The Bench and the Bar

A Jaipur magistrate has issued bailable arrest warrants against nine executives of luxury sports car maker Porsche, including its German chief executive officer (CEO) and chairman Matthias Mueller.

A former Indian importer of the cars, reported the New York Times, alleged offenses such as “extortion, cheating, dishonestly inducing delivery of property, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy”:

Precision Cars has been an importer for Porsche vehicles in India since 2003. However, when Porsche appointed Volkswagen Group Sales India as their sole importer in April 2012, they allegedly failed to inform Precision Cars, which Precision executives said left them no choice but to file a lawsuit.

Public interest litigation (PIL) activist lawyer ML Sharma, who is defending three of the six Delhi rape-accused in Delhi’s Saket district court, said in an interview that he had never heard of a “respected lady” being raped, and that the rape victim’s male companion was “wholly responsible” for the incident as the unmarried couple should not have been on the streets at night.

In an interview at a café outside the Supreme Court he said:

Until today I have not seen a single incident or example of rape with a respected lady.

Even an underworld don would not like to touch a girl with respect. [Bloomberg]

Sharma most recently filed a PIL against the government’s September notification allowing FDI in multi-brand retail. His other PILs this year include a dismissed petition for CBI probe into senior advocate Shanti Bhushan’s evasion of stamp duty, a PIL seeking cancellation of 194 coal-block allotments, and a challenge to the setting up of the Lokpal bill drafting committee, among others.

Last week the Saket Bar Association resolved that its 2500 members must not represent six Delhi men accused of the rape and murder of a 23-year old on 16 December, on the grounds of immorality. The fast track court for the trial was inaugurated 10 days ago.

Lawyers offering to defend the five accused in the December Delhi gang rape case, who will stand trial in a special Saket fast-track court, faced heckles from other lawyers in court yesterday, which is considering making the proceedings private.

The New York Times wrote: “Tens of lawyers, many of them female, had gathered in the court to oppose a handful of lawyers who were offering to represent the accused. Calling the accused men ‘beasts,’ many lawyers argued that those who commit crimes with brutality don’t deserve to be represented, especially by private lawyers. Scuffles broke out between the two groups, adding to the commotion.”

Firstpost added more background on the judge’s 2pm order, which is contested by media houses lawyers, to make the hearings in camera:

The order was passed by the judge in the post-lunch session after a ruckus set off by an emotionally-charged group of lawyers prevented the scheduled appearance of the five accused at 12.30 pm in open court.

The commotion began when a lawyer began a tirade against another lawyer M L Sharma who said he was approached by the family of one of the accused to represent them. He was also shouted at by women lawyers who had gathered in the courtroom.

Appeals by the Delhi Police refused to calm the lawyers down and the commotion continued even after the judge arrived at 12.30 pm.

The judge’s warning that she would not call the accused to appear before the court till the lawyers cleared the way for the accused went unheeded to. Meanwhile, two lawyers told the judge that they wanted to represent the accused and were directed by her to first meet the accused in Tihar Jail and get their consent before approaching the court again.

Also read: ‘Immoral’ for lawyers to represent rape accused say Saket advocates

The Supreme Court roster increased to 28 on 24 December after the swearing in of three new judges – former Madras high court chief justice MY Eqbal, former Karnataka high court chief justice Vikramjit Sen, and Orissa high court judge V Gopala Gowda.

62 years-old Sen who fills the Christian representation on the roster since former SC judge Cyriac Joseph’s retirement a year ago, will enjoy the shortest tenure out of the three.

Eqbal and Gowda, aged 61, will retire after a little over three and four years respectively. [The Hindu]

The recommendations for the three judges were made on 5 December.

The Saket Bar Association has resolved that its 2,500 members must not represent the six Delhi men accused of the rape and murder in order to ensure “speedy justice”, as the court’s fast-track court that will hear the case will be inaugurated today.

Exclusive: The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) executive committee (EC) called on lawyers to boycott the court’s additional judge Valmiki Mehta today, for his allegedly excessive imposition of costs on an unprecedented scale in matters before him, and for passing “brusque remarks” against “some senior lawyers”.

However, some general body members of the association opposed the “humiliating” view.

Telangana Andhra Pradesh lawyers boycotted lower courts in Telangana to protest prosecution of 24 lawyers who had led an agitation in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

The 24 lawyers were agitating for a 42 per cent quota for Telangana advocates in the posts of government pleader, public prosecutor, and assistant public prosecutor.

The boycott encompassed lower courts in eight districts and the Secunderabad metropolitan courts, while there was slogan shouting in the high court premises and copies of the government order for prosecution of the lawyers were burnt. [The Hindu]

A research paper published today has analysed nearly 60 years of cases pending in the Supreme Court and revealed a host of trends, including that litigation in states geographically nearer to Delhi is more likely to end up in the apex court, that the longest pendency plagues company, tax, mining and public interest litigations.

