SC slams Delhi for dip in sex ratio

No conviction in sex determination cases, mechanism ineffective: Bench

The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised the declining female child ratio in the Capital when it said that the Delhi government mechanism to punish violators of pre-natal sex determination laws did not appear to be effective.

A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra also took strong exception to the fact that there was not a single conviction under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act in Delhi though the government claimed to have registered cases of violations.

"Your own statistics show that there has been a constant decline in the sex ratio in the last three years, up to 2011. Why is it so? Moreover, cases that you initiated against the violators have been pending in courts for years now and there is not even a single conviction. It does not seem that you are pursuing these cases in courts, so that they are brought to logical conclusion and there is a deterrence effect," the bench said.

The court wondered if the government was taking "any interest" in proper prosecution or if it thought that filing cases was enough. "You have not convicted anybody. We don't think you have an effective mechanism. Your job is not over only after you file cases. There are 47 court cases pending," the bench said.

The apex court said it will have to pass directions to the principal sessions judges of Delhi courts to ensure that all cases under the PNDT Act are concluded within a particular time frame. It also said government must upload all information about the hospitals and doctors found guilty under the charges.

During the proceedings, the bench favoured an active campaign on the issue of female foeticide: "Why is there gender inequality? You must hold awareness campaigns to tell people that they should love a girl child like they love a male child. The Act must also be implemented in letter and spirit."

In its affidavit, the government's health secretary, who was personally present on the court's order, conceded that the child sex ratio 0-6 years (CSR) had shown a decline from 868 in 2001 to 866 in census 2011 and that it was on the decline in the last three years too. The national CSR is 920 female per 1000 male child.

"It is submitted that the government is even monitoring birth data of 50 major hospitals every month to look for significant deviations. Such deviations are also being monitored through surveillance on such hospitals by the district appropriate authorities," the affidavit stated.

It was also said that the Social Welfare department was implementing the Ladli scheme to encourage birth of the girl child through facilitating and empowering families with financial support.

The bench remained unimpressed with the argument and said it will pass a formal order on receiving suggestions from additional solicitor general H P Raval and amicus curiae Colin Gonsalves in the matter.

Source:http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sc-slams-delhi-for-dip-in-sex-ratio/1073288/0

Too many cops for VIP security, use some to keep city safe: SC

Pointing out that even the Chief Minister feels that the national capital is not safe for women, the Supreme Court on Thursday observed that police personnel guarding the VIPs should be deployed for better purposes, including making the city safer for women.

"Yes, they can be deployed for several better purposes... Delhi Chief Minister has said the city is not safe for women. We are not concerned with individuals, but there are several persons who have been given security apparently without any reason or real threat. There are also people who are being prosecuted and are given security cover," a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and H L Gokhale said.

Earlier, submissions by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Indira Jai Singh and senior advocate Harish Salve had highlighted that while thousands of crore of rupees and large number of policemen were deployed in VIP security, their strength could instead be used to make the city safer.

"More than 8,000 policemen are deployed in VIP security in Delhi alone. Even if 4,000 of them are taken off and asked to do rampant checking of vehicles plying on the roads with other policing tasks, the incident that recently occurred (December 16 gangrape) would not have happened," Salve said.

Court then sought to know from ASG Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for the Centre, about the different classes of people who were being provided security cover. Luthra had earlier adduced records containing the names of people given security but the court sought a detailed affidavit, classifying the VIPs in distinct groups.

"Do you see any justification to provide security to such a large number of people? We don't want to take the name publicly but there are some people in your list who are even facing criminal cases. What is the requirement of giving security to people who are holding positions and not Constitutional ones? You have put all the judges of this court and High Court in this category. What is the purpose?" the Bench asked.

Luthra said he would file a better affidavit.

Adjourning the matter for February 14, the bench asked all states, which had failed to filed affidavits on the number of security personnel deployed for VIP security and the cost borne by them, to do so by Monday. It said in case they fail, their home secretaries will have to personally appear before the court.

Govt affidavit on VIP security cover

8,049 policemen deployed for VIP security

Of these, 844 are for security of Rashtrapati Bhavan

460 VIPs in the national capital

Cost of security cover is Rs 341 crore

Of this, Rs 38.48 crore spent for Rashtrapati Bhavan

63,985 personnel deployed for maintaining law and order

3,448 personnel for crime prevention and investigation

5,847 personnel for traffic management

Source:http://www.indianexpress.com/news/too-many-cops-for-vip-security-use-some-to-keep-city-safe-sc/1071199/0

City anchor: Which of the two is your lawyer, trial court to ask gangrape accused

It turned out to be a bit of an anti-climax in the Supreme Court on Wednesday when it was expected to hear and decide a petition by one of the six Delhi gangrape accused to shift the trial out of the city.

