Suspended Death Sentence for China's Former Railway Minister
China's former railway minister was given a suspended death sentence for abuse of power and taking bribes, making him the highest-ranking official convicted since Xi Jinping took over the Communist Party last year. Liu Zhijun, 60, will be deprived of political rights for life, and all his property will be confiscated.
Source of Info: Business Standard, page 8 of 9th July 2013. I wish Indian lawmakers could also bring such strong rules and regulations. I always wonder why we cannot do it when they have a larger population and are able to do it, but we cannot.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
38China's former railway minister was given a suspended death sentence for abuse of power and taking bribes, making him the highest-ranking official convicted since Xi Jinping took over the Communist Party last year. Liu Zhijun, 60, will be deprived of political rights for life, and all his property will be confiscated.
Source of Info: Business Standard, page 8 of 9th July 2013. I wish Indian lawmakers could also bring such strong rules and regulations. I always wonder why we cannot do it when they have a larger population and are able to do it, but we cannot.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I wish Indian lawmakers could also bring such strong rules and regulations. I always wonder why we cannot do it when they have a larger population and can achieve it, but we cannot.
In India, it is not possible because bribery is a birthright of our political system. The bureaucrats and other government officers are a part of our political system. Until the educated class of people, who have no political background, are not appointed in the government, we should not expect a revolution in this.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In India, it is not possible because bribery is a birthright of our political system. The bureaucrats and other government officers are a part of our political system. Until the educated class of people, who have no political background, are not appointed in the government, we should not expect a revolution in this.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Good News:
MPs, MLAs will be disqualified as soon as they are convicted: SC
In a big leap towards cleaning up Indian politics, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that MPs and MLAs will be immediately disqualified if they are convicted in a criminal case by a trial court. The court struck down Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which protects convicted MPs and MLAs from disqualification if they appeal before a higher court within three months, on the ground of pendency of appeal.
The court, however, said its order will not apply to sitting MPs and MLAs who have filed appeals against their convictions in higher courts. But those convicted after this verdict will not be saved by this provision, said the court, adding that Parliament had exceeded its powers in providing this immunity.
Discarding the Centre's argument, the bench of Justices A K Patnaik and S J Mukhopadhaya ruled that Parliament lacked legislative competence to enact this provision since it was in direct conflict with Articles 101 and 102, which stipulate the principles for those who want to contest elections as well as those who have been elected.
The court ruled that no relaxation could be given to a sitting MP or MLA when an ordinary citizen is barred from contesting elections if he stands convicted on the date of polling. “If, because of a disqualification, a person cannot be chosen as a member of parliament or state legislature, for the same disqualification, he cannot continue as a member of parliament or the state legislature,” it said.
The bench also rejected the Centre's argument that the disqualification of a convicted MP or MLA was only “deferred” and not rendered ineffective. It held that the constitutional provisions “expressly prohibit” parliament from deferring the date from which disqualification will “come into effect” and so Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act is “ultra vires.”
“Once a person, who was a member of either house of parliament or state legislature becomes disqualified by or under any law made by parliament under Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the constitution, his seat automatically falls vacant and parliament cannot make a provision to defer the date on which the disqualification of a sitting member will have effect,” it said.
The court accepted the argument of senior advocate Fali S Nariman, who was appearing for PIL petitioner Lily Thomas, and another petitioner S N Shukla, that the constitutional provisions provide for immediate disqualification on conviction under different charges including corruption, violence against women and sexual offences, customs violation, illegal use of drugs and inciting communal hatred.
The bench rejected the Centre's argument that the lawmakers will be left with no remedy in case of “frivolous convictions” that may later be set aside. The bench said appellate courts have the powers to stay the convictions under Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The lawmakers will not be disqualified in such cases, it said.
Representation of The People Act
• SECTION 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act says a sitting MP or MLA “shall not” be disqualified till the appellate court decides on his appeal against the first conviction, filed within three months.
• IN 2005, a 5-judge SC bench upheld Section 8(4) as a reasonable classification that does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
• ACCORDING to APDR, an NGO, 162 sitting Lok Sabha members have criminal cases pending against them.
Regards
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
MPs, MLAs will be disqualified as soon as they are convicted: SC
In a big leap towards cleaning up Indian politics, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that MPs and MLAs will be immediately disqualified if they are convicted in a criminal case by a trial court. The court struck down Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which protects convicted MPs and MLAs from disqualification if they appeal before a higher court within three months, on the ground of pendency of appeal.
The court, however, said its order will not apply to sitting MPs and MLAs who have filed appeals against their convictions in higher courts. But those convicted after this verdict will not be saved by this provision, said the court, adding that Parliament had exceeded its powers in providing this immunity.
Discarding the Centre's argument, the bench of Justices A K Patnaik and S J Mukhopadhaya ruled that Parliament lacked legislative competence to enact this provision since it was in direct conflict with Articles 101 and 102, which stipulate the principles for those who want to contest elections as well as those who have been elected.