Senior advocate MN Krishnamani defeated senior advocate Rupinder Singh Suri by 136 votes to be elected the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) until May 2013 in yesterday’s first-of-its-kind SCBA members-only poll, in which 1340 advocates voted. 547 members voted with Krishnamani.

India’s first woman additional solicitor general Indira Jaising wrote to the law minister Ashwini Kumar criticising the government’s decision to drop several “competent” woman lawyers from the panel of advocates for handling government litigation in the Supreme Court.

She also wrote to chief justice of India Altamas Kabir requesting for the provision of crèche facilities in the Supreme Court for the toddlers of practicing women lawyers.

Excerpts from Jaising’s letter to Kumar:

This can only send a very wrong message to the (legal) profession as a whole and to women in particular that there is no place for them in the profession. Even otherwise, the perception among people is that only those with powerful godfathers or godmothers (of which there may be very few) can progress in the profession

Several women I know who have assisted me competently have been dropped from the panels with no notice or appreciable reason

I recognize that 'merit' and 'competence' must be the guiding principles in making appointments and selection, but it is a matter of common knowledge that 'merit' itself is not a neutral word but a social construct, which tends to entrench the privilege of the privileged. [TOI]

The attorney general of India (AG) is not bound to answer Right to Information (RTI) queries, according to the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) latest order.

A full bench of the CIC comprising of chief information commissioner Satyanand Mishra, and information commissioners ML Sharma and Annpurna Dixit ruled in a second appeal filed by three RTI applicants, that the AG is neither a ‘body’ nor an ‘institution of self-government’. He is just an advisor to the government and his advice is not binding on the government.

The AG had submitted before the CIC that his office was different from that of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, or the Election commissioners as thee posts were bodies.[Indian Express/ET]

The $2.4bn Vodafone tax-case decided in January, was sought to be reopened in the Supreme Court on Monday by Income Tax (IT) Department counsel solicitor general Rohinton Nariman.

Nariman was arguing for the department in its challenge to a Gujarat High Court (HC) order which had cleared the demerger scheme of Vodafone Essar Gujarat. During arguments, he sought a larger bench to review the January order of the SC which had absolved the British telecom major of the liability to refund over Rs 11,000 crore to the IT department.

He averred before chief justice of India Altamas Kabir’s bench that the case was liable to be reopened on the ground of “non-consideration” since the SC had failed to consider the 100 pages long review petition listing 130 grounds which he had submitted in January. He added that additional documents supporting his case have also come to light, and he will file them soon.

Kabir permitted the department to file these additional documents.

Vodafone’s counsel Salve opposed reopening the case on the ground that the Gujarat HC had already granted relief to the company relying on the SC’s verdict. [Financial Express]

The Advocates Association of Bangalore (AAB) urged Bangalore lawyers to boycott Karnataka high court (HC) judge BV Pinto.

The AAB also resolved to request the President of India not to confirm his appointment as a judge of the high court and to ask the chief justice of the Karnataka HC not to assign him any matters.

The body was protesting against Pinto’s alleged remark that the majority of lawyers in Bangalore are involved in prostitution, which was reported by the Deccan Herald on Sunday. The daily had quoted several examples allegedly narrated by Pinto during his 8 December address at a workshop in Bangalore on “harassment of neglected women”.

Pinto has written to the AAB stating that he had been misquoted by the media.

The AAB presently has no other evidence of the alleged remarks made by him, except the DH report, but the body is reportedly, “in the process of obtaining the audio transcripts of the speech made by Justice Pinto at the workshop to bolster its stand”.

Pinto is a judge of the Karnataka HC since March 2010. [India Today]

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Altamas Kabir, justices SS Nijjar and J Chelameswar stayed a May 2012 Delhi high court order that suspended a government rule requiring Supreme Court and high court judges to inform the home and external affairs of their foreign trips.

After the SC accepted the law ministry’s petition, judges will now again have to notify official and personal visits abroad at least 15 days before the date of travel. The Delhi high court had quashed the rule of the government circular because it lowered the dignity of the constitutional posts of the judges [IANS]

Rajasthan’s high court (HC) chief justice of two years and former NLSIU Bangalore general council chairman Arun Mishra was appointed chief justice of the Calcutta HC. Kerala HC got three new permanent judges, and Karnataka HC got one new permanent judge also.

57-year-old Mishra practised as an advocate from 1978 to 1999, in which year he was appointed an additional judge of Madhya Pradesh HC. He was appointed a permanent judge of the court in 2001.

He was transferred to Rajasthan HC in September 2010, and in November he became the chief justice.

Kerala HC’s additional judges NK Balakrishnan, V Chitambareh, and AM Shaffique were made permanent judges of the court. Karnataka HC’s additional judge Arvind Kumar became a permanent judge of the court. [Netindian]