High Court slaps contempt notices on Health Secretary, MCI chief

For failure to comply with its November 2010 order to implement BRHC course

The Delhi High Court on Monday served contempt notices on the Union Health Secretary and the Chairperson of the Medical Council of India (MCI) for their failure to comply with its order of November 10, 2010, to implement measures for the introduction of a three-and-a-half year course ‘Bachelor of Rural Health Care (BRHC)' by March 2011 for primary health care in rural areas. The order had been issued in the case of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13208 of 2009 by petitioner Dr. Meenakshi Gautam, a public health specialist.

The contempt notice was issued by the Bench comprising Justice Vipin Sanghi on a plea by the petitioner to initiate contempt of court proceedings against contemnors and it sought their response within four weeks. The contempt petition was filed on Monday in the Delhi High Court. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioner.

According to the contempt petition, the order of November 2010 had asked the MCI to finalise the curriculum and syllabus for the BRHC, whose implementation had been approved by the Centre, in two months. A further period of two months was given to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for the enforcement of the same. The course had been proposed to fill the gap of health care workers in rural areas where medical graduates and professionals were unwilling to go and serve.

The petitioner said that, as per the timeline stipulated by the government order, the course should have been introduced by March, 2011, and that no such course had been introduced by the Ministry as of February 2012. Further, the petition said, “in complete desecration of the consent to this course furnished by its Counsel before the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, the MCI apparently opposed the course in 2011 and is not willing to notify it.”

Meet resolution

Dr. Gautam had filed her petition in 2009 based on the resolution of the 9th Conference of the Central Council of Health and Family Welfare on November 13, 2007, for the introduction of a 3-year diploma course in Medicine and Public Health, as well as the recommendation of 2007 Task Force on Medical Education Reforms for National Rural Health Mission for the introduction of the 3-year Rural Practitioner Course. In it, she had sought directives from the honourable court to the government for the introduction a short-term course for training mid-level health workers for primary health care in rural areas.

In February 2011, the petitioner was told by the Ministry that it intended to introduce the course after ensuring proper administrative structure and curriculum, as soon as the Parliamentary Standing Committee gave its report. Dr. Gautam was also told that the draft course curriculum had been prepared by the Ministry and sent to the MCI for their views in October 2010. In December 2010, the MCI, in turn, proposed certain modifications which had been reviewed and responded to by the Ministry in January 2011.

Lack of seriousness

In October, 2011, enquiries made revealed that the Standing Committee report was yet to be finalised and therefore yet to be presented to Parliament. Further, though the petitioner had been assured by Dr. K.K. Talwar, Chairman, MCI, that the issue remained on the top of the agenda of the MCI and the government, minutes of the December 2011 meeting of the MCI Board of Governors revealed that there were no inputs on the proposed course at the meeting. This, the petition said, betrayed a lack of seriousness on the part of the MCI to take a positive and definite decision on the notification of the course.

