[No.214]

Supreme Court

• State of Punjab and Ors v. Surinder Singh and Anr

Respondents were working as Tractor Drivers on daily wage basis. Respondents sought regularization of service as well as determination of pay scale on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Claim of regularization was dismissed though equal pay demand was granted by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. Hence, present appeal. Whether Respondents entitled for same pay scale as to those under regular appointment on the principle of equal pay for equal work? Held, principle of equal pay for equal work has to be granted only if there is a total and complete identity between the two persons. Principle already has undergone a sea change and view that exists today is that there should be complete and total identity between the two persons similarly situated so as to grant equal pay for equal work. In case of a regular appointee, one undergoes a selection process and services are regular. Daily wage employee even if discharge same functions as that of a regular employee, authorities not bound to grant equal pay such person. Impugned order is set aside. Appeals allowed.

• State of Haryana and Ors v. Navneet Verma

Respondent was appointed as Accounts Executive in the Haryana Bureau of Pubic Enterprises (HBPE). Services of the Respondent were terminated on the ground that the post of Accounts Executive has been abolished. Respondent contended that the third Appellant was appointed as Financial Adviser despite not fulfilling the prescribed requirement. Respondent was required to report to her who alleged third Appellant of subjecting him to humiliation and insult and also as not in favour of continuing him into services. When facts were brought to the notice of the Member Secretary he wanted him to resign the job. Third Appellant allegedly lodged a false and baseless complaint against Respondent based on which a preliminary inquiry was conducted. Though no action was taken against him but his services were dispensed with consequent upon the abolition of the posts of Accounts Executives. Respondent alleged that the post was not abolished in good faith, but was a device to weed him out from service and filed writ challenging the Order of termination. Learned Single Judge held the abolition of posts as not done in good faith and quashed the Order of abolition and also the consequential termination of Respondent. Division Bench in challenge to said order affirmed the findings of the ld. Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. Hence, present Appeal. Whether the abolition of posts was done in good faith or was it a camouflage to cover up and send out the Respondent from service? Appellants denied all the allegations and submitted that taking note of lesser activities of HBPE and assessment of workload and sanctioned staff abolition of post was recommended. Held, as per the appointment order issued to the Respondent he was appointed against temporary post, which was liable to be abolished at any time. Post had no assurance or promise for a permanent employment and services were liable to be terminated without notice whenever there was no vacancy against which he can be retained. Impugned orders set aside. Decisions taken by the Bureau and the Government confirmed. Appeal is allowed.

High Courts

Delhi

• Suresh Chand Gupa V. Deputy Commissioner of Police & ANR.

Petitioner filed a complaint against a government officer and thereafter, approached the Public Information Officer (PIO) under provisions of the Right to Information Act for inspection of concerned records. Petitioner also requested permission to be accompanied by his counsel during inspection of concerned records as he was not well conversant in English. Same was denied. Hence, present petition. Held, the object of the Act is to provide access to information in the custody of the executive agencies. If the petitioner, for some reasons, felt inhibited due to his not being fluent in English, denial of appropriate assistance in fact would have resulted in withholding access to information. Surely, that is not the object of the Act or even the order. Therefore, the respondents should grant the petitioner's request. Petition is allowed.

• Amritashva Kamal V. Jawaharlal Nehru University & ANR.

Petitioner was alleged to have involved in violence in Respondent University Campus. The enquiry committee set up to enquire into the violence did not recommend any action against petitioner as he was found to be a victim of caste abuse and physical violence led by some other students. However, Respondent No. 2 Authority passed an office order debarring petitioner from taking admission to any course in the university without affording an opportunity of being heard to petitioner. Hence, present petition. Whether in the absence of any indictment or adverse comment in the enquiry report or in any properly constituted proceeding, the University could have of its own accord as it were, determined that the Petitioner was at fault and imposed a drastic order debarring him ? Held, the Respondents never disputed that the order, as far as the Petitioner was concerned was ever preceded by any notice or opportunity. It is well settled that every administrative or executive order, which affects or adversely impacts on the rights of an individual, should be preceded by a fair procedure, thereby implying notice, a right to represent against the proposed action and some opportunity of hearing. Therefore, petition is allowed.

