The telegraph, Calcutta, India
Ranchi, Nov. 12: Human rights activist Binayak Sen today came out in open support of Jeetan Marandi who has been found guilty for the 2007 Chikari massacre, terming the death sentence to the tribal artiste “unlawful”.
Addressing a national convention organised by Jan Kalakar Jeetan Marandi Manch — a local body of artistes — at SDC Auditorium, Sen said, “An artiste and tribal rights activist, Jeetan was known to utilise the power of music to speak against government atrocities on the common man, especially tribals.”
“Therefore, it doesn’t surprise me that he has been wrongfully convicted and is now set to be hanged. However, we will fight till his last breath to reverse the court’s decision,” he added.
On June 23, a sessions court judge in Giridih had served death sentence to Jeetan and his associates, Manoj Rajwar, Chatrapati Mandal and Anil Ram, for firing on a crowd watching a football match and killing 20 people, including Babulal Marandi’s son Anup, in Chilkari in 2007.
As many as 200 activists assembled for the daylong convention in Ranchi.
“Artistes world over have used their medium of music, song, painting, etc. to portray the wrongs of society. Jeetan was fighting against displacement, corporate and political loot among other ills. It is ironic of the state government that in the land of Birsa Munda, it has been staying mum on his case,” added Sen.
Actor-director R. Narayana Murty said the film fraternity and cultural activists of Hyderabad were united to fight for Jeetan. “We will be soon come to Ranchi in large numbers from the south. We have decided to launch an indefinite strike here demanding justice for Jeetan and his family,” he said.
The activists also demanded the high court’s intervention to bail out Jeetan. The apex court should call a fair trial to book the real culprits behind the Chilkari massacre, they added.
Sen also said that the basis on which the case was made against Jeetan was an “open secret”. He added: “The police kept on changing its version from time to time and ended up presenting false witnesses. None of the witnesses belonged to any of the victims’ families till date. It is a clear indication how the authorities have deliberately formed false charges against the cultural activists.”
Source: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111113/jsp/jharkhand/story_14741944.jsp
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Arguments in 2003 twin blast case end, verdict on Dec 12
Press Trust Of India
Mumbai, November 12, 2011
Arguments on confirmation of death sentence awarded to three convicts in the 2003 Mumbai twin bomb blast case concluded on Saturday before the Bombay high court.
Division bench of justices AM Khanvilkar and PD Kode would deliver the verdict on December 12, said advocate Sushan(t) Kunjuraman, defence lawyer. The bench held a special hearing today to hear the final arguments.
Ashrat Ansari (32), Hanif Sayed Anees (46) and his wife Fehmida Sayed (43) were held guilty on charges of planting powerful bombs in two taxis which exploded at Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar respectively on August 25, 2003, killing 52 persons.
The conspiracy had been hatched by Hanif, Ashrat, Nasir (who was later killed in a police encounter) and some Pakistani nationals owing allegiance to LeT in Dubai, as per the prosecution case.
The trio, who belonged to LeT, have also been found guilty by a POTA court for a blast in a municipal bus in suburban Ghatkopar on July 28, 2003, in which two people were killed.
In the present case, the three were convicted under various Sections of IPC, POTA, Explosive Substances Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
According to police, LeT used a family (husband-wife) to carry out blasts for the first time in this case. The motive, investigators said, was to seek vengeance for the violence against the minority community during the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat in 2002.
As the convicts were given death sentence by trial court, the matter was sent to the Bombay High Court for confirmation, as required under the law.
Mumbai, November 12, 2011
Arguments on confirmation of death sentence awarded to three convicts in the 2003 Mumbai twin bomb blast case concluded on Saturday before the Bombay high court.
Division bench of justices AM Khanvilkar and PD Kode would deliver the verdict on December 12, said advocate Sushan(t) Kunjuraman, defence lawyer. The bench held a special hearing today to hear the final arguments.
Ashrat Ansari (32), Hanif Sayed Anees (46) and his wife Fehmida Sayed (43) were held guilty on charges of planting powerful bombs in two taxis which exploded at Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar respectively on August 25, 2003, killing 52 persons.
