Kaveri engine flight-tested in Moscow

Special Correspondent

CHENNAI: Indigenously designed and developed Kaveri engine that will power fighter aircraft, especially Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, was successfully flight-tested on Wednesday. The flight-test took place at the Gromov Flight Research Institute (GFRI) in Moscow., The engine is being developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

An Ilyushin-76 cargo aircraft was modified as a flying-test bed for the trial, with the Kaveri engine replacing one of its four engines.

The engine ran right from the take-off to the landing of the aircraft. It flew for about an hour up to an altitude of 6,000 metres at a speed of 0.6 Mach.

Modifications

The modifications in the aircraft included instrumentation and integration of its mechanical, electrical and fuel systems. . A number of taxiing trials were done with the engine integrated with the aircraft before the flight. The data generated was transmitted to the ground station by telemetry.

“The engine’s control, performance and health during the flight were found to be excellent. With this test, it has crossed a milestone in its development programme. Years of hard work have fructified,” said DRDO’s Director of Public Interface Ravi Kumar Gupta. The engine is being developed at the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), a DRDO laboratory in Bangalore, with support from other DRDO laboratories, academic institutions and industries.

20 scientists

In the coming months, 50 to 60 flight tests will be done to mature the engine in terms of its reliability, safety and airworthiness. The trials will pave the way for further flight trials with fighter aircraft. A team of 20 scientists from the GTRE have been working with the GFRI for the trials.

The engine had completed component, safety and endurance tests both at the GTRE and facilities abroad, a DRDO press release said.

(The Hindu, 6 November 2010)

 

Revisit laws which shield corrupt govt officials: Moily

A day after Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan pointed at delays in granting sanction to prosecute corrupt government officials, Law Minister M Veerappa Moily on Sunday said there was need to ‘revisit’ constitutional provisions giving protection to civil servants.“There is no gainsaying that the provisions of Article 311 have come in the way of bringing corrupt civil servants to book. Article 311 would require a revisit… this needs to be done. I am pursuing the matter with the Prime Minister and the government,” said Moily while addressing a seminar on combating corruption — it was organised by the CBI and National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Sciences.

His remarks assume significance given that CJI Balakrishnan had pointed to procedural delays like grant of sanction in initiating action against corrupt officials.

Quoting the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption which remarked that “Article 311 of the Constitution as interpreted by our courts has made it very difficult to deal effectively with corrupt civil servants,” Moily said “even after Article 311 was amended, the panoply of safeguards and procedures still available is interpreted in such a manner as to make the proceedings protracted, and therefore, effete in the ultimate analysis.”

“There is a perception that public services have largely been exempted from the imposition of the penalties due to complicated procedures that have arisen out of the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary and motivated actions. People who abuse public office for private gain at the cost of the public and national interest are being shielded from facing swift and stringent punishments.”

“There is need for rationalisation and simplification of procedures to prevent the corrupt and dishonest elements in the system from cornering the benefit of the constitutional safeguards,” he said.

 

 

“Of 153 cases for sanction, 21 cases were pending for more than 3 years, 26 cases between 2-3 years, 25 between 1-2 years. Departmental enquiries are soft-pedalled either out of patronage or misplaced compassion.”

 

 

Expressing concern over the poor rate of conviction in bribery cases, Moily said it reflects “very badly” on the country’s judiciary and investigative agencies.

(The Indian Express, 14 September 2009)

Jail inmates to make furniture for government schools, offices

All schools, colleges and government offices have been asked to place their orders for furniture requirement with the jail factory at Burail.The decision was taken after UT Home Secretary Ram Niwas inspected the model jail in Burail on Tuesday.

While inspecting the jail premises, Niwas was of the opinion that the wages awarded to prisoners were less. The AIG Prisons was directed to put up the case for the enhancement of wages before the Ministry of Home Affairs.

With 454 undertrials, 215 convicts, 1 detenue and 4 condemned prisoners, the jail inmates make furniture for government offices only.

The AIG brought to the Home Secretary’s notice that there was lack of work because of non-availability of orders from schools, colleges and government offices. Niwas inspected the jail kitchen and found meals not up to the mark.

(The Indian Express, 16 September 2009)

Special courts to be set up to try Lokayukta cases

Special Correspondent

BANGALORE: Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa on Wednesday announced that the Government would take steps to set up “special courts” to try cases booked by the Lokayukta.