The court ruled that no relaxation could be given to a sitting MP or MLA when an ordinary citizen is barred from contesting elections if he stands convicted on the date of polling. “If, because of a disqualification, a person cannot be chosen as a member of parliament or state legislature, for the same disqualification, he cannot continue as a member of parliament or the state legislature,” it said.
The bench also rejected the Centre's argument that the disqualification of a convicted MP or MLA was only “deferred” and not rendered ineffective. It held that the constitutional provisions “expressly prohibit” parliament from deferring the date from which disqualification will “come into effect” and so Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act is “ultra vires.”
“Once a person, who was a member of either house of parliament or state legislature becomes disqualified by or under any law made by parliament under Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the constitution, his seat automatically falls vacant and parliament cannot make a provision to defer the date on which the disqualification of a sitting member will have effect,” it said.
The court accepted the argument of senior advocate Fali S Nariman, who was appearing for PIL petitioner Lily Thomas, and another petitioner S N Shukla, that the constitutional provisions provide for immediate disqualification on conviction under different charges including corruption, violence against women and sexual offences, customs violation, illegal use of drugs and inciting communal hatred.
The bench rejected the Centre's argument that the lawmakers will be left with no remedy in case of “frivolous convictions” that may later be set aside. The bench said appellate courts have the powers to stay the convictions under Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The lawmakers will not be disqualified in such cases, it said.
Representation of The People Act
• SECTION 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act says a sitting MP or MLA “shall not” be disqualified till the appellate court decides on his appeal against the first conviction, filed within three months.
• IN 2005, a 5-judge SC bench upheld Section 8(4) as a reasonable classification that does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
• ACCORDING to APDR, an NGO, 162 sitting Lok Sabha members have criminal cases pending against them.
Regards
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
After reading the news published in today's newspapers, I feel that in India, the time is not far from controlling corruption.
Former DIG A.K. Jain, Wife Sentenced to Three Years on Graft Charges
Three months after a special Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) court convicted former DIG A.K. Jain in a bribery case, the same court on Thursday convicted him and his wife in a disproportionate assets case. The couple has been sentenced to three years imprisonment and fined Rs. 25,000 each. They were later granted bail.
Chief Public Prosecutor Kalpana Chavan said investigations revealed that Mr. Jain had amassed assets up to 350 percent of his known sources of income. “The court has convicted Jain and his wife Anita in a DA case after we argued that he misused his position as a public servant and amassed ill-gotten money,” she said. The couple has been booked under sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The State Home Department had received an anonymous letter in 1990 against Mr. Jain, alleging that he had amassed huge property. The government later forwarded that letter to the ACB, which first started a discreet inquiry and later an open inquiry, finally filing a First Information Report (FIR) against him in 2003.
The prosecution argued that Mr. Jain had bought properties in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Karnataka in his name as well as in the name of his family members. Mr. Jain and his CA were sentenced to five years in jail in April this year after they were found guilty of accepting a bribe from a junior officer for protecting him in a departmental inquiry.
Regards.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Former DIG A.K. Jain, Wife Sentenced to Three Years on Graft Charges
Three months after a special Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) court convicted former DIG A.K. Jain in a bribery case, the same court on Thursday convicted him and his wife in a disproportionate assets case. The couple has been sentenced to three years imprisonment and fined Rs. 25,000 each. They were later granted bail.
Chief Public Prosecutor Kalpana Chavan said investigations revealed that Mr. Jain had amassed assets up to 350 percent of his known sources of income. “The court has convicted Jain and his wife Anita in a DA case after we argued that he misused his position as a public servant and amassed ill-gotten money,” she said. The couple has been booked under sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The State Home Department had received an anonymous letter in 1990 against Mr. Jain, alleging that he had amassed huge property. The government later forwarded that letter to the ACB, which first started a discreet inquiry and later an open inquiry, finally filing a First Information Report (FIR) against him in 2003.
The prosecution argued that Mr. Jain had bought properties in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Karnataka in his name as well as in the name of his family members. Mr. Jain and his CA were sentenced to five years in jail in April this year after they were found guilty of accepting a bribe from a junior officer for protecting him in a departmental inquiry.
Regards.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Here is another piece of news in today's newspapers that gives hope for cleaner politics.
Double Whammy: Netas in Jail Can't Fight Polls, Supreme Court Says
The days of politicians fighting elections from jail are over. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person who is in jail or in police custody cannot contest elections to legislative bodies.
The far-reaching order was passed by the apex court along with its landmark verdict that MPs, MLAs, and MLCs would be disqualified the day they are convicted. This double whammy against criminals in Indian legislatures is expected to go a long way in cleaning up politics.
