Urimaikku Kural Koduppom! 5z441p
This document was ed by and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this report form. Report r6l17
Overview 4q3b3c
& View Urimaikku Kural Koduppom! as PDF for free.
More details 26j3b
- Words: 21,809
- Pages: 445
- Publisher: Pustaka Digital Media
- Released Date: 2021-07-16
- Author: K.S. Radhakrishnan
https://www.pustaka.co.in
Urimaikku Kural Koduppom!
Author: .
.
K.S. Radhakrishnan
For more books
https://www.pustaka.co.in/home/author/ks-radhakrishnan
Digital/Electronic Copyright © by Pustaka Digital Media Pvt. Ltd.
All other copyright © by Author.
!
All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review.
1.
2.
-
3.
4.
!
!
!
5.
6.
7.
9.
8.
:
!
10. 356-
11.
12.
13.
14.
–
15.
16.
?
17.
18.
19.
!
:
?
20.
21.
-
!
22.
:
23.
24.
-
; !
25.
!
-
;
!
26.
27.
28.
:
!
!!
-
29.
? I
30.
? II
31.
,
!
32.
33. “
34.
”
!
35. A DEPRIVED STATE
36. THRICE TO HANG - NEVER TO DIE THE HISTORIC CASE OF GURUSWAMI
.
.
. . .
,
-
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
!!
.
,
,
,
.
,
1986
(TESO)
, “
. ,
,
.
,
.
-
.”
“
!”
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
“
,
,
.
,
,
–
”
.
,
,
. “
” -
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
-
. 91
81 -
“
,
,
”
.
,
,
“
”
.
.
,
!
,
, 40
,
,
,
,
, ,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
“
”
,
,
,
,
(
)
,
,
“
”
,
.
,
,
,
“
,
.
, ”
,
,
.
,
-
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
-
.
,
.
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
. ,
,
!”
, “
,
.
,
,
!
!
24.11.1994
-
.
.
.
,
.
.
.,
(
)
– 600017 6.12.1994
.
“
“
!”
-
.”
!
!
,
, 356-
.
-
.
.
, ,
.
, ,
.
- .
, .
-
.
“
”
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.,
. . .,
– 600032 17.11.1994
.
.
!
.
“
”
.
.
,
. ,
1.
.13800
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
2.
.8600
.
, “
,
,
,
”
.
,
’
.
, ‘
(District Boards)
,
.
,
,
-
.
.
.
3.
-
,
.
, ,
-
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
-
. .
4.
,
,
,
, ,
.
,
,
,
, ,
.
,
.
,
,
“
”
.
5.
,
.
.
(Cold Storage)
.
,
.
, “
,
-
, . .1,000
.”
6.
,
,
.
, -
,
,
.
.
,
,
7.
.
.
,
.
,
8.
.
, .
,
,
,
.
, , ,
,
.
,
9.
.
, 20,000
.
,
.
.
,
,
’
.
11.
. , ‘
.
,
Market)
10.
. (International
.
.
. 10
,
.
.
.
12.
.
,
- , . ,
,
.
,
,
.
13.
. 3.75 . 31.50
.26.00
. 1960-
,
. 1966-
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
!”
,
.
“
.
,
14. “
,
,
,
, -
, ,
,
”
“
”,
,
–
“ ”,
.
-
.
. -
– 600017 15.10.1994
-
,
‘
’ -
.
.
!
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
‘
,
’
,
,
,
.
,
,
’ ,
,
, ‘
,
,
.
,
, ,
,
.
.
,
,
,
, .
.
,
1948 -
10-
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
65,000
,
,
.
,
, 48
, 350
290
.
. ,
.
.
,
, 82 .
1100
.
, .
. , 8.2
.
,
.
420
- ,
,
, ,
.
,
1956-
,
.
,
,
‘ ,
’
.
, 1992-
.
600
, 2000
?
.
,
,
66.5 .
2
.
. 75
-
‘
,
’ - ,
,
, -
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
, ,
, ,
,
.
,
.
,
.
-
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
-
.
,
.
,
.
-
.
,
-
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
, ,
,
...
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
-
,
.
,
...
.
.
-
.
25.10.94
!
.
.
.
.
36
,
.
,
.
.
“
;
”
,
“
;
,
.
,
-
.
,
,
,
***
.
!
”
,
;
,
,
, .
, .
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
***
.
.
,
.
;
!
.
.
?
-
,
,
.
1.
:
,
.
,
2.
3.
.
.
.
.
.
4.
.
,
. (
,
,
.
,
,
,
)
- ,
-
.
.
.
.
“
.
,
!
.
;
”
,
,
?
***
, , .
,
.
.
.
-
.
,
-
-
.
?
.
; .
,
.
.
.
, .
.
.
,
.
.
“
,
.
. ,
“
,
.”
***
:
?”
.
“
.
.
”
.
;
-
.
.
:
.
,
,
.
.
-
.
;
“
”
22.10.94
‘
’,
.
.
.
. .
,
.
-
’
, ‘
. ‘
,
-
,
’
,
,
.
,
.
,
‘
,
!’
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
, .
– ‘
.
.
!’
‘
’ ?
; ,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
, ‘
.’
,
,’
1965-
37
.