Intervening during the discussion on rural development in the Legislative Council, he said the Government would forward a proposal in this regard to the Karnataka High Court Chief Justice on Thursday. Establishing such courts would help expedite the Lokayukta probe into cases of corruption, he noted. Sources in the secretariat said that the Government would decide on the number of such courts to be set up in consultation with the High Court.

However, Janata Dal (S) leader M.C. Nanaiah maintained that though setting up of special courts was welcome, the fight against corruption would not gain momentum till the Lokayukta was given suo motu powers to take up investigation against corrupt officials and the power to prosecute the guilty. These powers should precede the move on setting up special courts, he suggested. He recalled that Mr. Yeddyurappa, who had assured the House in July of taking a decision on suo motu powers after discussing the issue in the Cabinet, was yet to act. Mr. Yeddyurappa said the decision to set up special courts was a first step towards empowering the Lokayukta. He sought time for deciding on empowering the Lokayukta, while stating that he was trying to take everybody into confidence. Mr. Nanaiah taunted the Chief Minister for seeking time to make a decision while pointing out that only a few days ago, he had been given “Fastest Mover Award” in Delhi by a magazine for swift responses. “You should not make slow decisions after getting the award,” he remarked in a lighter vein.

Meanwhile, Mr. Yeddyurappa said he had written to the Chief Secretary on compulsorily retiring inefficient and corrupt officials.

(The Hindu, 17 September 2009)

“Set up National Judicial Commission for appointment of judges”

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Bar Association and the Delhi High Court Bar Association have urged the Centre to take immediate steps to bring in a constitutional amendment to replace the collegium system with a properly constituted National Judicial Commission for appointment of judges to higher judiciary.

In a statement, SCBA president M.N. Krishnamani and DHCBA president K.C. Mittal expressed concern over the recommendation made for the elevation of Karnataka High Court Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran as Supreme Court judge. They said “this shows the utter failure of the collegium system introduced by the Supreme Court in 1993 in virtual judicial amendment of the Constitution, which was very unprecedented in human history, since it is not open to the court to amend the Constitution.”

(The Supreme Court collegium of judges headed by Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan is likely to meet later this week to consider the implications of the selection of Justice Dinakaran.)

The statement said some of the appointments made in the High Courts and now even the present selection of this judge to the Supreme Court showed that the collegium system was worse than the previous system of the Executive selecting the judges.

(The Hindu, 17 September 2009)

India launches stealth destroyer INS Kochi

India’s latest addition to the Navy – warship INS Kochi, a Delhi-class destroyer, was inaugurated on Friday. This is the second warship of ‘Project 15-A’, built by Mazgaon Dock Limited.Naval Chief Admiral Nirmal Kumar Verma on Friday said a serious relook at the inefficiencies of Navy is required and an indigenous warship building system needs to be conceptualised.

Verma said, “Fluctuating funding in the past has compelled the Navy to resort to (warship) building in abroad, but now there is an urgent need to emulate worldwide trends in warship building (in the country).”

The 6,500-tonne INS Kochi, launched by Verma’s wife Madulika, is the second warship in the ‘Project 15-A’ under which three guided-missile destroyers with stealth and multi-role features will be built.

“The destroyer has been launched using pontoon-assisted technique, employed for the first time in the history of indigenous warship building. The technique helps in overcoming slipway constraints which hinder heavier vessel movement into deeper waters for fitting its superstructures such as decks,” chairman and managing director of Mazgaon Dock H S Malhi said.

INS Kochi has advanced stealth features that make it less vulnerable to detection by enemy radar. Its weapons system include nuclear capable supersonic BrahMos surface-to-surface missile.

(The Indian Express, 18 September 2009)

Crisis, we need ombudsman over SC collegium: Nariman

With questions being raised over the proposed elevation of Karnataka High Court Chief Justice P D Dinakaran to the Supreme Court, eminent jurist Fali S Nariman today proposed a judicial ombudsman — “a presidium over the collegium” — that could hear the complaints against Supreme Court and High Court judges.“I think we have the need of a judicial ombudsman above the Chief Justice to whom complaints can be made in private,” Nariman told The Indian Express Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta on NDTV 24×7’s Walk The Talk. “A judicial ombudsman is the need of the hour, having regard to our state of affairs,” Nariman said.