The conspiracy had been hatched by Hanif, Ashrat, Nasir (who was later killed in a police encounter) and some Pakistani nationals owing allegiance to LeT in Dubai, as per the prosecution case.
The trio, who belonged to LeT, have also been found guilty by a POTA court for a blast in a municipal bus in suburban Ghatkopar on July 28, 2003, in which two people were killed.
In the present case, the three were convicted under various Sections of IPC, POTA, Explosive Substances Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
According to police, LeT used a family (husband-wife) to carry out blasts for the first time in this case. The motive, investigators said, was to seek vengeance for the violence against the minority community during the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat in 2002.
As the convicts were given death sentence by trial court, the matter was sent to the Bombay High Court for confirmation, as required under the law.
Man sentenced to death for killing daughter
Press Trust Of India
Sangrur, November 10, 2011
A court in Sangrur has awarded death sentence to a man for the murder of his new-born female baby. In a 97-page judgment, Sessions Judge of Sangrur M S Chauhan said "it is seen that the aggravating circumstances out-weigh the extenuating circumstances and as such the only punishment that
can be awarded to convict (Mukesh Kumar) is extreme penalty of death".
"The society needs to be insulated against persons of the ilk of the convict", the court said.
Kumar was also a awarded fine of Rs 10,000 in the judgment pronounced on Wednesday.
According to the prosecution, the accused, a street vendor, was married about five years ago to Manju Devi, both hailing from Uttar Pradesh's Aligarh district. The couple were residing at Ajit Nagar in Sangrur in a rented accommodation.
On January 18 this year, Manju gave birth to her second female child, that annoyed her husband. He started taunting her for giving birth a female child instead of a male child.
On January 21, when Manju returned home from some work, she found her husband gagging the baby. The accused went outside stating that the baby was sleeping.
When the mother saw the kid, she found her dead.
She narrated the incident to her neighbours and some relatives. A neighbour had informed the matter to police.
Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Punjab/Man-sentenced-to-death-for-killing-daughter/Article1-767413.aspx
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Sangrur, November 10, 2011
A court in Sangrur has awarded death sentence to a man for the murder of his new-born female baby. In a 97-page judgment, Sessions Judge of Sangrur M S Chauhan said "it is seen that the aggravating circumstances out-weigh the extenuating circumstances and as such the only punishment that
can be awarded to convict (Mukesh Kumar) is extreme penalty of death".
"The society needs to be insulated against persons of the ilk of the convict", the court said.
Kumar was also a awarded fine of Rs 10,000 in the judgment pronounced on Wednesday.
According to the prosecution, the accused, a street vendor, was married about five years ago to Manju Devi, both hailing from Uttar Pradesh's Aligarh district. The couple were residing at Ajit Nagar in Sangrur in a rented accommodation.
On January 18 this year, Manju gave birth to her second female child, that annoyed her husband. He started taunting her for giving birth a female child instead of a male child.
On January 21, when Manju returned home from some work, she found her husband gagging the baby. The accused went outside stating that the baby was sleeping.
When the mother saw the kid, she found her dead.
She narrated the incident to her neighbours and some relatives. A neighbour had informed the matter to police.
Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Punjab/Man-sentenced-to-death-for-killing-daughter/Article1-767413.aspx
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Soumya murder case: Convict gets death sentence
Thrissur: A Thrissur fast track court awarded capital punishment to the Soumya rape and murder case accused Govindachami. On Monday, it had found the accused Govindachami guilty.
Soumya was raped in a compartment of Kochi-Shornur passenger train and was pushed out of the moving train in February this year. Special Prosecutor A Suresan had pleaded for the maximum punishment of death.
According to the prosecution, Govindachami hailing from Virudhachalam in Tamil Nadu had assaulted 23-year-old Soumya in a deserted ladies' compartment on February 1 this year and pushed her out of the running train, immediately after it left the Vallathol Nagar station. He then carried her to a spot along the rail tracks and raped her 'cruelly and brutally'.
The accused had also injured her seriously resulting in her death on February 6.
Pressing for maximum punishment, the prosecution submitted that the accused was a 'habitual offender' and produced documentary evidence from the Tamil Nadu Crime Bureau of Police that he had been convicted in eight cases in Tamil Nadu from 2004 to 2008.
