News Headings

N E W S
I N ..D E T A I L

Saturday, July 28, 1998

weather n spotlight
today's calendar

President seeks SC view
What is CJI's role in selection of judges?
NEW DELHI, July 27 (PTI) — In an unprecedented turn to the controversy over appointment of judges, the President today asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Chief Justice of India (CJI) could make recommendations for appointments without following the consultation process and whether such recommendations would be binding on the government.
The reference by President K.R. Narayanan followed doubts expressed about the interpretation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard.
It may be recalled that Union Minister and noted lawyer Ram Jethmalani had contended that recommendations had been made by the CJI for appointment of a number of judges of Supreme Court without following the due process of consultation.
The reference, a copy of which was placed before a Division Bench by Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee, said that doubts should be resolved in public interest.
The Bench comprising Mr Justice S. Saghir Ahmad and Mr Justice K.T. Thomas ordered that the reference be put before the CJI for appropriate orders and directions.
The Bench also deferred till September 14 hearing on two petitions seeking appointment of judges as per recommendation of the CJI in the Allahabad High Court and the apex court.
The reference also asked the apex court to decide whether the CJI as provided in Articles 217 (1) and 222 (1) was required to consult other judges of the Supreme Court before making a recommendation or whether he could do so on his own.
It also asked the court to decide whether transfer of judges of high courts was reviewable in the light of its judgement, saying that it was not justiciable and its further observation that a limited judicial review was available.
Referring to Article 124 (2) as interpreted in the apex court judgement requiring consultation with two seniormost judges of the apex court, the presidential reference wanted the Supreme Court to decide whether there should be wider consultations as per the past practice.
In case of non-acceptance by the government of a recommendation made by the CJI for appointment of judges, the presidential reference asked whether the CJI would act solely on his own in deciding merit of all material and information conveyed by the government in not making that appointment.
In deciding the appointment of judges for a high court, the reference asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the consultation process should include only those judges of the apex court who had the concerned high court as the parent court or also those who might have served in that court on transfer.

Rita Verma is BJP nominee
NEW DELHI, July 27 (PTI) — A question mark hung over the Lok Sabha Deputy Speaker's election with the Opposition objecting to the extension of the House beyond July 31 even as the Union Cabinet today decided to reiterate its recommendation that the House sit on August 3 and 4 to facilitate holding of the election. The Cabinet, which met after the government came under attack in the Lok Sabha Business Advisory Committee for recommending extension of the House up to August 5 is understood to have decided to stick to its recommendation as it was keen that the Deputy Speaker's election be held before end of the current session.
Meanwhile, the Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies today nominated the Dhanbad MP, Ms Rita Verma, as the official candidate for the post of the Lok Sabha Deputy Speaker.
The decision was taken this morning at a meeting of the joint parliamentary meeting of the BJP and its allies which was chaired by the Prime Minister, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee.
Announcing Ms Verma’s candidature, the Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Mr Madan Lal Khurana, said that the Lok Sabha Speaker, Mr G.M.C. Balayogi, had been requested to fix a suitable date for the election during the current session of Parliament.
As the Opposition has already declared the Congress MP, Mr P.M. Sayeed, as its candidate for the post, the contest appears to be inevitable.
But there is a serious question mark on the exact date of the contest for the Deputy Speaker’s post as the Speaker has not yet declared the election schedule.
Earlier, Mr Khurana said the party’s decision to field Ms Verma was taken in response to a demand of the BJP and its allies that a woman should be nominated for the post.
Commenting on the Congress contention that the Deputy Speakership should go to the Opposition, Mr Khurana said that the Congress had broken the convention by putting up its candidate for Speakership earlier. So, the Congress objection was baseless, he pointed out.
A teacher by profession, Ms Verma entered politics after the death of her husband — Mr Randhir Prasad Verma, an IPS officer — in an encounter with terrorists at Dhanbad in Bihar.
Born in Patna, 45-year-old Verma was elected to the 10th Lok Sabha in 1991. She was re-elected to the 11th and the 12th Lok Sabha in 1996 and 1998.
She has been a member of the various parliamentary committees. These include the Committee on Energy (convener), sub committee on coal (member), joint committee on the constitution and amendment Bill 1996 regarding reservations of 33 per cent seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

