Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Small university shop at centre of India publishing row

New Delhi: A cramped, one-room shop tucked away in Delhi University seems an unlikely battleground for a publishing war that, academics warn, threatens quality of and access to education in the world's second most populous nation.

The busy shop, where photocopiers churn out papers for a steady stream of students for a small fee, is at the centre of a court battle brought by three venerable academic presses over the interpretation of India's copyright law.

The lawsuit, filed by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and Taylor & Francis against Delhi University and the shop threatens production of "course packs" -- de facto "textbooks" made of photocopied portions of various books.

Course packs are common throughout much of the developing world -- where most university students cannot afford to purchase new or even second-hand textbooks -- and are seen as key to the spread of education there.

Distinguished Indian academics have lined up to express dismay over the suit, including Nobel Prize winner and Harvard University professor Amartya Sen, warning that these packs could become expensive, or unavailable altogether, hitting students hard.

"As an OUP (Oxford University Press) author I would like to urge my publisher to not draw on the full force of the law to make these course packs impossible to generate and use," Sen wrote in an open letter last September, a month after the case was filed in the Supreme Court.

"Educational publishers have to balance various interests, and the cause (access to) of education must surely be a very important one," he wrote.

Experts fear that the case could set a precedent that forces the closure of such shops in India. Universities that still want to provide packs to their students could instead be forced into potentially expensive licencing arrangements with publishers to reproduce the texts.

Amita Baviskar, associate professor at the Institute of Economic Growth at Delhi University, who has campaigned against the suit, calls it "a case of big-name publishers bullying academics, students and a small shop to make more profit".

"If the court rules in favour of the publishers, access to educational material will become more expensive and the quality of students' learning will suffer. Students will struggle without course packs," Baviskar told AFP.

Indian copyright law already allows students and academics to photocopy textbook excerpts freely for educational use, under a "fair dealing" provision, according to Baviskar.

Publishers, however, argue that this provision, while allowing an individual to copy small numbers of pages for academic use, doesn't extend to a profit-making photocopying shop generating entire course packs.

According to Sudhir Malhotra, president of the Federation of Indian Publishers, "a photocopying shop which copies excerpts from various books and then sells the resulting course pack for a profit...this is not fair use, this is commercial exploitation of private property".

"It's not as if photocopiers are doing it for free. So why blame publishers for wanting their share?" Malhotra told AFP.

The practice of copying textbook excerpts is "typical of emerging economies", according to copyright experts like Jeremy de Beer, associate professor of law at the University of Ottawa in Canada.

His published work on the issue includes a 2010 book on copyright law and access to education in eight developing nations, including South Africa, Senegal, Egypt and Kenya.

"What I found was that most universities lack the resources to buy brand-new copies of academic books, so photocopying is integral to the education there," de Beer told AFP in a phone interview.

Most libraries de Beer visited housed only one copy of each textbook on the syllabus, making it necessary to photocopy whole books, he said.

Licensing deals long resisted

Publishers do not expect a massive boom in textbook sales even if the lawsuit succeeds, he said. Instead Indian universities are expected to be pushed into new copying arrangements with publishers.

"As far as this case in India is concerned, publishers have an ulterior motive. They want to create a system whereby the university obtains a copying licence from the publisher in exchange for a flat fee per student," he said.

india-books-photocopy-AFP-295.jpgSo far, universities have been reluctant to sign licence deals, saying they can rely -- through their small photocopy shops -- on "fair use" legal provisions to photocopy material.

The Supreme Court of Canada in 2004 ruled on a similar case filed by three legal publishers against the Law Society of Upper Canada. Its verdict supported the Law Society's right to photocopy library materials.

The crucial issue, according to de Beer, is whether an Indian court will regard a privately-held photocopying shop in the same light as a not-for-profit library, and whether the court supports licencing deals.

"If the court in Delhi supports licencing then publishers can use India as an example to drive a global trend," he said.

"In the past, Indian courts have set precedents with important implications for other emerging economies," he said, citing landmark rulings on issues like pharmaceutical patents that helped expand access to cheap drugs in developing nations.

"This case has the potential to create similar shock waves."

Prem Vipin said his shop in Delhi University, with its six-odd photocopiers and mounds of papers, remains open as the court battle drags on. But he fears for the future, not just for his business but for the students too.

"We face tough times. But it is the students who will suffer the most," he said.