(With additional information from PTI)
Source : ibnlive.com
Soumya was raped in a compartment of Kochi-Shornur passenger train and was pushed out of the moving train in February this year. Special Prosecutor A Suresan had pleaded for the maximum punishment of death.
According to the prosecution, Govindachami hailing from Virudhachalam in Tamil Nadu had assaulted 23-year-old Soumya in a deserted ladies' compartment on February 1 this year and pushed her out of the running train, immediately after it left the Vallathol Nagar station. He then carried her to a spot along the rail tracks and raped her 'cruelly and brutally'.
The accused had also injured her seriously resulting in her death on February 6.
Pressing for maximum punishment, the prosecution submitted that the accused was a 'habitual offender' and produced documentary evidence from the Tamil Nadu Crime Bureau of Police that he had been convicted in eight cases in Tamil Nadu from 2004 to 2008.
(With additional information from PTI)
Source : ibnlive.com
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Rajiv killers join Bhullar to question rejection of mercy pleas
NEW DELHI: The three condemned prisoners in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case joined Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, sentenced to death in the 1993 Delhi bomb blast case, in arguing before the Supreme Court that pendency of their mercy pleas for over decade with the President was a good ground for commutation of their capital sentence to life term.
Though the three - Santhan, Arivu and Periarvalan - have moved the Madras High Court against the President's decision to reject their mercy pleas and have secured a stay on their execution, their counsel Ram Jethmalani on Wednesday requested the apex court to permit him to argue in Bhullar's pending case as its outcome would affect the HC decision.
A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya asked Bhullar's counsel K T S Tulsi and additional solicitor general Harin Raval whether they had any objection to Jethmalani arguing in this case and permitted the intervention when both the counsel said they did not have any problem.
The rejection of mercy pleas of Bhullar and the three in Rajiv assassination case has seen unprecedented political activity. While Tamil Nadu assembly passed a resolution requesting commutation of death penalty for the three condemned prisoners, there has been considerable support from the Sikh community for commutation of Bhullar's death penalty to life imprisonment.
Tulsi argued that the government was acting arbitrarily in deciding mercy pleas and cited recently obtained RTI information revealing that in some cases, the mercy pleas were decided the day it was made before the governors and in some cases in two months. "Here is a person who was made to wait on death row for 11 years and reduced to a mental wreck," Tulsi said.
Bhullar, an alleged Khalistan Liberation Force terrorist, was sentenced to death for masterminding the car bomb attack on then Youth Congress president Maninderjit Singh Bitta which left 9 persons dead just a stone's throw away from Parliament on September 10, 1993. The death sentence awarded to Bhullar attained judicial finality when on March 12, 2003, the apex court dismissed his curative petition. Bhullar had filed a mercy plea before the President on January 14, 2003.
Bhullar's wife Navneet Kaur has also filed a petition challenging rejection of mercy plea and said, "My husband has become mentally retarded on account of more than 5,700 days of delay in deciding the mercy petition which has inflicted such inhuman penalty and torture in his mind that he has become mentally retarded."
In response to Bhullar's petition, the Centre in its counter-affidavit said long pendency of mercy pleas of condemned prisoners, some for over a decade, was no ground for altering the decision taken on it by the President in exercise of her constitutional powers.
It said the Constitution prescribed no time frame for the President to decide mercy peas of condemned prisoners and that courts had no power to prescribe a deadline on this issue. "Pendency of the mercy petition cannot be said to be an act of cruelty or an act which adds to the suffering of the prisoner. In fact, it is the pendency of the mercy petition which has given a lease of life to the prisoner," the Centre had said.
Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rajiv-killers-join-Bhullar-to-question-rejection-of-mercy-pleas/articleshow/10674054.cms
Date : 10.11.2011
Though the three - Santhan, Arivu and Periarvalan - have moved the Madras High Court against the President's decision to reject their mercy pleas and have secured a stay on their execution, their counsel Ram Jethmalani on Wednesday requested the apex court to permit him to argue in Bhullar's pending case as its outcome would affect the HC decision.