An apex court bench of Justices A K Patnaik and S J Mukhopadhayay ruled that only an "elector" can contest the polls and he/she forfeits the right to vote during imprisonment or in police custody. However, the court said that disqualification would not be applicable to a person subjected to preventive detention under any law.
The court based its order on provisions of the Representation of the People Act. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act lay down that in order to be elected to Parliament or state legislatures, one must be an elector. The bench also referred to Section 62(5) of the Act which says that no person shall vote at any election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the police.
Reading Sections 4, 5, and 62(5) together, the apex court concluded that a person in jail or police custody cannot contest elections.
Going by the court's reasoning, it appears that this ineligibility will not hold back a politician if he or she is out of jail before the date for filing nomination papers. However, it will still be a drastic change from the current scheme of things where politicians have not only contested but also won elections from behind bars. George Fernandes and A K Roy, for example, won elections while in jail during the Emergency in 1977. "Baubalis" and criminals with immense political clout, across party lines, have since regularly contested and won elections while in jail, even on serious charges.
The court passed the order on an appeal filed by the chief election commissioner and others challenging a Patna high court order barring people in police custody from contesting polls.
"We do not find any infirmity in the findings of the high court in the impugned common order that a person who has no right to vote by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 62 of the 1951 Act is not an elector and is therefore not qualified to contest the election to the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of a State," the apex court said.
In its landmark judgment on Wednesday, the same bench had struck down a provision in the Representation of the People Act that protects a convicted lawmaker from disqualification on the ground of pendency of appeal in higher courts. The bench also made it clear that MPs, MLAs, and MLCs would stand disqualified on the date of conviction.
Legal experts said the two verdicts would force political parties to make sure that candidates facing criminal charges are not fielded.
The court had in Wednesday's judgment held that Parliament exceeded its powers by enacting the provision (Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act) that gives a convicted lawmaker the power to remain in office on the ground that appeals have been filed and are pending.
The sub-section 8(4), which was struck down, said a lawmaker cannot be disqualified for three months from the conviction and if in that period he or she files an appeal against it, till its disposal by a higher court.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Double Whammy: Netas in Jail Can't Fight Polls, Supreme Court Says
The days of politicians fighting elections from jail are over. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person who is in jail or in police custody cannot contest elections to legislative bodies.
The far-reaching order was passed by the apex court along with its landmark verdict that MPs, MLAs, and MLCs would be disqualified the day they are convicted. This double whammy against criminals in Indian legislatures is expected to go a long way in cleaning up politics.
An apex court bench of Justices A K Patnaik and S J Mukhopadhayay ruled that only an "elector" can contest the polls and he/she forfeits the right to vote during imprisonment or in police custody. However, the court said that disqualification would not be applicable to a person subjected to preventive detention under any law.
The court based its order on provisions of the Representation of the People Act. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act lay down that in order to be elected to Parliament or state legislatures, one must be an elector. The bench also referred to Section 62(5) of the Act which says that no person shall vote at any election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the police.
Reading Sections 4, 5, and 62(5) together, the apex court concluded that a person in jail or police custody cannot contest elections.
Going by the court's reasoning, it appears that this ineligibility will not hold back a politician if he or she is out of jail before the date for filing nomination papers. However, it will still be a drastic change from the current scheme of things where politicians have not only contested but also won elections from behind bars. George Fernandes and A K Roy, for example, won elections while in jail during the Emergency in 1977. "Baubalis" and criminals with immense political clout, across party lines, have since regularly contested and won elections while in jail, even on serious charges.
The court passed the order on an appeal filed by the chief election commissioner and others challenging a Patna high court order barring people in police custody from contesting polls.
"We do not find any infirmity in the findings of the high court in the impugned common order that a person who has no right to vote by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 62 of the 1951 Act is not an elector and is therefore not qualified to contest the election to the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of a State," the apex court said.
In its landmark judgment on Wednesday, the same bench had struck down a provision in the Representation of the People Act that protects a convicted lawmaker from disqualification on the ground of pendency of appeal in higher courts. The bench also made it clear that MPs, MLAs, and MLCs would stand disqualified on the date of conviction.
Legal experts said the two verdicts would force political parties to make sure that candidates facing criminal charges are not fielded.
The court had in Wednesday's judgment held that Parliament exceeded its powers by enacting the provision (Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act) that gives a convicted lawmaker the power to remain in office on the ground that appeals have been filed and are pending.
The sub-section 8(4), which was struck down, said a lawmaker cannot be disqualified for three months from the conviction and if in that period he or she files an appeal against it, till its disposal by a higher court.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
100 baat ki ek baat... In india this wont work as The authority who decides to give punishment themself takes Bribe :D Lolzzzzz Anyways soon it will be changed...
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Impact Of Perception On Appraisal System.ppt
LEGAL IMPACT ON PF - INTERNATIONAL WORKERSppt.pdf