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Aadhaar not mandatory: Supreme Court sticks to order, cabinet clears Bill to legalise scheme

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today rejected the Centre's plea to modify an interim ruling that the Aadhaar or the Unique Identity Card is not mandatory for essential services.

The court also took a dig at the government over its ordinance to override a Supreme Court order disqualifying convicted MPs, withdrawn last week in a blaze of controversy.

When the government lawyer admitted that a law on Aadhaar was before the cabinet, the judges sarcastically said, "You have the ordinance route also. If you have a law this case becomes irrelevant."

This comes on a day the Cabinet approved the National Identification Authority of India Bill that will give legal backing to the Aadhaar card. The Bill may be tabled during the winter session of Parliament, say sources. The authority that issues the 12-digit Aadhaar numbers to citizens currently operates through an executive order.

Last month, the top court ruled that the Centre or states must not insist on Aadhaar cards for providing essential services. "No citizen should suffer for the want of Aadhaar cards", the court had said on a petition questioning the validity of the Unique Identity Card scheme, which has cost the centre Rs. 50,000 crore.

The court's order was viewed as a setback for the Manmohan Singh government's plans to reach out to the masses with ambitious schemes like food security and direct cash transfer ahead of national polls due in May.

The Centre had asked the court to make Aadhaar cards mandatory for social welfare schemes heavily subsidized by the government.  The government argued today that if the order was not reviewed, nobody would get subsidised cooking gas as it had been linked to Aadhaar cards in 97 districts.

The court will now take up the case for a final hearing on October 21.

Supreme Court set to name IPL probe panel, decide N. Srinivasan's fate

Apex court may also decide N. Srinivasan's fate as BCCI president. Till the Supreme Court disposes of a petition filed by the Cricket Association of Bihar, the 68-year-old Srinivasan cannot execute his duties as Board chief.

New Delhi:  The Supreme Court on Tuesday will discuss a panel that will launch a fresh enquiry into the spot-fixing scandal surrounding the Indian Premier League. The apex court is also expected to decide on N. Srinivasan's return as the country's cricket chief. On Monday, the Supreme Court proposed a three-member panel headed by headed by former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court Mukul Mudgal to investigate the scandal that rocked the popular Twenty20 league run by the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Apart from Mudgal, the other members of the three-member panel are senior advocate Niloy Dutta and Additional Solicitor General L. Nageswara Rao. There could be objection on Dutta's name as he is a cricket official from Assam and is on at least two BCCI committees recently approved by Srinivasan.

"We want this committee to probe the spot-fixing and this committee will report to us," said A.K Patnaik, one of two judges hearing the case. Patnaik also told the court that the BCCI's lawyers must reply to the proposal in Tuesday's hearing. The probe will be separate from continuing investigations by police, who have filed charges in court against a string of officials, players and bookmakers in the scandal.

Srinivasan, 68, widely regarded as the most powerful man in world cricket, has been barred by the court from taking charge since his election as the BCCI chief for a third year on September 29. The Supreme Court is acting on a petition filed by the Cricket Association of Bihar. The Bihar association has said that Srinivasan should stay away from the BCCI on moral grounds because his son-in-law had been charged in the scandal.

The son-in-law, Gurunath Meiyappan, was the team principal of the Chennai Super Kings, the IPL franchise owned by Srinivasan's India Cements company and captained by national skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni. Srinivasan, who has not himself been accused of any wrongdoing, stepped aside temporarily as BCCI president in June when Meiyappan was named in the scandal. However, the apex court feels that the BCCI cannot function without a chief and since Srinivasan has been elected "democratically" he could resume his duties but not interfere in IPL matters. A decision is expected on Tuesday. However, the case has been listed at No. 70 and there is a likelihood that it may not come up for deliberation at all.

The Bihar association had argued in court that an internal BCCI probe panel had absolved Srinivasan, Meiyappan, India Cements and other IPL officials of wrongdoing even before police had filed charges in court. Former Australian star Mike Hussey, who has played for the Chennai Super Kings since the inaugural IPL season in 2008, recently dismissed Srinivasan's suggestion that Meiyappan was only a "cricket enthusiast".

Hussey asserted in his new autobiography that Meiyappan was running the team since Srinivasan was busy with BCCI affairs. "Our owner was India Cements, headed by Mr Srinivasan," Hussey wrote, according to excerpts published on several websites.

