The law is clear: nobody should be deprived of his personal liberty without the due process of law. Once the investigating agency files its complaint or charge sheet in the court after conducting an investigation and the court takes cognisance and issues process, it is the court that is ‘in-charge’.
The agency can’t then arrest a person against whom the court has already taken cognisance and issued process — who was not arrested during investigation — without obtaining prior permission of the court. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in ‘Arun Kumar Sharma v. Union of India’ (August 22) has merely reaffirmed this settled position of law. That may be the reason that when it was challenged, the Supreme Court declined to interfere.
Having said that, FTIL founder Jignesh Shah was granted bail by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court on the merits of his case. The Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) argument that the earlier complaint against him was for his role as the non-executive vice-chairman of NSEL, while it had now initiated fresh investigation against him in his capacity as FTIL chairman, did not find favour with the court.
The ED could not produce any material to substantiate such a stand. Besides, for the same NSEL matter, Shah had already undergone 108 days of custody and was granted bail by a detailed order of the Bombay High Court, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. The high court had observed that no ‘money trail’ was found against Shah. Even the ED was unable to trace any ‘money trail’ to him.
The traders who lost money while trading on NSEL’s exchange platform have every right to recover it from their trading counterparties: the defaulters against whom the entire money trail has been traced. Had the traders and government agencies joined forces with the exchange to single-mindedly focus on recovering the lost amount from the 22 defaulters (seven of whom owe 85 per cent of the outstanding), things could have been different.
Instead, the entire focus of the traders and agencies has been to take action against the exchange, its directors and promoters, despite knowing that not a single dodgy paisa has been found on them. Such a misdirected approach has allowed the defaulters to stay below the radar and laugh their way to the bank. Still, better late than never. The traders and government agencies should join forces with the exchange and pursue the defaulters to ensure that they refund the amount.
On the one hand, traders claim that because of the alleged fraud, the by-laws of NSEL are not binding. On the other hand, they say that the exchange is liable because it was the ‘counterparty’ under its by-laws. The latest being that NSEL was running a ‘collective investment scheme’ as defined by Sebi.
It is, however, important to realise that courts go by hard facts. A media trial may look tempting in the short term. But ultimately, the scales of justice will balance out and truth will prevail.
Every good drama needs a few sub-plots whirling through the mainframe. The most captivating within our current political theatre is surely the joust that is odd that after some exhausting self-laceration in its search for a credible explanation for the escape of a criminal Najib
The only initiative worth taking is one that will yield positive results. If one embarks on a destructive course of action, it will be oneself that suffers. Therefore, one should steer clear of such actions, as any sensible person steers clear of destroying his own life.No charges will be brought against Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak based on the investigations carried out by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
Justice may be delayed, but it can never be denied
will stink for ten thousand years
Corrupt political leadership does not attractive men of outstanding integrity; neither can it be expected to enact effective laws to maintain high integrity in government. That truism has practically reduced our options to only one – a change of political leadership. That is, if we are still serious about restoring the rule of law and the pursuit of excellence for the country.The general logic doesn’t apply to AG. When others take refuge in opacity, we are justified in suspecting that they are hiding corruption. But when AG chanbers wrap themselves in a veil of secrecy, we have to take it that they are actually doing so for our good, so that they are not distracted by allegations of corruption against themselves.One way of coming to terms with this distinction is to re-adopt the outdated notion that king could do no wrong. Going by his logic, does seem to suggest some such blanket immunity to attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali
The Supreme Court on Friday read out the riot act to Congress MP Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury for not vacating the sprawling ministerial bungalow in New Moti Bagh in south Delhi and ordered him to shift out without further fuss.
Coming out strongly against the malady of overstaying by elected representatives and public servants in government accommodation, a bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justices A K Sikri and R Banumathi said, "You vacate immediately. You must find an alternative temporary accommodation. You cannot grab this government accommodation. You have no legal right to stay in a house to which you have no entitlement."
also read this
The scope of the Attorney-General’s powers in these institutions, there is still the question of integrity of the key office- of police and director general of ACA. It is often said that one may have the best laws in the world, but if we have crooks to implement them, the good laws may come to nothing attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali the predator, not protector do not seem to comply with internationally accepted standards for managing conflict of interest in cases
We just don’t seem to get it. The normal standards of accountability don’t apply to a,g We are unable to grasp their argument that, much as it is desirable in other institutions, transparency in the judiciary will compromise its independence, a larger constitutional value. Hence, we persist with the folly of expecting A.G chamber to be swept away by the wave of transparency triggered Justice is blind because it needs to be;a form of bastardised justice.
Corruption is a way of life in Maklaysia and AG chambers part of it are den of corruption. But they are kept above board for unknown reasons. They should be accountable for what they do. Right now rules at various levels protect them undeservedly.fullstoryAG must be arrested for harbouring a criminal Najib
Appearing for the Congress leader, advocate Bijan Ghosh said the government had violated the MP's human rights by disconnecting electricity and water connection to the house. "A person has some human rights and the government must be directed to respect it," he said.
But the court said, "There is some propriety also. You must vacate. You have already overstayed in the house for nearly two years without entitlement. You cannot grab this house. Your paying the house rent is no consideration to permit you to illegally occupy the house."
When Ghosh said there were several others who were overstaying and termed it as a "practice", the bench said, "It is a malpractice that elected representatives overstay in the official bungalows."The MP had cried foul over the government's move to evict him from the Type-8 house, generally allotted to Union ministers. He had termed the action "political vendetta" while the Delhi High Court refused to entertain his petition seeking stay of his eviction.
Chowdhury, a Lok Sabha member, had moved the division bench of the HC against the February 1 order of the single bench's order dismissing his plea against the eviction, following which the authorities had disconnected water and power supply to his bungalow at 14, New Moti Bagh.
As a member of Lok Sabha, he is entitled to a Type-6 house. He was allotted alternative accommodation at C-1/99, Moti Bagh by the house committee of Lok Sabha in January, 2015 which he has not accepted.
Chowdhury is not alone in overstaying in government accommodation. The problem was so widespread that the SC entertained a petition on this and heard it for close to a decade before giving out several rulings.
In the final ruling on July 6, 2013, the SC had ruled that ministers and elected representatives in unauthorized occupation of government bungalows, or illegally overstaying in it, would face breach of privilege proceedings in Parliament.
Sonia and RaGa are already culprits
Knowing the spread of the malady of unauthorized occupation in all branches of governance -- legislature, executive and judiciary -- the SC had set an example by being unsparing on judges of the SC and high courts and said they must vacate government accommodation within a month of retirement.
For other government servants, it said the department concerned would intimate them about vacation of government quarters three months prior to their retirement. If they didn't heed the notice, they could find their pension reduced in addition to the ignominy of being forcibly evicted.
With the judgment issuing a series of guidelines, the court brought to an end the decade-long