New Delhi, March 2
A Parliamentary Standing Committee, while favouring death penalty to hijackers, has recommended necessary provisions for compensation to victims in the Anti-Hijacking (Amendment) Bill. It also wants the definition of the term “hijacking” to be widened to make the law foolproof, besides a similar legislation to deal with forceful control of other modes of transport.

In its report tabled in Parliament yesterday, the committee is clear that death penalty is must for those offenders whose action results in death of hostages or security men during the act of hijacking. However, it also raised a question whether opportunities for negotiation or settlements may be foreclosed if the hijackers knew they would invariably get capital punishment, thereby suggesting that the stringent action should only be taken if the offence leads to death.

“What about the safety of passengers and crew when the hijackers are sure that they will get death penalty for their offence? Would the death penalty really be a deterrent to hijackers who do it as a suicide mission,” the committee, headed by CPM’s Sitaram Yechury, questioned.

The panel also wants a clearer definition of the term “hijacking” in the law to make it watertight, contending that the definition of the word offered in the Bill limits its scope. “The definition of movement from door-closure to door-opening does not include forced entry into the aircraft and its takeover when it is on the taxiway at the airport with or without passengers or when the pre-flight checking of the aircraft is in progress,” it explains.

Incidents like the hijacking of the Indian Airlines flight IC-814 in 1999, which forced the government to release jailed terrorists, and the 9/11 in the US, in which civilian aircraft were used as missiles for mass destruction, and subsequent attempts worldwide to hijack aircraft by outlawed groups necessitated fresh examination of the preparedness of all concerned in such exigencies.

The committee has recommended a similar legislation to deal with forceful control of other modes of transport. Hijacking of other vehicles is not covered under any specific law, except criminal laws. There is also no provision for compensation to the victims of such hijacking in any law.

The hijacking law cannot be applicable to other means of transport because taking over an aircraft is a special case. A a plane can be taken to other countries, which is not the case if a bus, train or car is taken control of.

Chandigarh, March 2
Too much of courtesy led to the surfacing of one of the most damning controversies that rocked the Indian judiciary in the recent past.

Had it not been for the prefix “ji”, the pejorative rip-off - allegedly involving a sitting high court Judge, a “promising” lawyer, and a well-heeled businessman with connections at the top level - would not have broken the surface.

The scam surfaced in August 2008 after Justice Nirmaljit Kaur called in the cops immediately after the money was erroneously delivered at her house. The CBI, in its report, asserted “Justice Nirmaljit Kaur had nothing to do with the same”; and the money, in fact, had been demanded by Justice Nirmal Yadav. What brought nothing less than discredit to Justice Nirmal Yadav, and saw the arrest of advocate Sanjiv Bansal, his clerk Parkash Ram and businessman Ravinder Singh in the “cash-at-judge’s-door scam”, was a seemingly harmless conversation between Sanjiv Bansal’s wife Renu Bansal and Parkash Ram. Elaborating on the circumstances leading to the mis-delivery, the CBI categorically asserted that Ravinder Singh gave the bag containing Rs 15 lakh to Bansal for delivering it to Justice Yadav. To expedite the delivery, Bansal directed his wife Renu to send the amount to the residence of Justice Yadav through Parkash Ram. The clerk was “given a packet by Renu Bansal for delivering it to Nirmal ji. Inadvertently, Parkash Ram reached the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur”, the CBI stated.

The CBI probe in the matter also makes it clear that the case was nothing less than a tragedy of errors with similar names playing the trick.

Not only was the money meant for Justice Nirmal Yadav erroneously delivered at the residence of another judge with a similar name, Sanjiv Bansal instantaneously thought of another similarly sounding name, Nirmal Singh, to claim the money.

The probe report says the former law officer first introduced the name of Nirmal Singh as the intended recipient of Rs 15 lakh; and then began the search for him.

The report says: “By the time the police reached the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, Parkash Ram had called Sanjiv Bansal on his cellphone and told him about the developments. Realising the gravity of the blunder committed by Parkash Ram, Sanjiv Bansal instantly cooked up an alibi. He requested another advocate Pankaj Bhardwaj to tell the police that Nirmal Singh was receive the packet in the front of his residence. Bansal got in touch with his business partner Rajiv Gupta and after informing him about the incident asked Gupta to identify some person by the name of Nirmal Singh.”

New Delhi, March 2
The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on a plea for mercy killing of a Mumbai nurse who has been living a vegetative existence in a hospital for the last 37 years after she was violently attacked by a hospital sweeper who also sexually abused her.