Hussey wrote: "As he was also on the board of the BCCI, he (Srinivasan) gave control of the team to his son-in-law Mr Gurunath (Meiyappan). He ran the team along with Kepler Wessels, who was (then) coach."

Srinivasan's hold on world cricket stems from India's vast television audience, which enables the country to generate almost 70 per cent of the game's revenues. The fate of India's tour of South Africa hangs in balance as Srinivasan is expected to take a final call only after the Supreme Court lets him take charge as BCCI boss.

Supreme Court annuls Maldives presidential vote

Male: In a significant decision which may escalate the political turmoil in Maldives, the country's Supreme Court declared the first round of presidential polls as null and void.

Former president Mohammed Nasheed emerged as the winner in the polls.

The court also directed that fresh polls must be held before November 4 and the re-run of the first round should be conducted on the 20th of this month, President Mohammed Waheed's Press Secretary Masood Imad told PTI.

"The Supreme Court today annulled the first round of presidential elections held on September 7," Masood said.

Giving the details of the hearing, Maldivian High Commissioner to India Mohamed Naseer told PTI that the verdict was issued by majority of the judges of the 7-judge bench.

"The court also declared that fresh polls be held before October 20th and if there is to be a second round, it must be held before November 4," he said.

The Election Commission was also ordered to print fresh ballot papers with new security features and to follow strict guidelines during polling, Naseer said.

The Supreme Court last month had postponed the second round indefinitely on the plea of Jumhooree Party (JP) which stood third and missed the chance of a run-off with Nasheed in the second round by a whisker.

The Jumhooree Party plea alleged discrepancies in the polling and demanded that the results be annulled.

46-year-old Nasheed won the first round comfortably with 45.45 per cent of the vote and faced a run-off contest on September 28 against Abdullah Yameen, the half-brother of the islands' former autocrat Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

According to the Maldivian Constitution, it is mandatory that a run-off election takes place within 21 days of a first round if no candidate gains more than 50 per cent of the vote.

The run-off takes place between top two vote garnering candidates.

The political scene in Maldives has been in a state of flux since February 2012 when Nasheed, the country's first democratically elected President, was forced to resign in duress. He was succeeded by Vice-President Mohammed Waheed.

Tandoor murder: Ex-Delhi politician Sushil Sharma's death sentence commuted to life, he can appeal to be freed

Sushil Sharma, who was convicted of killing wife Naina Sahani and burning the body in a tandoor  
 
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today commuted the death sentence of former Congress politician Sushil Sharma - convicted of murdering his wife and trying to burn the body in a tandoor in 1995 - to a life term.

Sharma, who has spent almost 18 years in jail for what became notorious as the 'tandoor murder case', can be released if the Delhi government grants him remission.

"It is not a crime against society but a crime committed due to (Sharma's) strained relationship with his wife," the top court said, adding that the murder did not fall in the category of rarest of rare crimes.

A trial court in 2003 convicted Sharma of shooting his wife Naina Sahani on July 2, 1995, in a fit of rage at their home in central Delhi, on the suspicion that she was having an affair with another Congress worker.

Sharma was found guilty of chopping up the body and trying to burn it in a tandoor - or open clay oven - in a popular restaurant, with the help of the manager, who was his friend.

The crime was detected when the thick smoke from the tandoor alerted cops patrolling the area. Sharma ran, but surrendered a week later.

In 2007, the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and death sentence, describing the crime as an "act of extreme depravity that shook the conscience of society".

Sharma had argued in court that his conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. But the Delhi Police maintained in every court that the gruesome killing falls under the rarest of rare category of crimes.

Monday, October 7, 2013

N. Srinivasan's return as BCCI chief on hold; Supreme Court proposes panel to probe IPL betting

Hearing a petition filed by the Cricket Association of Bihar seeking an injunction on N. Srinivasan performing his duties as president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the apex court has proposed a three-member panel comprising a former High Court judge to probe Indian Premier League betting issue.

The Supreme Court has put off N. Srinivasan's return as the president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Deliberating on a petition filed by the Cricket Association of Bihar, the apex court has now suggested a three-member panel, headed by former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court Mukul Mudgal to probe the Indian Premier League betting scandal. The case will come up for hearing again on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court has asked both the BCCI and the Bihar association to give their views on the proposed committee. Apart from Mudgal, the other members of the three-member panel are senior advocate Niloy Dutta and Additional Solicitor General L. Nageswara Rao. Interestingly, Rao is also a cricketer.