SC gives green signal to interlinking of rivers project

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to implement the interlinking of rivers project in a time-bound manner and to appoint a high-powered committee for its planning and implementation. The apex court observed that the project is in national interest.
The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia has appointed a high-powered committee comprising of Union Minister of Water Resources, its secretary, Secretary of Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) and four expert members appointed by Water Resources Ministry, Finance Ministry, Planning Commission, Ministry of Environment and Forest and NGO’s to monitor the project. Representatives from state governments, two social activists and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, who has been assisting the court in the case, will also be members of the committee.
The court said that the committee will meet at least once in two months and its recommendations will be considered by the cabinet within 30 days of receipt. The project is a large-scale civil engineering project that aims to join the majority of India’s  rivers by canals and so reduce persistent water shortages in parts of India.
Plans for parts of the Indian rivers inter-link were mooted in the British period. In 1972 the then Minister for Irrigation K L Rao proposed a 2640 kilometer long link between the Ganges and Cauvery rivers.  In 1974 plans were proposed for the Garland canal. In 1982 the National Water Development Agency was set up to carry out surveys of the links and prepare feasibility studies.
The river interlinking project is considered the brainchild of the NDA government. In October, 2002, the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had formed a task force to get the project going against the backdrop of the acute drought that year. A Centre-appointed task force had in a report recommended division of the project into two– the Peninsular component and the Himalayan component.
The Peninsular component– involving the rivers in southern India– envisaged developing a ‘Southern Water Grid’ with 16 linkages. This component included diversion of the surplus waters of the Mahanadi and Godavari to the Pennar, Krishna, Vaigai and Cauvery.
The task force had also mooted the diversion of the west-flowing rivers of Kerala and Karnataka to the east, the interlinking of small rivers that flow along the west coast, south of Tapi and north of Mumbai and interlinking of the southern tributaries of the river Yamuna.
The Himalayan component envisaged building storage reservoirs on the Ganga and the Brahmaputra and their main tributaries both in India and Nepal in order to conserve the waters during the monsoon for irrigation and generation of hydro-power, besides checking floods.
The task force had identified 14 links including Kosi-Ghagra, Kosi-Mech, Ghagra-Yamuna, Gandak-Ganga, Yamuna-Rajasthan, Rajasthan-Sabarmati, Sarda-Yamuna, Farakka-Sunderbans, Brahmaputra-Ganga, Subernarekha-Mahanadi, and Ganga-Damodar-Subernarekha.
The task force had also concluded that the linking of rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared to a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation.
The fate of the ambitious Rs 5,00,000 crore project proposing linkages between major rivers by the year 2016 has remained a virtual non-starter and the detailed project report (DPR) is in cold storage. The NRLP, if and when implemented, will be one of the biggest interbasin water transfer projects in the world.
Former president APJ Abdul Kalam had said good water management is needed to control floodwater and channel it for use during non-monsoon period and in drought-prone areas. In one of his speeches delivered in 2010 he spoke supporting the project. Kalam said interlinking of rivers would provide water to 86 drought-affected regions in the country. “The distribution of flood water through interlinking rivers with water bodies will provide water to drought-prone areas. Every year we receive millions of litres of water and most of it flows down to the sea while we face a water crisis. The water management will also help us in controlling water calamities, which every year claim many lives and destroy properties worth crores of rupees,” he said.
Giving the example of the 9% agriculture sector growth rate in Gujarat, Kalam said, “Water conservation and network of interlinking water bodies made the state record the highest growth rate compared to the rest of the country,”
Critics have alleged that the environmental impact of these projects would be extreme. Diverting water from so many rivers would have a serious impact on the mangroves of the coastal regions and hence on fish stocks, that extra irrigation will cause salt levels to rise and that the project will take precious, and disputed, water from Bangladesh international problems.

Abu Salem may escape MCOCA net

NEW DELHI: The order on whether MCOCA charges would be dropped against underworld don Abu Salemis expected shortly as the Delhi Police agreed to withdraw them. The judgement was reserved by the Delhi High Court on February 9. The Delhi Police had also claimed that if the charges were not dropped against him, it would harm the reputation of the country internationally. 

"We will spoil our credibility at international fora and this (case) will be cited as an example to show that this country does not follow it own commitments," Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Haren Raval, appearing for the Delhi Police, had told judge V K Shali. 

Judge Shali had reserved the judgement on February 9 on the plea of the city police seeking withdrawal of stringent charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) against Salem. The Delhi Police had sought an urgent hearing of its plea after the Portugese High Court terminated Salem's extradition. The Portugese court had argued that India "violated" the doctrine of speciality by invoking fresh MCOCA charges against him in violation of the extradition terms agreed between two countries. 

The Portuguese SC also affirmed and upheld the verdict of the HC, leaving the sole legal recourse to CBI, which is authorized to take up extradition cases, to approach the constitutional court in that country. The ASG had apprised judge Shali about the extradition terms, sequence of events and the consequences of not allowing the dropping of MCOCA against Salem in an extortion case lodged by a Delhi-based trader in 2002. 