A bench of justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra reserved the verdict after hearing detailed arguments by various parties on the question of allowing euthanasia for nurse Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug, who slipped into coma after the brutal attack on her at Mumbai's King Edward Memorial Hospital.

Several counsel who made submissions on the controversial issue of permitting mercy killing included Attorney General G E Vahanvati, amicus curiae T R Andhyarujina, Ballabh Sisodia appearing for the hospital and Shekhar Naphade for the petitioner and author Pinky Virani, who had sought permission for Aruna’s mercy killing.

During the arguments, Vahanvati took the stand that there was no provision either under the statute or the Constitution to permit euthanasia.

Sisodia opposed the plea contending that the hospital staff, particularly the nurses and the doctors, have been taking “dedicated care” of Aruna for the past 37 years and they were opposed to the plea for her killing.

The plea for Aruna’s mercy killing had been made by Virani, who told the court in her petition that the nurse was attacked by a sweeper who wrapped a dog chain around her neck and yanked the victim with it on November 27, 1973.

Virani said that due to strangulation by the chain, the supply of oxygen to the brain stopped and the cortex was damaged.

She also had brain stem contusion injury associated with cervical cord injury.

According to the petitioner, for the past 37 years after the incident Aruna, who is now about 60 years old, has become “featherweight” and her bones are brittle. She is prone to bed sores.

Her wrists are twisted inwards, teeth decayed and she can only be given mashed food on which she survives, said Virani, adding that Aruna was in a persistent vegetative state, her brain was virtually dead and she was oblivious to the outside world.

She can neither see nor hear anything nor can she express herself or communicate in any manner whatsoever, she said in her plea for mercy killing.

The apex court had earlier appointed a three-member medical team to assist it in determining the issue of mercy killing, besides examining the physical condition of the brain dead nurse.

The bench had appointed a team of Mumbai doctors J V Divatia, Roop Gurshani and Nilesh Shah, who had earlier submitted their detailed report to the bench.

But flummoxed by the technicalities of the report, the bench had sought personal presence of the doctors for a better understanding of their report.

“Euthanasia is one of the most perplexing issues which the courts and legislatures all over the world are facing today. This court, in this case, is facing the same issue and we feel like a ship in an unchartered sea, seeking some guidance by the light thrown by the legislations and judicial precedents of foreign countries,” the bench had said in one of its earlier orders while hearing Virani's plea for Aruna's mercy killing. — PTI

Amritsar, March 2
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Tuesday issued summons against the Congress party for “conspiring, aiding, abetting and carrying out organised attacks” on Sikh population of India in November 1984.

Talking to The Tribune on phone from the US, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, legal adviser to Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), said “the gravity, scale and specially the organised nature of these attacks was concealed by the Indian governments which portrayed them as November 1984 anti-Sikh riots of Delhi”. “These attacks were neither riots nor they were confined to Delhi. Sikhs were attacked in 18 Indian states and over 100 cities in an identical manner and attackers were led by the Congress leaders.”

Pannun said the summons against the Congress had been issued pursuant to a class action law suit filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). The plaintiffs in the case against the Congress are Sikhs for Justice, a US-based human rights group, along with several 1984 riot survivors.

He said the basis of the law suit against the Congress was that in November 1984 the “organised killing of Sikhs took place only in states where the Congress was in power.

According to the government record, a total of 3,296 Sikhs were killed during November 1984. The information was released by the Ministry of Home Affairs in response to an RTI query.

New Delhi, March 2
Union Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee perhaps had no idea of the woefully deficient public health system when he announced a 5 per cent service tax on treatment and diagnostics in air-conditioned private health facilities with 25 or more beds.

Leave alone state-run government hospitals where availability of services and staff has always been a problem, even top central health institutions of the order of AIIMS and PGI, Chandigarh, continue to post shocking shortages of faculty and non-faculty staff.

As of today, seven top-of-the-line Central Government hospitals across India are collectively short of 623 faculty positions, critical not just for teaching but also for diagnosis and treatment. A whopping 735 positions of paramedical staff are currently vacant in these institutes.

The All India Institute of Medical Sciences in the Capital, considered the topmost tertiary care and medical research institute in the country, has 196 vacant posts of faculty members, the highest in the country. This accounts for 31 per cent of total vacancies of faculty position in central medical institutions in India. If the non-faculty staff is also factored in, AIIMS has 1,353 vacant positions. Of these, 455 are in Group C category, 673 in Group B and 29 in Group A.

Next in line in terms of manpower shortage is PGI, Chandigarh. It has 177 posts of doctors and 412 of paramedical staff lying vacant. Faculty and doctor deficiency (again on account of vacancies) in the premier institution accounts for 28 per cent of the overall shortage of doctors in central institutions.