A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya asked Bhullar's counsel K T S Tulsi and additional solicitor general Harin Raval whether they had any objection to Jethmalani arguing in this case and permitted the intervention when both the counsel said they did not have any problem.
The rejection of mercy pleas of Bhullar and the three in Rajiv assassination case has seen unprecedented political activity. While Tamil Nadu assembly passed a resolution requesting commutation of death penalty for the three condemned prisoners, there has been considerable support from the Sikh community for commutation of Bhullar's death penalty to life imprisonment.
Tulsi argued that the government was acting arbitrarily in deciding mercy pleas and cited recently obtained RTI information revealing that in some cases, the mercy pleas were decided the day it was made before the governors and in some cases in two months. "Here is a person who was made to wait on death row for 11 years and reduced to a mental wreck," Tulsi said.
Bhullar, an alleged Khalistan Liberation Force terrorist, was sentenced to death for masterminding the car bomb attack on then Youth Congress president Maninderjit Singh Bitta which left 9 persons dead just a stone's throw away from Parliament on September 10, 1993. The death sentence awarded to Bhullar attained judicial finality when on March 12, 2003, the apex court dismissed his curative petition. Bhullar had filed a mercy plea before the President on January 14, 2003.
Bhullar's wife Navneet Kaur has also filed a petition challenging rejection of mercy plea and said, "My husband has become mentally retarded on account of more than 5,700 days of delay in deciding the mercy petition which has inflicted such inhuman penalty and torture in his mind that he has become mentally retarded."
In response to Bhullar's petition, the Centre in its counter-affidavit said long pendency of mercy pleas of condemned prisoners, some for over a decade, was no ground for altering the decision taken on it by the President in exercise of her constitutional powers.
It said the Constitution prescribed no time frame for the President to decide mercy peas of condemned prisoners and that courts had no power to prescribe a deadline on this issue. "Pendency of the mercy petition cannot be said to be an act of cruelty or an act which adds to the suffering of the prisoner. In fact, it is the pendency of the mercy petition which has given a lease of life to the prisoner," the Centre had said.
Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rajiv-killers-join-Bhullar-to-question-rejection-of-mercy-pleas/articleshow/10674054.cms
Date : 10.11.2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
No time cap for mercy petitions, says Centre
CHENNAI: The power of the President of India to decide on mercy petitions under Article 72 of the Constitution is discretionary and cannot be taken away by any statutory provision and cannot be altered, modified or interfered with in any manner by any statutory provision or authority, the Union Home Secretary (Judicial) said on Friday in his common counter affidavits filed in response to the three writ petitions from Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan, convicted of killing former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi.
Nullifying the trio’s main contention that there was inordinate delay of over 11 years in disposing of their mercy petitions, the counter said the exercise of the power under this Article was not curtailed by any limitation as to the time frame within which such power conferred might be exercised. It was a special power overriding all other laws, rules and regulations in force. No time frame could be stipulated or set up for the President in this regard. Delay by itself did not entail the persons under sentence of death to demand for quashing of the sentence or converting it into life imprisonment. So, there could be no fixed period within which any mercy petition ought to be disposed of. The contention that if the mercy petition was not disposed of within a fixed period, it would render the sentence of death inexecutable, was untenable. The court, in exercise of power under Article 226 or Article 32, could not prescribe a time limit for disposal of the mercy petition. The citations of the Supreme Court judgments by the petitioners would not apply in this case, the counters said.
Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan had lived a normal life in prison like any other prisoner and were given opportunities to develop their skills. They were allowed to pursue their studies as well as other literary and cultural activities in the prison. So, it was fanciful to contend that they suffered mental torture, which caused violation of their fundamental rights, the counters said.
The behaviour of the trio in the prison, even if good, could not take away the reality that they had committed an extremely gruesome, heinous, cold-blooded and cruel crime. It was a well-planned and predetermined brutal murder with the active connivance and help of the petitioners by the terrorist organisation LTTE, which caused the death of, besides the former PM, 15 other innocent persons. The petitioners deserved the extreme penalty of death and nothing short of it. Giving deterrent punishment alone could prevent potential offenders from committing such crimes, the counters reiterated.
