS cadres during processions over their attire on November 9, seemed at the most "an act of bad taste and bad faith on the part of authorities" and cannot be taken as constituting contempt of Court. 

Earlier, after being denied the permission by the authorities to conduct procession on its Foundation Day on the ground that in view of the amendment to Section 41-A of the Chennai City Police Act, the Commissioner of Police had the power to prohibit any drill, training or assembly with arms, the RSS had approached the High Court filing a writ petition, seeking a direction to the police authorities to permit its annual foundation day procession in Chennai, Karur, Coimbatore, Tuticorin, Thackalay, Thiruvarur and Tenkasi, in the state of Tamil Nadu, on 9 November. 

(File Picture: Swayamsevaks taking out procession. Picture courtesy: indiatvnews)

The petitioners contended that RSS is a patriotic, nationalistic and cultural organization which is patronised by majority of the people in the country, and that while the procession (route march) was being permitted by all state governments, including Jammu and Kashmir, it was "unfortunate that only in Tamil Nadu the permission is refused." Rejection of permission to hold the procession in the seven places was discriminatory when such clearance was given to all political parties, the petitions contended. Relying on various court orders, the petitions said "while police had power to control and regulate processions, they did not have power to forbid or ban processions. The power to control does not include the power to forbid."

 

The police authorities had also contended that the RSS volunteers wore a uniform resembling that of the police force and also carried lathis. Hence, permission could not be granted.

A learned Single Judge the Madras High Court, Justice V Ramasubramanian, allowed the writ petition filed by the RSS holding that fundamentally, the orders passed by the authorities were not as per the mandate of Section 41-A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 . This was because this provision had no application to holding of processions but only to drill, training, assembly with arms or assembly in uniform. It was claimed that the uniform of the volunteers was designed in 1920s. Therefore, the authorities appeared to have raised a bogey as no member of the police force today wore short-pants. They had taken recourse to a wrong provision of law. Hence, the impugned orders were liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge had directed the police to grant permission to the RSS to take out a procession and hold a public meeting at seven places in the State on November 9. (The observations regarding the uniform were however not incorporated in the operative portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge). Justice V Ramasubramanian permitted RSS processions (route marches) in all the seven towns, saying participating cadres should not carry any weapons or lathis and should not raise slogans hurting sentiments of others.

Authorities in various districts, acting on the court order, had permitted the RSS activists to take out processions, subject to certain conditions, one of which was they should not wear uniform resembling that of the Armed Forces or police. The action was based on the amendment to the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, which empowered the police to prohibit training or assembly by groups with arms or in uniform that resembles that of the armed forces or the police. Most of the RSS workers were in the ‘khaki’ uniform. Under Section 41(A) of the Act, to ensure public peace and safety, the police may prohibit any drill with arms by five or more persons at any place or carrying of arms in any procession. The word ‘arms’ meant any type of offensive weapon and included ‘lathi’ or stick. This was however contrary to the observations in the order of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the RSS to take out procession at seven places in Tamil Nadu. 

However, thousands of Swayamsevaks were later arrested across Tamil Nadu when they defied police orders and tried to take out processions to mark their foundation day.

It was in this context that the RSS had filed a contempt petition before the High Court of Madras.

Considering the contempt petition, the Court held : "At the most what has been made out is an act of bad taste and bad faith on the part of the authorities. Something more is required to attract an action for contempt of Court. Hence the contempt petition is dismissed. "Justice V. Ramasubramanian further said, "Unfortunately for the petitioners and fortunately for the authorities, the observations made by me in the order relating to the uniform worn by RSS volunteers was not incorporated in the operative portion of the order." The judge said a clear case of wilful disobedience of an order can be made out without an iota of doubt only where its operative portion has something which has been violated by the authorities. The judge said that if authorities had misunderstood the effect of his directions, it could at most be termed as something done in bad taste and an ingenious method to overreach the order of the Court.

Accordingly, the contempt petition filed by the RSS was dismissed by the Madras High Court.

Employee, in discharge of his duties, whether employed as driver or otherwise, would be entitled to compensation under clause (a) of the Proviso to Section 147 of the M.V. Act if the accident has occurred out of and in the course of his employment, holds the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court

A Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala affirming the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nimmy & Ors.¹ has held in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P.R. Surendran² that if an employee in discharge of his duties, is engaged in driving a vehicle as permitted by his employer, irrespective of whether he is employed as driver or not, the employee would be entitled to the coverage of the proviso to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the M.V. Act’ for short), provided the accident has occurred out of and in the course of his employment.