"The order of the trial court, by which the application of police to withdraw the MCOCA charges was dismissed, is deserved to be set aside," the ASG had said. Salem, along with his Bollywood starlet girlfriend Monica Bedi, was detained in Portugal on September 18, 2002, and handed over to India on November 11, 2005, to face trial in eight cases, including the 1992 Mumbai blast case. 

India, which had no extradition treaty with Portugal, gave an executive assurance to secure Salem that neither would he be awarded death penalty nor awarded a jail term in excess of 25 years nor fresh charges be invoked against him. During the arguments, ASG Raval had also cited the judgement of the Supreme Court on a petition of Salem against the order of a Mumbai special court invoking a fresh provision of the TADA against him in a case. 

"Our Supreme Court had held that the extradited accused can be charged with only under those fresh provisions which provide for lesser punishment in relation to the offences for which he has been extradited," he had said. Salem's lawyer M S Khan did not oppose the plea of the police saying "in fact, I had also filed two petitions against the order of the lower court." 

Portugese SC had upheld an order of Court of Appeal in Lisbon on January 14, which on Salem's petition had cancelled his extradition holding that by slapping new charges under MCOCA, which attracted death penalty, there was breach of deportation rules and Rule of Speciality.

Italian marines to be prosecuted under Indian law: Antony

KOLLAM, February 26, 2012

Defence Minister A.K. Antony has said that steps will be taken to further improve the safety of the country's coastline and territorial waters so that fishermen feel safe when they go out to sea.

He was talking to presspersons here on Sunday evening after expressing his condolences to the family members of Valentine who was killed at sea on February 15 when Italian marines aboard the tanker Enrica Lexie opened fire.

Mr. Antony spent 15 minutes with Valentine's wife and two sons.

He said that in the changing international scenario, more vigil should be kept in coastal areas. The Indian Navy and the Coast Guard would be better equipped to meet such challenges.

In spite of a coordinated effort by 18 countries, including India, the threat from Somali pirates to maritime security seemed to be on the increase. Following tight vigil in the Gulf of Aden, the pirates were venturing into distant waters for operations and had even come up to Lakshadweep sometime ago, he said.

Role of fishermen

Steps had been taken to provide more security in the country's territorial waters. The State governments should further strengthen their coastal police stations, Mr. Antony said. Fishermen of the country also played a big role in protecting the coasts, and they had proved it several times in the recent past by alerting the country's security forces.

Centre's support

The Minister said the investigation into the killing of the two fishermen by the Italian marines was proceeding in the right direction.

The incident had occurred within the country's territorial waters. The Union government would extend all support to the State government on the issue, he said.

Mr. Antony said there would be no deviation from the government stand that the two Italian marines arrested in the case would have to be prosecuted under Indian law.

Indian courts to decide

The case would be decided by Indian courts. A decision would be taken on what should be the Central relief to the dependents of those killed in the incident, he said.

Delhi High Court upholds ‘Advocate on Record' rule

NEW DELHI, February 19, 2012

By which only lawyers who clear AoR exams can move Supreme Court

The Delhi High Court has upheld the ‘Advocate on Record' (AoR) system prevailing in the Supreme Court by which only those advocates who are qualified in the AoR examination are eligible to file petitions in the Supreme Court.

Dismissing a petition filed by an advocate Balraj Singh Malik, who is not an AoR, a Bench of acting Chief Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw said: “The [AoR] rule is based on intelligible differentia with objective sought to be achieved, as highlighted by the Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman, namely it is in the interest of litigating public that the practice before the apex court is regulated by way of prescribing such qualification/eligibility conditions for advocates to become ‘Advocate on Record‘ and to be entitled to act or plead.”

Pyramidal structure

The Bench said: “The court system, being pyramidal in structure, makes the Supreme Court the Court of last resort, so it is helpful to have someone who is equipped to deal with all kinds of matters where the litigant is not able to afford the senior counsel or some other counsel.”