Just because some eminent personalities, social organisations, political parties, MPs, MLAs, former judges and jurists had written to the State government or to the President of India, it could not be considered to be a valid ground to commute the death sentence, the counter reiterated. Bowing to their demand would set a bad precedent and in the future it was likely to create and be a cause for communal and religious protests and unrest. Some persons/politicians demanded the commutation for political mileage. Public support could not be a benchmark or scale to measure, it said.
The decision of the President was not arbitrary and was not based on extraneous considerations. Justice had to be done not only to the convicts but also to the victims, the counters said.
Source: Tamil Nadu | Updated Oct 30, 2011 at 11:01am IST
Express News Service , The New Indian Express
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/no-time-cap-for-mercy-petitions-says-centre/197241-60-118.html accessed on 8th Nov 2011
Nullifying the trio’s main contention that there was inordinate delay of over 11 years in disposing of their mercy petitions, the counter said the exercise of the power under this Article was not curtailed by any limitation as to the time frame within which such power conferred might be exercised. It was a special power overriding all other laws, rules and regulations in force. No time frame could be stipulated or set up for the President in this regard. Delay by itself did not entail the persons under sentence of death to demand for quashing of the sentence or converting it into life imprisonment. So, there could be no fixed period within which any mercy petition ought to be disposed of. The contention that if the mercy petition was not disposed of within a fixed period, it would render the sentence of death inexecutable, was untenable. The court, in exercise of power under Article 226 or Article 32, could not prescribe a time limit for disposal of the mercy petition. The citations of the Supreme Court judgments by the petitioners would not apply in this case, the counters said.
Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan had lived a normal life in prison like any other prisoner and were given opportunities to develop their skills. They were allowed to pursue their studies as well as other literary and cultural activities in the prison. So, it was fanciful to contend that they suffered mental torture, which caused violation of their fundamental rights, the counters said.
The behaviour of the trio in the prison, even if good, could not take away the reality that they had committed an extremely gruesome, heinous, cold-blooded and cruel crime. It was a well-planned and predetermined brutal murder with the active connivance and help of the petitioners by the terrorist organisation LTTE, which caused the death of, besides the former PM, 15 other innocent persons. The petitioners deserved the extreme penalty of death and nothing short of it. Giving deterrent punishment alone could prevent potential offenders from committing such crimes, the counters reiterated.
Just because some eminent personalities, social organisations, political parties, MPs, MLAs, former judges and jurists had written to the State government or to the President of India, it could not be considered to be a valid ground to commute the death sentence, the counter reiterated. Bowing to their demand would set a bad precedent and in the future it was likely to create and be a cause for communal and religious protests and unrest. Some persons/politicians demanded the commutation for political mileage. Public support could not be a benchmark or scale to measure, it said.
The decision of the President was not arbitrary and was not based on extraneous considerations. Justice had to be done not only to the convicts but also to the victims, the counters said.
Source: Tamil Nadu | Updated Oct 30, 2011 at 11:01am IST
Express News Service , The New Indian Express
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/no-time-cap-for-mercy-petitions-says-centre/197241-60-118.html accessed on 8th Nov 2011
Assemblies cannot seek clemency for death-row convicts: Achary
The former Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha, P.D.T. Achary, has warned that the recent resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly seeking the President to commute the death sentence of three of Rajiv Gandhi's killers and a similar attempt made by the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in favour of Parliament attack case convict Afzal Guru might result in “unintended consequences.”
Mr. Achary told The Hindu on Thursday that neither the State government has constitutionally-sanctioned powers in this regard nor can the Assembly perform that role.
“In other words, the Legislative Assembly of a State has no power to request the President to consider a mercy petition in a particular way,” he pointed out.
Commenting on the powers of the State legislatures to pass such resolutions seeking mercy for the convicts even after the President has rejected them, Mr. Achary said: “Passing a resolution by an Assembly seeking Presidential pardon for someone who did an act of terrorism is tantamount to saying ‘He is our terrorist, therefore, please spare him.' This message goes across the world.”
The steps taken by the two Assemblies had caused considerable consternation in the Parliamentary and political circles and raised serious constitutional and political questions.
Under the Constitutional scheme, State Legislatures had been given exclusive legislative powers in respect of items in the State List. They could also legislate on matters in the Concurrent List, except in a case of repugnancy where the law made by Parliament on that subject would prevail.