Following an adjournment, a half-hour hearing and a verbal spat between them, the two lawyers for the accused in the case ended up sending the plea back to the trial court.

With the help of Mukesh, who has sought transfer of trial by filing a petition in the Supreme Court, the trial court will now have to ascertain which of the two lawyers has been authorised by the accused to represent him in court.

According to an order by a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, the trial court will question Mukesh � he has purportedly signed vakalatnamas in favour of both advocates � on who he wants as his lawyer.

Once Mukesh decides on the lawyer, the trial court will ask him if he really wanted the transfer petition heard by the apex court, that there was no duress on him in leading this plea. The trial judge will then send a report to the Supreme Court which will take up the matter next Tuesday.

On Wednesday morning, advocates M L Sharma and V K Anand showed up in the Supreme Court, each claiming to be “validly” representing Mukesh.

The bench asked Anand if he had any authorisation from the Advocate-On-Record (AOR) who had filed the transfer petition in the apex court. When Anand failed to show the authorisation, the bench directed him to come with a no-objection from the AOR.

It then asked Sharma if he was being assisted by the AOR to prove his bonafide. To this, Sharma said that the AOR was stuck in a traffic jam. The bench asked both lawyers to be prepared to prove their bonafide and adjourned the matter until 2 pm.

Around 2 pm, both lawyers turned up for the hearing with the AOR standing next to Sharma. The duo also submitted letters of authorisation from Mukesh, with his thumb impressions on it. “It seems the left thumb impression is of the same person,” the court observed.

The lawyers then got into a verbal spat. While Anand said he did not want the trial to be shifted outside Delhi, Sharma alleged that Anand obtained the permission after torturing the accused.

The squabbling prompted the bench to say “we can’t turn this place into some sort of tamasha.”

The court then dictated its first order. It asked the Sessions court to ascertain the veracity of the statements of the two lawyers, so that it could go ahead and hear the transfer petition.

The court also asked for vetting their conduct under the Advocate’s Act.

But as soon as the bench finished dictating its order, Anand got up and said his authorisation was only to represent Mukesh in the trial and that he did not have to do anything with the apex court’s matter.

“Then why were we hearing you if you don’t have to do anything with the transfer petition. It is strange. You led us up the garden path,” said an upset bench as it cancelled the first order. In the final order, the court asked the trial judge to file a report after verifying from the accused who his counsel was and whether he wanted his transfer petition heard.

Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/city-anchor-which-of-the-two-is-your-lawyer-trial-court-to-ask-gangrape-accused/1063990/0

Today, SC will hear plea to move trial out of city

Accepting a request for urgent hearing, the Supreme Court will on Tuesday take up a petition by one of the six accused in the December 16 gangrape case. In his petition, Mukesh has demanded that the trial be shifted to a state other than Delhi as the public sentiment in the capital has led to a “bias” against him.

On Monday, a bench led by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir directed the registry to list the petition. The counsel for Mukesh had pleaded for immediate hearing since the trial was being initiated by the fast-track court.

“Let the petition be heard urgently. Due to the media and other factors, public sentiment against the accused have entered each and every house. Hence, free and fair trial was not possible in these circumstances. The fast-track court is also initiating the proceedings and, hence, it should be immediately listed,” advocate M L Sharma said.

Mukesh has been charged with murder, gangrape and unnatural offences in the case.

Sharma also asked for a stay or a “status quo” in the fast-track court until Mukesh’s petition was decided, but the bench turned down his request, saying it will hear him on merits on Tuesday.

The advocate claimed that the trial court judges were not paying heed to his requests of security for Mukesh and for age-determination test on one of the accused.

In a petition that termed the magistrate as “biased” and the judiciary “under pressure” to pass adverse orders against him, Mukesh has sought transfer of the case outside Delhi.

“...In these circumstances, petitioner cannot get justice in Delhi at all. Due to regular agitation, police as well as judicial official are under pressure to pass an order according to the demand of the agitators,” the petition said.

The petition claimed that some adverse comments from Delhi High Court and Supreme Court judges had also affected the mind of the trial court judge and, therefore, Mukesh cannot get a fair trial.

“Local police authorities, jail authorities and the public prosecutor have conducted themselves in a manner, which is reflecting a total bias and prejudice against the accused,” the petition said.