The Bench said: “No doubt, AoR can engage a counsel other than a Senior Counsel and in that sense, every advocate has a right to argue before the Supreme Court. However, with this system, the other advocates, who may be authorised by AoR, would be an advocate who has experience and confidence of the litigant. Furthermore, there are various responsibilities cast upon the AoR, who files the case on behalf of his client and such an AoR has to have necessary qualification to act in that capacity. Prescription of these qualifications which include passing of examination therefore is not a mere formality but has laudable objective behind it.”

The petitioner contended that after the amendment to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, every advocate, as of right, could practise in all courts, including the Supreme Court, and no restriction could be imposed. The AoR rule imposed unreasonable restriction on the advocate's right to practise, he argued.

Regulate system

The Bench said: “No doubt, right to practice in the Supreme Court is conferred under Section 30 of the Advocates Act. Section 52 of the Advocates Act, however, categorically states that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect the power of the Supreme Court to make rules under Article 145 of the Constitution. This means that notwithstanding what is contained in the Advocates Act, Section 52 of the Act keeps the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution intact. Reading these two provisions in a harmonious way, an inescapable conclusion would be that the Apex court has the power to lay down the rules about the entitlement of persons not only to act but also to plead before it. It, thus, clearly follows that amendment of Section 30 has not altered the position, which was prevailing earlier. We are not oblivious of the situation, as highlighted by the petitioner, that there are some noises that AoR system is not working satisfactorily. There may be some truth in the same. However, if some anomalies and unhealthy practices have crept into the AoR system, the proper remedy is to find solution to rectify the same. That may not be a cause for dispensing with the system of AoR altogether. It would be more appropriate that the present practice of the AoR is regulated to ensure that they play a constructive role in justice delivery system.”

Delhi High Court Bar Association

Contact Info
Secretary Room23385562   Delhi High Court BarAssociation Office23385562  Delhi High Court Bar Room No.5 (Library) 23074079   Delhi High Court Bar Room No.1823386824, 23385853  Delhi High Court Bar Room No.1923385654, 23386848  Delhi High Court Ladies Bar Room 23386780  Delhi High Court Consultation Room23382279, 23385829  Email:info@dhcba.com
http://www.dhcba.com/

History of Delhi High Court

Click image to zoom The High Court of Delhi was established on 31st October, 1966. Initially, the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, which was established by a Letters Patent dated 21st March, 1919, exercised jurisdiction over the then provinces of the Punjab and Delhi. This position continued till the Indian Independence Act, 1947 when the dominions of India and Pakistan were created. The High Courts (Punjab) Order, 1947 established a new High Court for the territory of what was then called the East Punjab with effect from 15th August, 1947. The India (Adaptation of Existing Indian Laws) Order, 1947 provided that any reference in an existing Indian law to the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, be replaced by a reference to the High Court of East Punjab.The High Court of East Punjab started functioning from Shimla in a building called "Peterhoff". This building burnt down in January, 1981. When the Secretariat of the Punjab Government shifted to Chandigarh in 1954-55, the High Court also shifted to Chandigarh. The High Court of Punjab, as it is later came to be called, exercised jurisdiction over Delhi through a Circuit Bench which dealt with the cases pertaining to the Union Territory of Delhi and the Delhi Administration. Click image to zoom In view of the importance of Delhi, its population and other considerations, Parliament thought it necessary to establish a new High Court of Delhi. This was achieved by enacting the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 on 5th September, 1966. By virtue of Section 3(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, the Central Government was empowered to appoint a date by a notification in the official gazette, establishing a High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi. The appointed date was 31st October, 1966. The High Court of Delhi initially exercised jurisdiction not only over the Union Territory of Delhi, but also Himachal Pradesh. The High Court of Delhi had a Himachal Pradesh Bench at Shimla in a building called Ravenswood. The High Court of Delhi continued to exercise jurisdiction over Himachal Pradesh until the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970 was enforced on 25th January, 1971. The High Court of Delhi was established with four Judges. They were Chief Justice K.S.Hegde, Justice I.D.Dua, Justice H.R.Khanna and Justice S.K.Kapur. The sanctioned strength of Judges of this High Court increased from time to time. Presently, the sanctioned strength of Judges of the High Court of Delhi is 29 permanent Judges and 19 Additional Judges.