(Representational picture)

A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Justices Antony Dominic, K. Ramakrishnan and Anil.K. Narendran was answering a reference made by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala doubting the correctness of the ratio in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nimmy & Ors. (supra). In Nimmy’s case (supra), the deceased was employed by the 5^th respondent therein. While he was riding a scooter provided by his employer, an accident occurred out of and in the course of his employment. Following the accident, the claim was filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Insurance Company contended that to get coverage of Clause (a) to the first proviso to Section 147, the employee mentioned in Clause (a) should be employed as a permanent driver of the owner of the vehicle. Repelling that contention, the Division Bench had held:

“It is not stated in the section that to get protection under this section one should be permanently employed as driver or the sole duty entrusted on him is driving. We are of the opinion that when an employee in driving the vehicle as part of his duty, he will come within the first proviso to Section 147(1) of the M.V. Act.”

The Division Bench, referring the appeals before it to the Full Bench, found, prima facie, that the coverage under the proviso to Section 147 of the M.V. Act is available only to those persons who are employed as drivers and are engaged in driving and not to other employees who were engaged in driving at the time of the accident. It was on this basis that it had doubted the correctness of the view taken in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nimmy & Ors. (supra).

The appeals were filed filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the awards passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thrissur in W.C.C.Nos.361/2000 and 374/2003. The claimants in the workmen's compensation claims before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thrissur were sales representatives employed by their respective employers. As part of their conditions of service, their employers had provided them two wheelers. While riding the vehicles in their course of their employment, they met with accidents, resulting in bodily injuries. This led the injured to file claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act, claiming the benefit of coverage of the insurance policy. This was in view of proviso (i) to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation overruled the objection raised by the Insurance Companies that they are not liable under the proviso (i) to Section 147 of the M.V.Act and awarded compensation against the Insurance Companies. It is aggrieved by these awards that the aforesaid insurance companies had filed the appeals to the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, which were then referred to the Full Bench in the circumstances stated above.

The Insurance Companies contended that in order to get the coverage of

Clause (a) to the proviso to Section 147, an employee should be employed as a driver and should be engaged in driving.

The Full Bench referring to clause (a) of the proviso to Section 147 of the M.V. Act³, negatived the contention of the Insurance Companies on the ground that it is the settled position of law that when the language of a statute is unambiguous, the Courts are bound to literally interpret the statute and give full effect to the provisions. Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Antony Dominic held that “In so far as Clause (a) to the proviso to Section 147 is concerned, Section only uses the expression 'engaged in driving the vehicle' without specifying either the class of the vehicle which is covered by this provision or the nature of the employment of the person engaged in driving the vehicle, unlike clauses (b) and (c) to the proviso, which specifies the nature of the employment to claim coverage of the said provision. This, therefore, means that to claim coverage of Clause (a) to the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, the employee need only be engaged in driving the vehicle, irrespective of whether he was employed as driver or not…such coverage would be available only if the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment and only if the other requirements of the Workmen's Compensation Act are also satisfied.”

In reasoning this, the Full Bench relied, inter alia, on the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Davis⁴  wherein it was held thus:

“the legislative intention is clear that any injury sustained by an employee during the course of his employment has to be compensated if bodily injury or death has occasioned during his engagement in driving the vehicle. So much so, the word “engaged” in Clause (a) of proviso (i) indicates the duty or activity carried on by the workman at the time of suffering the accident, resulting in his death or in injuries to him. Hence, it would be an impermissible and an extremely restricted approach to hold that a person, who was employed as a driver, would alone fall under Clause (a) of Proviso (i). Therefore, the only manner in which Proviso (i) (a) of S.147(1) can be interpreted is by holding that it is not necessary for a person to be employed exclusively as a driver under an employer to sustain a claim referable to the said provision and one who is engaged in driving the vehicle, thereby meaning, driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, is entitled to compensation and insurance covered under the said proviso, provided he was in the employment of the employer and therefore a workman and still further, that he was driving the vehicle at the time of the  accident under due authorisation of the employer.”

The Bench also relied on the decisions of the High Court of Kerala in Benz Automobiles Ltd. v. Thomas⁵ and the judgment in M.A.C.A. No.1271/07 in holding that if an employee, in discharge of his duties, is engaged in driving a vehicle as permitted by his employer, irrespective of whether he is employed as driver or not, the employee would be entitled to the coverage of the proviso to Section 147, provided the accident has occurred out of and in the course of his employment.

___________

1. 2002 (1) KLJ 811

2. Judgment dated 12.11.2014 in MFA.No. 191 of 2005

3. “Provided that a policy shall not be required :

(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his

employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such

employee--

(a) engaged in driving the vehicle.”

4. 2006 (4) KLT 1013

5. 2008 (3) KLT 1015