Power bills at new rates deferred
Tribune News Service
CHANDIGARH, July 27 — In deference to persistent political pressure by the coalition partner, the BJP, and amidst strong protest by representatives of business, trade and industry, the Punjab Government today deferred dispatch of revised bills corresponding to 33 per cent hike in power tariff announced on July 20.
The Punjab Chief Minister, Mr Parkash Singh Badal, has assured the affected associations that the announced hike will be "reviewed" and a "final decision" taken in the next two or three days. Thus the enhanced tariff — yet to be decided will be effective from only the date it is now announced.
In response to this assurance, the business, trade and industry today decided to "postpone" the proposed strike and agitation and wait till the new tariff rates are announced.
Over 100 representatives of various associations and key representative organisations like the CII, PHDCCI, FISSI, CICU, Focal Points Associations etc had been invited for an inter-face on the power tariff hike at Punjab Bhavan.
Besides the Chief Minister, the Finance Minister, Capt Kanwaljit Singh, Local Bodies Minister, Mr B.D. Tandon, the Food Minister. Mr M.M. Mittal and the Housing Minister, Mr Sarup Singh, the Chief Secretary, Mr R.S. Mann, the PSEB Chairman, Mr S.K. Tuteja, Mr Daya Singh Sodhi (BJP State President), Mr Amrik Singh Aliwal both MPs and several MLAs were present. The Secretary, Industries and Director, Industries were also there.
The occasion was used by the industry to lambast the functioning of the PSEB and the arbitrary manner in which the government had effected the hike (33 per cent) in just "one go".
The industry wanted a "white paper" on the administrative and financial status of the PSEB; there was a demand for setting up of a state electricity regulatory authority and also a consultative committee before any hike or revision in tariff was announced. The supply of "free" power to agriculture or up to 30 units to weaker sections was also opposed.
The general refrain was that "populist" announcements for political mileage should not put at a disadvantage the urbanites and business, trade and industry. It was also mentioned that the "mismanagement and inefficiency" of the PSEB should not be passed on to the consumers. There was a dire need to protect the small-scale industry in the state, which constituted the backbone of industry. The state had nearly 1.93 lakh such SSI units with a fixed capital investment of Rs 2,505 crore and giving employment opportunities to 8.18 lakh persons.
There was a demand that even revised rates for domestic consumers should be reduced. The representatives repeatedly stressed that there were "recessionary trends" in the market and such a steep hike would fuel "inflation".
The industry felt that power tariff hike, if unavoidable, should not exceed 10 per cent. The Chairman of the CII, Mr S.P. Oswal and the PHDCCI Chairman, Mr Amarjit Goyal, have welcomed the "gesture" shown by the Chief Minister to "review" the hike and have hoped arguments put forward at the meeting will carry weight in taking the final decision.
The Chief Minister in his introductory remarks stressed on the importance of industry in economic development and maintained that the state was committed to its "promotion and protection". The decision to strengthen basic infrastructure to attract new entrepreneurship was a proof of the same commitment.
Defending the "free" supply to agriculture, he said agriculture too had reached a saturation point and there was a need to shift rural population to industry and business by opening new job avenues. At the same time to encourage industry (agro-based) and take it to villages the government has decided to give all "A" class incentives to the entrepreneurs interested in setting up units at the rural focal points for which a provision exists.
The PSEB suffered "persistent losses" because of non-determination of tariff on the basis of cost of generation and supply. Cross-subsidisation to make up losses due to low tariff on agriculture supply (earlier) and "free" supply now, the other categories were being burdened. Figures showed that the PSEB, between 1992-93 and 1996-97, suffered a loss of over Rs 3350 crore, which was subsidised through higher tariff on other consumers and through rural electrification scheme.
The board suffered a loss of over Rs 1110 crore (1992-93 to 1996-97) simply because over 10,480 million units of power escaped billing. Likewise, detection of "theft" of power has taken a backseat. Against 55 per cent checking, the board was doing only 25 per cent checking now, in 1996-97. The theft percentage of power is 22.
Transmission and distribution also remained a weak point of the board as was converting power from low to high voltage, besides its failures to mobilise resources and downsize its administrative infrastructure.
The revised hike in the light of today's discussion is expected to be 8 per cent to 10 per cent lower than the announced 33 per cent.

Longowal killer gets death penalty
Tribune News Service
NABHA (Patiala), July 27 — Additional Judge Designated Court B.C. Rajput today awarded death sentence to Gian Singh in the Sant Harchand Singh Longowal murder case, 13 years after the Sant was shot dead at Akal Prakash gurdwara at Sherpur in Sangrur district on August 20, 1985.
Mr Rajput who was the 13th judge to hear the case, pronounced his judgement in the designated court in the maximum security prison here at 4 p.m.
Gian Singh earlier had been found guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder on July 18. Six others — Brinder Singh of Saholi village in Ludhiana, Charanjit Singh and Gurmail Singh of Halwara village in Ludhiana, Darshan Singh and Jasbir Singh of Thuliwal village in Sangrur and Nirmal Singh of Leelan village in Ludhiana, who had been accused of being involved in the conspiracy to murder the Sant, were acquitted of the charges on the same day.
In his 120-page judgement today, which was awarded after 125 witnesses were put up by the prosecution, Mr Rajput pronounced the death sentence on Gian Singh under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 3 (2) (I) of the Tada 1985. He also awarded three life imprisonment to Gian Singh. Gian Singh was awarded life imprisonment under Section 307/34 of the IPC and 307 of the IPC besides a fine of Rs 1000. He was awarded second life imprisonment under Section 3(2) (II) of the Tada and third life imprisonment under section 3(2) (II) of the Tada read with Section 34 IPC besides a fine of Rs 1000. The convict was also given two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 250F of the Arms Act besides a fine of Rs 100 and another two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The order said the sentence of death would not be executed till it was confirmed by the Supreme Court and that all sentences would run concurrently. The imprisonment undergone by the accused during the trial if permissible under the law be set off against the substantive sentences, the order said.