Gujarat

• Vijyaben D/O Ratna Ramji Khetani and anr. v. State Of Gujarat and Anr

Petitioners addressed letter, along with relevant documents, to Respondent-Authority requesting Respondent-Authority to rectify the marginal or clerical mistakes that crept into the Memorandum of Marriages during the registration of marriage of petitioners. However, Respondent-Authority declined to make the necessary corrections. Hence, present petition. Held, considering the provisions of the Bombay Registration of Marriages Act, 1953 and Bombay Registration of Marriages Rules, 1954, it is amply clear that the Registrar of Marriages has power to correct the defect, provided the procedure laid down in the sub-rule (1) of Rule (8) is followed by the applicants and interest of justice would be served if the matter is remanded back to the Respondent No.2-authority for considering the case of the Petitioners afresh. Therefore, Petitioners directed to approach Respondent-Authority along with an application for correction in the memorandum of marriage with necessary proofs thereof and requisite fees as prescribed under the law and on receipt of such application, Respondent-authority shall decide the application in accordance with law.

PIB

• Approval to the Armed Forces Tribunal Bill

PIB Dated 03.12.2007: The Union Cabinet has approved the amendments proposed by the Ministry to the Armed Forces Tribunal Bill, 2005. The salient features of the Armed Forces Tribunal Bill, 2005 includes the provisions for the adjudication or trial by the Armed Forces Tribunal of disputes and complaints with respect to commission, appointments, enrolment and conditions of service in respect of persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950 and also to provide for appeals arising out of orders, findings or sentences of courts-martial held under the said Acts and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Tribunal will consist of a Chairperson and such number of Judicial and Administrative Members as determined by the Central Government.

• Carriers Act, 1865 replaced by Carriage by Road Act, 2007

PIB Dated 05.12.2007: The Carriage by Road Act, 2007 has been notified to replace the Carriers Act, 1865. The Act has 22 Sections covering various aspects such as mandatory registration of common carriers, liability aspects of common carrier, requirement of goods forwarding notes and goods receipts, scope for an agreement between the consignor and the common carrier for transportation of the consignment at a higher risk rate in return for higher liability, empowering common carrier to dispose of the consignment to recover its dues in the event of failure of the consignee to take the delivery of the consignment, requirement of insurance for transportation of hazardous/dangerous goods, force majeure provision to exonerate common carrier from his liabilities under certain circumstances, penalty for violating the provisions of the Act etc.

RBI

• Government Securities Act, 2006 comes into force

Press Release No. 2007-2008/744 Dated 01.12.2007: The Government of India has notified December 1, 2007 as the appointed date on which the Government Securities Act, 2006 will come into force. Government Securities Regulations, 2007 will also come into effect from the same date. The Act applies to Government securities created and issued, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, by the Central or a State Government. Accordingly, the Public Debt Act, 1944 will cease to apply to the Government securities. The Indian Securities Act, 1920 has been repealed. The new Act and Regulations would facilitate widening and deepening of the Government securities market and its more effective regulation by the Reserve Bank.

SEBI

• SEBI Amends DIP Guidelines Rating Requirements for Corporate Bonds Simplified Structural Restrictions on Corporate Bond Issuances Removed

Press Release No. PR No.312/2007 Dated 03.12.2007: In order to facilitate development of a vibrant primary market for corporate bonds in India, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has amended the provisions pertaining to issuances of Corporate Bonds under the SEBI (Disclosure and Investor Protection) (DIP) Guidelines, 2000 vide circular dated December 03, 2007. The highlights of the amendments are for public/ rights issues of debt instruments, issuers will now need to obtain rating from only one credit rating agency instead of from two as required at present. This is with a view to reduce the cost of issuances. In order to facilitate issuance of below investment grade bonds to suit the risk/ return appetite of investors, the stipulation that debt instruments issued through public/ rights issues shall be of at least investment grade has been removed. Further, in order to afford issuers with desired flexibility in structuring of debt instruments, it has been decided that structural restrictions such as those on maturity, put/call option, on conversion, etc currently in place have been done away with.