On how this ombudsman would work, Nariman said that people would be able to approach the ombudsman with all sorts of complaints. “It is the job of the office of the judicial ombudsman of the SC to inquire into complaints against High Court and Supreme Court judges, keep it all to itself, then quietly consult the Chief Justice, take his views and move in a particular manner saying something should be done,” he said adding that the ombudsman can be a presidium of three, like the Election Commission.

Calling the Justice Dinakaran episode a “moment of crisis” in the history of Indian judiciary, Nariman said, “It could have been avoided. This is lack of preparation, lack of homework, if I may say so without meaning disrespect to these five good judges of our Supreme Court. You must do much more homework when you recommend a name. Now, once recommendation has gone out it will be very difficult for them to withdraw it. It will be one more loss of face or giving into the Bar.”

“They are caught on the wrong foot and it is a bit of loss of face. If I was a member of the collegium, I’d feel a little loss of face,” Nariman said commenting about the possibility of the collegium having to withdraw a name after it had been recommended.

 

 

Nariman also had a word of advice for the collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan and comprising the four senior most judges . “While the system is there, make it work properly. Each of you, or one of you at least, when you want to fill a place from the High Court, please go there, find out from the Bar as to what their impressions are and make an assessment.”

On his signing the letter against Justice Dinakaran, Nariman said, “I do not know him at all. I have never appeared before him. There were three to four very senior advocates on whom I place great reliance who told me certain things about this gentleman which shocked me. It may be wrong or right. I put my signature to a letter that said please investigate before you appoint. If there is such a clamour against him, drop him. Why should very senior advocates put their names and stake their reputations?”

(The Indian Express, 19 September 2009) 

 

Decide quickly on mercy petitions, Supreme Court tells government

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that the government has a duty to decide without much delay on mercy petitions of those sentenced to death.

The government’s failure to act on mercy petitions would amount to doing injustice to convicts whose sentence may be converted to life imprisonment, the apex court said, while upholding the death sentence on Jagdish who murdered his wife and five children in Manasa district of Madhya Pradesh.

Citing a number of its earlier observations, the apex court said that if there was excessive delay in executing the death sentence or disposing of the mercy petitions by the government, then the prisoner was entitled to have his sentence of death commuted to life imprisonment, as otherwise it would be violative of Article 21 (right to liberty).

“It seems to us that the extremely excessive delay in the disposal of the case of the appellant would, by itself, be sufficient for imposing a lesser sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302,” the apex court had said in 1971 in the Vivian Rodrick vs West Bengal case. “The observations reproduced above become extremely relevant as of today on account of the pendency of 26 mercy petitions before the President of India, in some cases where the Courts had awarded the death sentences more than a decade ago.

“We too take this opportunity to remind the governments concerned of their obligations under the aforementioned statutory and Constitutional provisions,” a bench of Justices H.S. Bedi and J.M. Panchal observed in the judgement.

Though Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorist and Parliament attack convict Mohd. Afzal’s death sentence was confirmed by the apex court in August 2005, the government is yet to execute the sentence citing the pendency of his mercy petition.

“In addition to the solitary confinement and lack of privacy with respect to even daily ablutions, the rattle on the cell door heralding the arrival of the Jailor with the prospect [of his being] the harbinger of bad news, a condemned prisoner lives a life of uncertainty and defeat,” the court observed.

In the present case, Jagadish was convicted under Section 302 of IPC of murdering his wife and five children (four daughters and a son, all aged between one and 16 years) and was sentenced to death by Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa on April 24, 2006. The sentence was confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, following which he appealed in the apex court.

Jagdish, besides pleading that he was in an unsound state of mind, said his death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment as it had not been executed for over three years.

However, the apex court said that in Jagadish’s case there was not much of a delay from the time of his conviction till the dismissal of his appeal on September 18, 2009. — PTI

(The Hindu, 21 September 2009)

Judicial appointments and norms

Author : Anil Divan

The controversy relating to the proposed appointment of Justice P.D. Dinakaran to the Supreme Court is unique and unprecedented. The citizen is entitled to be informed about the many issues that have arisen.

The procedure and process of appointment of Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court has been the subject matter of three judgments of the Supreme Court.