Health Ministry statistics further reveal that the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research in Puducherry is short of 99 doctors and 18 paramedic staff.

The Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital and Sucheta Kriplani Hospitals in Delhi are short of 83 doctors and faculty as positions have not been filled up. Vacancies of nurses and other paramedical staffers stand at 72.

Similar is the situation in other top central Government hospitals, including Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi where doctor and paramedic staff shortage on account of unfilled posts is 21 and 42, respectively.

Chandigarh, March 2
The Central Bureau of Investigation is still awaiting prosecution sanction against public servants in nothing less than 105 cases registered nationwide under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. To get the sanction, the premier investigation agency has shot off as many as 290 requests. The accused include customs officers; block development officers; directors of companies; and even IPS and income tax officers. Available information suggests even as the investigating agency got a go-ahead in Justice Nirmal Yadav’s case, at least a dozen requests from Punjab and Chandigarh are pending for sanction of prosecution as on January 31.

The requests for prosecution sanction have been made for block development officers Azaib Singh, Baljeet Singh, Jagjeet Singh, Puran Chandra, and Rakesh Pal. It has also been requested for former BDO Piyush Chandra.

Besides this, sanction requests are pending for then deputy directors J.P. Singhla and Pradeep Singh Kaleka. All the nine requests have been made in a case registered on June 26, 2003, and the reports were sent to Punjab chief secretary on March 3, 2009.

Another request has been made in the case of BSNL general manager Sharwan Kumar Aggarwal. His place of posting has been mentioned as Ludhiana and the case was registered on May 14, 2009. The report was sent on April 30 last.

The department of defence officials include B. Venu, DD Mittal, Devinder Singh Dhanao, Devki Nandan, and Raj Kumar. The case was registered on March 31 last and request was sent on January 20.

The sanctioning authority in their case is Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Defence. The information on pending sanctions for prosecution was only recently furnished by the Centre to the Supreme Court.

New Delhi, March 2
The Supreme Court will tomorrow deliver its verdict on the PILs challenging the appointment of PJ Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC). The PILs have sought quashing of the appointment as a CBI chargesheet is pending against Thomas for alleged corruption in the import of palm oil in 1990-91 when he was Food Secretary in Kerala. Also, questions have been raised over his role as Union Telecom Secretary in the wake of the 2G spectrum scam.

A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia had reserved its verdict on February 10 after several days of consecutive hearings. — TNS

New Delhi, March 2
Faced with a rapidly expanding military might of its neighbour, New Delhi has cleared a Rs 2280-crore plan to have additional 12,000 troops to guard the border with China that runs along the rugged heights of the Himalayas.

Last fortnight, the Ministry of Home Affairs gave its nod to set up an additional 13 battalions - roughly 900 men in each -- of the Indian Tibetan Border Police (ITBP).

The additional troops will reduce the gap between one border outpost and the other along the 3,488-km border with China.

At present, the gap between two border outposts varies from 25 to 100 km. With the infusion of additional men, the gap will be brought down to about 20 km. It will take nearly two years to raise 13 battalions which includes training the men in mountain warfare.

So far, the ITBP has 49 battalions. Five of these are engaged in the anti-naxal operations while the remaining guard the China frontier in the south eastern Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Sikkim.

In its areas of deployment, the ITBP forms the first line of the armed defence at the border. In natural calamities, the ITBP has done exceptional work, the notable being during the 2005 flash floods in the Sutlej when the Hindustan-Tibet road was washed away beyond Rampur, north of Simla.

Part of the multi-crore plan is directed at establishing new training centres and also ramping up intelligence gathering along the border.

BRIEFLY

Scribe committed suicide: Probe
Koderma: The death of Delhi-based journalist Nirupama Pathak on April 29 last year was a case of suicide and was allegedly abetted by three of her family members and boyfriend, the police said in its probe report submitted to a local court. — PTI

Prasar Bharti chief to be booked soon
New Delhi: The CBI will soon file a case against suspended Prasar Bharti CEO B S Lalli in connection with alleged irregularities in the award of broadcasting rights of Commonwealth Games reportedly resulting in a loss of Rs 135 crore to the exchequer, said highly placed sources in the agency. This comes after the I&B Ministry cleared the decks for the prosecution of Lalli. — PTI

Aseemanand case: ATS moves court
Ajmer: Rajasthan ATS has pleaded in a local court that Aseemanand, an activist of right-wing Hindu group Abhinav Bharat, and three other accused in Ajmer Dargah blast case should not be allowed to be taken out of the state by other probe agencies because of security reasons. -- PTI