Cases

• Walters v. State of Texas

Appellant shot and killed his older brother. He claimed self-defense. A jury rejected that claim and found him guilty of murder. On direct appeal, appellant claimed that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could consider prior verbal threats in deciding the issue of self-defense. Appellant also asserted that the trial judge violated the rule of optional completeness under Texas Rule of Evidence 107 when he allowed a 911 operator to testify that he asked appellant if he wanted to talk about what had happened, but excluded appellant's response. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury concerning prior verbal threats was reversible error as per ruling in Ellis v. State. The court of appeals ultimately reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. Hence, present appeal. Held, the Court of Appeals mistakenly concluded that appellant was entitled to a jury instruction on prior verbal threats. Under the present facts, the trial court abused its discretion in excluding appellant's response to the 911 operator's question, but that error was non-constitutional. Therefore, judgment of the court of appeals vacated and case remanded for further consideration.

• Flynn v. Henkel

In the grandparental visitation dispute suit, the appelle-paternal grandmother filed a petition in the circuit court for grandparent visitation against appellant-mother under section 607(a-5) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, commonly called the grandparents visitation statute. The court held a hearing on the petition and allowed the visitation, providing for three hours of unsupervised visitation on the second Saturday of each month with certain restrictions. Appellant mother appealed against same and the Appellate Court affirmed the ruling of trial court. Hence, present appeal. Held, there is no evidence that a denial of grandparental visitation would be harmful to the child's mental, physical or emotional health. Therefore, order for grandparental visitation by trial court and appellate court is reversed.

News

• Chicago to settle lawsuits over alleged police torture in 1970s, 80s

The City of Chicago is willing to pay $20 million to settle lawsuits filed by four former death row inmates who claim to have been tortured by Chicago Police officers during interrogations before being wrongly convicted, local media reported. The settlement is contingent upon approval by the city's aldermen next week. The four men were among many who reported being brutally tortured by Chicago police during police interrogations in the 1970's and 80's. The settlement announced by the city's Law Department comes as Chicago attempts to ease tensions between the Chicago Police Department and residents. The four men were pardoned in 2003 by then-Illinois governor George Ryan. An investigation into Chicago police torture began in 2002, when the Chief Criminal Judge of Cook County appointed the two special prosecutors to investigate 64 reports of torture and cover-ups. In May 2006, the same judge ordered the public release of the report, holding that the privacy rights of the accused officers are outweighed by the public's need to know.

• Federal judge upholds Arizona immigration law

A federal judge Friday dismissed a lawsuit challenging a new Arizona law aimed at preventing employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. The Legal Arizona Workers Act enacted in July, gives the Superior Courts of Arizona power to suspend or revoke the business licenses of businesses that intentionally or knowingly employ illegal immigrants. Under the law, employers will be required to check the legal status of new hires using E-Verify, a free online federal program that checks names and identification documents to determine employment eligibility. The plaintiffs, a coalition of advocacy groups and business interests, had hoped to block the legislation before it takes effect on Jan. 1, 2008.

• Germany working to ban 'unconstitutional' Scientology

German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and his 16 regional counterparts have consider Scientology "an organization that is not compatible with the constitution", and will work to ban it in Germany, Schäuble said at the end of a two-day ministerial meeting. The German government regards Scientology as a money-making organization, not a faith; a recent report of the interior ministers on terrorism criticized Scientology for breaching the human rights of its members, "such as the right to develop one's personality and the right to be treated equally." Scientology has about 6000 adherents in Germany and is closely monitored. Scientology, founded by American science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard in 1954, has come under increasing scrutiny in Europe in recent years. In September, Belgian prosecutor Jean-Claude Van Espen said Scientology should be classified as a criminal organization after completing a 10-year investigation into the church's activities.

• Rhode Island high court rules against same-sex divorce

The Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that a lesbian couple legally married in Massachusetts does not have the right to divorce in Rhode Island because Rhode Island does not explicitly recognize same-sex marriage. In Chambers v. Ormiston, Rhode Island residents Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers sought to end their 2004 Massachusetts marriage. Lawyers for the couple had argued that if the divorce was not permitted in Rhode Island, the couple's only recourse is to move to Massachusetts and establish residency for a divorce in that state, which lawyers said would be an unfair burden. In September 2006, a Massachusetts court ruled that same-sex couples from Rhode Island must be allowed to wed in Massachusetts because Rhode Island does not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage through its state constitution, statutes or appellate court decisions. In February, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch issued a nonbinding advisory letter saying that Rhode Island will recognize same-sex marriages of state employees performed in Massachusetts. Lynch said that same-sex employee partners married in Massachusetts would be granted the same benefits as heterosexual married couples.