Jurisdiction
As per rules, a State Legislature could consider a matter through a resolution only if it was within the State's jurisdiction.
Through a resolution a Legislative House calls the attention of the State government to a matter or situation for consideration by that government. Constitutionally speaking, the government could consider the same only if the matter concerns it.
“It seems that there is a certain amount of confusion in the minds of the Assembly Speakers on the competence of State Legislatures to consider such resolutions. Unlike in the U.S., where the residuary powers vest in the States, in India the Constitution vests the residuary powers in Parliament only. So the State Legislature cannot deal with a matter which is outside the area assigned to it by the Constitution.”
“But by no stretch of imagination can we think that the State governments have the jurisdiction to consider the resolutions brought before these two Assemblies seeking Presidential clemency for the convicts and can act on them. In respect of mercy petitions, the President acts on the advice of his or her Council of Ministers. So, what is the role of a State government in this matter? Nothing,” Mr. Achary asserted.
Whatever be the political compulsions, a legislative body is required to function within the framework of constitutional rules and passing a resolution by an Assembly seeking Presidential clemency for a convict is an unprecedented act.
Pointing out that there was an irresistible temptation among the Indian political class to succumb to such pressures, he observed: “Rule of law is what steers the ship of democratic institutions out of the turgid waters of sectarian pressures.”
A precedent, once set, was followed by others in future. Generally, the presiding officers of the legislatures took great amount of care while dealing with issues of constitutional significance, Mr. Achary added.
Source: The Hindu
NEW DELHI, October 27, 2011
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2574161.ece accessed on 8th November 2011
Mr. Achary told The Hindu on Thursday that neither the State government has constitutionally-sanctioned powers in this regard nor can the Assembly perform that role.
“In other words, the Legislative Assembly of a State has no power to request the President to consider a mercy petition in a particular way,” he pointed out.
Commenting on the powers of the State legislatures to pass such resolutions seeking mercy for the convicts even after the President has rejected them, Mr. Achary said: “Passing a resolution by an Assembly seeking Presidential pardon for someone who did an act of terrorism is tantamount to saying ‘He is our terrorist, therefore, please spare him.' This message goes across the world.”
The steps taken by the two Assemblies had caused considerable consternation in the Parliamentary and political circles and raised serious constitutional and political questions.
Under the Constitutional scheme, State Legislatures had been given exclusive legislative powers in respect of items in the State List. They could also legislate on matters in the Concurrent List, except in a case of repugnancy where the law made by Parliament on that subject would prevail.
Jurisdiction
As per rules, a State Legislature could consider a matter through a resolution only if it was within the State's jurisdiction.
Through a resolution a Legislative House calls the attention of the State government to a matter or situation for consideration by that government. Constitutionally speaking, the government could consider the same only if the matter concerns it.
“It seems that there is a certain amount of confusion in the minds of the Assembly Speakers on the competence of State Legislatures to consider such resolutions. Unlike in the U.S., where the residuary powers vest in the States, in India the Constitution vests the residuary powers in Parliament only. So the State Legislature cannot deal with a matter which is outside the area assigned to it by the Constitution.”
“But by no stretch of imagination can we think that the State governments have the jurisdiction to consider the resolutions brought before these two Assemblies seeking Presidential clemency for the convicts and can act on them. In respect of mercy petitions, the President acts on the advice of his or her Council of Ministers. So, what is the role of a State government in this matter? Nothing,” Mr. Achary asserted.
Whatever be the political compulsions, a legislative body is required to function within the framework of constitutional rules and passing a resolution by an Assembly seeking Presidential clemency for a convict is an unprecedented act.
Pointing out that there was an irresistible temptation among the Indian political class to succumb to such pressures, he observed: “Rule of law is what steers the ship of democratic institutions out of the turgid waters of sectarian pressures.”
A precedent, once set, was followed by others in future. Generally, the presiding officers of the legislatures took great amount of care while dealing with issues of constitutional significance, Mr. Achary added.
Source: The Hindu
NEW DELHI, October 27, 2011
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2574161.ece accessed on 8th November 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)