The first one (Justice P.N. Bhagwati in S.P. Gupta v. UOI) has picturesquely described this process:

“The exercise of the power of appointment and transfer remains a sacred ritual whose mystery is confined only to a handful of high priests, namely… The mystique of this process is kept secret and confidential between just a few individuals, not more than two or four as the case may be, and the possibility cannot therefore be ruled out that howsoever highly placed may be these individuals, the process may on occasions result in making of wrong appointments and transfers and may also at times, though fortunately very rare, lend itself to nepotism, political as well as personal and even trade-off.”

This judgment has been overturned only on two points. First, primacy is now given to the opinion of the CJI and not the Central government. Secondly, in view of the wider consultation required, judicial review is excluded except where the requisite consultation is not done or the appointee is ineligible.

Yet, the mystique of the “Sacred Ritual” remains, with certain changes introduced by two subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court (SCAORA v. UOI and Presidential Special Reference No.1 of 1998). Both these are nine-Judge Bench judgments. The first change is that the circle of “high priests” has been enlarged to include some senior judges in different collegiums, and a wider consultation amongst knowledgeable judges is taking place. Secondly, the substantial exclusion of judicial review makes the process virtually non-transparent and unaccountable. What was opaque has now become total darkness.

Has this exercise gone awry in the case of Justice Paul Daniel Dinakaran Premkumar?

On August 28, The Hindu came out with the news that the Supreme Court collegium had recommended five names for elevation to the Supreme Court. These were of A.K. Patnaik (the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court), T.S. Thakur (Chief Justice: Punjab and Haryana), K.S. Radhakrishnan (Chief Justice: Gujarat), S.S. Nijjar (Chief Justice: Calcutta) and P.D. Dinakaran (Chief Justice: Karnataka).

On September 8, the Chief Justice of India and the collegium as well as the Law Minister were informed by a few senior members of the Bar by means of letters that “we have got very disturbing reports about the integrity of one of the proposed appointees from multiple reliable sources.” (The author of this article was a co-signatory.)

On the same day the letter was followed by a communication enclosing a representation from several responsible members of the Tamil Nadu bar with detailed facts and particulars. The President of India and the Prime Minister were apprised of the situation. A second representation by members of the Tamil Nadu bar with additional facts has now been communicated to the authorities concerned.

Upon the news breaking in the print and electronic media the Karnataka Bar Association passed a resolution calling upon Justice Dinakaran to refrain from discharging judicial duties. Justice Dinakaran stoutly denied the allegations and any wrongdoing.

Issues mixed up

In view of the demand made by the Karnataka Bar Association, two issues have got mixed up and this is confusing the public mind.

The first is regarding the suitability of a candidate to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court. The second is whether the allegations and complaints against the Judge are to be inquired into and findings arrived at, and for what purpose? The mechanism and the tests for arriving at an opinion on these two issues are entirely different.

This article only deals with the first issue.

In the celebrated case of S.P. Gupta v. UOI, Justice Bhagwati was called upon to deal with a similar issue. Justice S.N. Kumar was appointed an Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court for two years and the question arose whether he should be recommended for further extension as an Additional Judge. The then Chief Justice of India (Justice Y.V. Chandrachud) recommended him for further extension. But the then Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court (Justice Prakash Narain ) wrote to the Law Minister that he was not in a position to recommend such extension for Justice Kumar. His reasons included several complaints and also the fact that some responsible members of the Bar and some of his colleagues had expressed doubts about Justice Kumar’s integrity. The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court frankly stated that he had no investigating agency to conclusively find out whether the complaints against Justice Kumar were genuine or not. But he added that “all the same, the complaints have been persistent.” The Law Minister, accepting the views of Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, did not give an extension to Justice Kumar.

On a challenge to this decision, Justice Bhagwati discussed the entire record of relevant correspondence between the Law Minister and the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, and observed: “While making his recommendations whether S.N. Kumar should be continued as an Additional Judge or not, the Chief Justice of Delhi had to consider the fitness and suitability of S.N. Kumar at the time… and doubts about the integrity of S.N. Kumar were expressed by responsible members of the Bar and some of his own colleagues, the Chief Justice of Delhi could not be said to have acted unreasonably in declining to recommend S.N. Kumar for an extension. It may be that on full and detailed investigation through an independent and efficient investigative machinery, the complaints and the doubts against S.N. Kumar might have been found to be unjustified but such a course would have been neither practicable nor desirable.”