It may be recalled that Bihar had appealed to the Supreme Court to form an independent committee to investigate corruption in IPL after the Bombay High Court on July 30 had declared as "illegal and unconstitutional" a BCCI-appointed panel consisting of two former judges. A Bombay High Court Division Bench of Justices S.J. Vazifdar and M.S. Sonak had given its ruling after hearing a public interest litigation filed by Bihar's Aditya Verma, who challenged the constitution of the commission by the BCCI and the IPL governing council, especially as it was formed when Srinivasan was still active president of the BCCI. Needless to say, the BCCI panel gave a clean chit to Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals owners who faced charges of betting during IPL games.

On Monday, the Bihar association expressed its opposition to Arun Jaitley as a member of the probe committee. Jaitley is a former vice-president of the BCCI and reckoned as the 'brain' behind Srinivasan, who was forced to step aside as the Board president in June when the IPL scandal rocked the cricket fraternity.  Last week, the BCCI proposed the names of Jaitley and Dutta as part of a panel to probe afresh the corruption charges against team owners of Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals. Bihar did not agree to this panel.

Supreme Court judges Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar on Monday said it wanted an "independent" panel that will not only investigate the IPL scandal but also give "recommendations" to the BCCI. After Bihar suggested the names of former Supreme Court judges B.N. Srikrishna or S.H. Kapadia, Justice Patnaik and Justice Khehar proposed the committee to be headed by Mudgal. The apex court is now expected to ratify the panel on Tuesday.

It is still not clear when Srinivasan can assume his office as BCCI president. However, the Supreme Court has said: "(Srinivasan) having been elected, he has to function and cricket has to go on". The same mood prevailed in the hearing on September 30 when the Supreme Court criticized the way the BCCI was functioning. "There is something wrong," the judges said, even asking why the Board "had lost its credibility."

Justice Patnaik and Justive Khehar felt Srinivasan was elected "democratically" and an organization like the BCCI cannot work without a head. Bihar lawyers also said the president had to work since Srinivasan had to take major decisions on behalf of the richest cricket body in the world. At the BCCI Annual General Meeting in Chennai on September 29, Srinivasan unanimously won a year's extension but could not assume office till the Supreme Court disposed of a petition that restrained him from taking charge.

Since August, the Supreme Court has been deliberating on a Special Leave Petition filed by the Bihar association that wanted the court to restrain Srinivasan from contesting the BCCI elections because his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan was charge-sheeted by the Mumbai Police for corruption during Indian Premier League matches earlier this year. Although the Bihar body said Srinivasan had "no moral right" to lead the BCCI, the court allowed Srinivasan to take part in the elections, but only just.

Like a Test match, the Srinivasan camp is surely facing the test of patience. While indications of Srinivasan's return as BCCI president is quite apparent, the judges are in no mood to rush. BCCI's lawyers have already told the Supreme Court that Srinivasan will not participate in IPL-related affairs. Once the court approves the panel, the heat and dust over Srinivasan "officially" taking charge as BCCI boss should settle.

Corruption could be a curse Congress must battle in elections

New Delhi: For two decades, Lalu Prasad was a giant on India's political stage. He ran a state of 100 million people, he took charge of the country's massive rail network and his party was a crucial prop for the shaky coalition government in New Delhi.

Lalu managed all this despite a constant whiff of corruption around him. Indeed, he liked to thumb his nose at the law, riding triumphantly on the back of an elephant after a brief spell behind bars in 1997 as a crowd of admirers cheered.

Last week, a court sentenced Lalu to five years in prison for his part in a massive embezzlement case.

It was a landmark moment in a country where public disgust with corrupt politicians is finally starting to bite. Voters could throw the ruling Congress party out of power at the next general election, due by next May, for presiding over one of the most sleaze-ridden periods in the country's history.

An opinion poll in August said the party's parliamentary strength could drop to about 125 out of 543 elected seats. Currently it has 206, and rules with the help of coalition allies.

"Endgame of India's unclean politics," Kiran Bedi, a former police chief and now an anti-corruption activist, tweeted cheerily after Lalu was bundled off to jail last week.

The popular outrage has also spawned a clutch of new parties committed to ending the nexus between politics and crime, and - for the first time in quarter of a century - it has put corruption firmly on the agenda for national polls.