The contention urged on behalf of Justice Kumar was that the question to be addressed was whether in fact the judge possessed honesty and integrity and not whether the judge enjoyed a good reputation for honesty and integrity. This argument was rejected.

It was held that while arriving at his opinion on suitability the matter was not required to be adjudicated or a quasi-judicial or judicial inquiry to be held to find out whether the Additional Judge was in fact lacking in honesty and integrity.

It was observed (by Justice Bhagwati):

“Such an inquiry against a Judge whether additional or permanent would not be permissible except in a proceeding for his removal. What the Chief Justice of the High Court has to do is merely to assess the suitability of the Additional Judge for further appointment and where lack of integrity is alleged against him, the assessment can only be on the basis of his reputation for integrity.”…

“It is therefore not enough in order to be able to recommend a person for appointment as a Judge to say that there is no proof of lack of integrity against him, because, if such were the test to be applied, there would be grave danger of persons lacking in integrity being appointed as Judges. The test which must be applied for the purposes of assessing the suitability of a person for appointment as a Judge must be whether the Chief Justice of the High Court or for the matter of that, any other constitutional authority concerned in the appointment, is satisfied about the integrity of the person under consideration… The public injury which may be caused by appointment of a Judge lacking in integrity would be infinitely more than the public injury which may result from non-appointment of a competent Judge possessing integrity.”

No inquiry necessary

In sum, to make an appointment no inquiry into allegations is necessary. What is essential is that the constitutional functionaries have to be satisfied about the appointee’s integrity. In other words, as Justice Verma put it pithily, “The collective wisdom of the constitutional functionaries involved in the process of appointing superior Judges is expected to ensure that persons of unimpeachable integrity alone are appointed to these high offices and no doubtful persons gain entry.”

(Anil Divan is a Senior Advocate. He could be contacted on e-mail at abdsad@airtelmail.in )

(The Hindu, 23 September 2009)

Army wants 9 mm semi automatic pistols for elite units

New Delhi: In a bid to provide more firepower to its special forces for anti-terrorist and counter insurgency roles, the Army is considering procuring 9 mm semi automatic pistols and new General Purpose Machine Guns (GPMG).”From the experiences during various operations in urban areas and close combat, we have realised that weapons with 9mm calibre bullets are capable of bringing down the terrorists instantly due to their impact. That is why we are planning to procure more advanced pistols for our special forces and other para units,” Army sources said in the capital.

The new pistols, they said, will be equipped with night-fighting equipment such as laser illumination and high intensity flash lights.

“This equipment will help in increasing the night-fighting capabilities of our troops in situations such as the Mumbai terror strikes where terrorist were holding up inside the Taj and Oberoi hotels and firing and operating taking cover of the darkness,” they said.

 

 

At the moment, the Army units have Beretta 9 mm pistols, which were procured more than a decade ago. The Army, sources said, would like to procure pistols similar to the Glock-17s, which are in service with the National Security Guards and were used during the Operation Black Tornado in Mumbai.

 

 

On the lookout for new GPMGs for the SF units, the sources said the need for inducting a greater number of these guns has been felt after the success of these weapons by the US and NATO forces against the Al Qaeda and Taliban in Iraq and Afghanistan in the recent times.

“We have seen that in counter insurgency and hard-hitting operations in open areas, these guns have delivered the results for the Americans and their allies in recent past. So, we would also want to induct these guns in larger numbers as we have quite a limited number of them with us,” they said.

 

 

GPMGs also known as Medium Machine Guns, have 7.62 mm calibre rounds and have a longer range. “We are looking to procure GPMGs, with a range of over 1200 metres and which are light and can be carried by our troops even during free fall from parachutes,” they said.

 

 

After the attacks in Mumbai last year, Army’s special forces have also been assigned the role of acting as anti-terror units along with the National Security Guards and they have been procuring equipment and systems for carrying out 26/11 type operations.

 

 

Army’s units such as 10 Para (SF) and 2 Para (SF) have been carrying out the role of anti-terror units in their respective areas of responsibility since then. These units are also involved in training other infantry units in the urban centres to create a network of anti-terror units across the country.

Early this year, the Army also appointed a Major General rank officer as Additional Director General (SF) to hasten the procurements for these elite units and also to define their roles and operations in the future.

(The Indian Express, 24 September 2009)