SWEEPING AWAY THE MUCK

Probity has never been the strongest suit of the world's largest democracy. A staggering 30 percent of lawmakers across federal and state legislatures face criminal charges, many for serious crimes such as rape, murder and kidnapping.

Politicians and gangsters have long been bedfellows, not least because of the dirty money that fuels political campaigns. More than 90 percent of funding for the two main national parties, Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), comes from unknown sources, according to the advocacy group Association for Democratic Reforms.

Yet, only once in India's history has the public been exercised enough about graft to boot a government out for shady dealings. That was in 1989, when a kickbacks scandal over the purchase of artillery guns from Sweden's Bofors contributed to an election defeat for Congress and its then prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi.

The scandals have come thick and fast on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's watch in the last few years.

There was a huge scam over the sale of the 2G mobile spectrum, which Time magazine listed as number 2 on its "Top 10 Abuses of Power", behind the Watergate scandal. New Delhi's botched hosting of the 2010 Commonwealth Games led to dozens of corruption cases, and then the government was hit by a furore over the allocation of coal deposits now known as "Coalgate".

All this has prompted the emergence of an anti-corruption movement, one that swelled in 2011 with huge protests led by Anna Hazare, who styled himself as a crusader in the mould of independence hero Mahatma Gandhi.

The outcry has continued since then, rattling the government, in part because much of it comes from the urban middle-class, a traditionally apolitical bloc whose sudden engagement could shatter electoral calculations.

A Lowy Institute poll of Indians in May found that 92 percent thought corruption had increased over the past five years, and even more believed that reducing corruption should be a top priority for their government.

A newly formed party, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), has tapped into the angst over sleaze. The AAP chose a broom as its symbol, to suggest it is sweeping the muck out of politics. In a video game launched last week, the party's leader navigates the corruption-plagued streets of the capital wielding a broom.

An increasingly activist judiciary has added to the clamour to rid politics of criminals.

In July, the Supreme Court decreed that lawmakers convicted of a serious crime would immediately forfeit their seats, closing off a loophole that had allowed politicians to stay on during appeals, which can drag on for years in India.

Last month, the court ordered the Election Commission to introduce a "none-of-the-above" choice for voters, allowing them to reject unsavoury characters instead of choosing the best of a rotten bunch.

The AAP, which is expected to disrupt the usual two-party race in a Delhi state election next month, is just one of several parties to be set up on an anti-corruption platform.

Among them is the Nav Bharat Democratic Party of Rajendra Misra, who gave up various business interests to join public service seven years ago. He worked with the main national parties to improve policy and governance, but was disillusioned by the venality around him and finally decided to do it alone.

"India isn't a poor country. It's a poorly managed country," says Mr Misra, who is planning to stand in next year's election.

There will be many election first-timers like him: young white-collar working professionals challenging a system where political seats are mostly occupied by old men and handed down to next generations like family heirlooms.

The upstarts have their work cut out for them in a country where votes are still cast along community lines rather than by ideology, and where mainstream parties are flush with cash.

Milan Vaishnav of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says the chances of a criminal candidate winning an election are three times better than others, and money is not the only explanation.

"Candidates often use their criminality as a sign of their credibility to protect the interests of their parochial community," Mr Vaishnav said, saying that voters sometimes choose criminals not despite of their criminality, but because of it.

Shekhar Tiwari, a co-founder of the Nav Bharat Democratic Party, recognises the enormity of the task facing the anti-corruption challengers. "Some of what we say sounds like a dream. But if we don't dream, nothing is possible," he says.

"TORN UP AND THROWN OUT"

Still, a recent drama in the Congress party, which is led by Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, showed which way the wind is blowing.

Prime Minister Singh's cabinet issued an executive order allowing convicted lawmakers to continue to hold office and stand in elections, in essence defying the Supreme Court. Critics said the move was aimed at shielding allies - such as Lalu - whom the Congress may need to form a ruling coalition after the elections.

As brickbats flew, Rahul Gandhi - the Congress party's likely candidate for prime minister and scion of the dynasty - stunned and embarrassed his own colleagues in a rare public outburst, calling for the order to be "torn up and thrown out".

A few days later, humiliated and looking divided, the government withdrew the decree.

"Rahul did that because he is convinced that this would destroy the tattered remnants of Congress' credibility," said Prem Shankar Jha, a political analyst. "Had this gone through, Congress would no longer be a victim of the criminalisation of politics but would be a patron of it."