,
115
.
.
.
‘
-
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
, .
- .
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
, .
.
(Topicality)
. .
, .
. !
!
-
.
– 600104 4.10.1994
!
.
“
!”
,
.
, , .
,
.
-
.
,
-
,
,
(Public interest litigations)
,
,
. ,
.
,
. ,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
, ,
,
,
-
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
18-
.
,
.
.
, ,
.
.
,
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
28.11.1994
!
.
,
.
-
.
,
,
.
.
,
...
.
.
,
.
.
, .
,
.
,
,
,
.
-
;
;
!
,
-
; ;
.
?
,
-
-
.
.
?
?
,
?
-
?
,
-
.
?
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
-
.
.
,
‘
-
?
, ,
-
, ,
?
.
,
?
,
’.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
-
- -
, .
-
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
. .
.
,
-
,
,
: , -
, Emotional politics
,
.
,
.
. ,
,
,
: ,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
...
. .
Answerablity
,
.
.
.
.
.
“
.
.
”
.
,
,
, .
-
,
-
,
spere me Shanker
.
–
Don't
9
. ,
-
,
,
,
. .
-
.
.
,
,
-
.
-
-
, “ ,
,
,
,
” -
, .
,
.
,
-
.
“
.
,
!”
.
,
.
,
, -
.
-
,
, .
,
.
,
,
. 1950-60, ,
,
.
,
,
,
, “
-
”
. ,
,
, ,
,
. ,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
. ,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
-
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
, .
.
.
, .
.
.
,
?
.
,
.
.
, “
”
,
.
.
,
.
,
, ,
“
,
, , Lex Juris, observer”
.
,
,
.
.
. .
.
, .
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
. .
.
, “
.
. . ,
” ,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
, .
. ,
,
.
.,
.
.
.,
)
.
.
(
,
.
,
,
.
–
600020 23.1.1995
.
.
1.
23.7.89
.
.
,
.
,
, ,
,
,
.
20, 25
.
(Infrastructure)
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
1.
.
.
.
19.5.89
.
. 7 ,
.
2.
.
, .
2
65
.
-
,
,
,
,
,
. 12
. 2 ”
“ 55.75
,
, ,
.
7-
.
3.
36
.
.
,
300 - 350 48
.
.
-
,
37 ; 115
1965
. ,
.
.
290
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
4.
,
.
.
.
6563
.
. 4000
.
,
,
-
.
-
, ,
326 .
,
Railway lines)
.
,
.
(MRTS)
(Circular
.
:
1.
2.
:
,
, 1980 - 81.
3.
5.
1984.
:
, 1971,
1,
,
8.2 1100
.
.
82
.
. ,
II-B (ii)
,
.
.
.
1976-
.
.
.
.
6.
1961-
100 10
.
. .
.
7.
- .
.
.
,
. 1985
.
,
. 1987-
,
.
.
420
163
. 125
. .
.
773.20
.
90
.
.
.
4.5 .
, .
, 80 . .
40 .
. .
80
. 3
, 1988 .
.
40
.
.
,
8.
,
.
.
.
43 ,
.
,
.
5
52
, 13
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
30
,
. 120
1985-86
. 8,961
70 86 2942 -
.
.
.
1969 - 70-
75
. 311
9
1969 ; 85
9
.
.
- “
” - 12.9.1989
***
1.
2.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
3.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
5.
4.
,
.
-8
1996
.
.
6.
.
,
.
,
.
. 1
2.
- !
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
‘
.
(Secularism) ’ (Theocratic)
,
’
.
. , ‘
. .
,
,
!
,
.
,
, .
,
.
,
,
, “
.
,
”
.
.
.
!
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
. ,
!
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
‘
’
.
, ,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
-
,
, ,
,
,
,
‘
’
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
‘
’
.
,
.
-
. 15-30 / 1993
3.
!
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
, ‘
’
(Presidential System) ? (Parlimentary System-ie, Westminster Type) . .
?
?
,
. (Rigidity) (Flexibility) .
Policy)
(Unitary) (Quasi federal)
(Directive Principles of State
.
-
, ,
.
. .
.
‘Other wise’
356
‘
’
.
‘
’
.
‘
.
. .
’ .
40
81
,
.
. ‘
’
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
1978-
.
,
.
(The Spirit
,
of Law)
,
“
:
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
. 1967,
.
.
.
.”
(ambiguity)
,
. 1946
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
40
.
205 )
, 26 (1971
.
, .
(CUSTOMS AND CONVENTIONS) ,
.
.
‘
’
. ,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
“While trying to transplant foreign institution model and concepts in our soil, we tend to forget that they evolved in their original environment over a long period of time, in a different millieu, and came to acquire their present shape and content only at a particular stage of development in their history” . “ , ,” .
“Constitutions are made for men; not for constitution”
.
-
.
-
.
.
?
1-15 / 1991
4.
!
‘
,
’
. ‘
’
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
“
”
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
, ,
.
?
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
;
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
, , .
.
,
.
,
.
1.
:
.
2.
.
.
,
.
,
. 1960-
300
30
,
.
.
5
15 .
10
, 10 1-50
.
,
,
5
.
.
.
.
.
72
.
20
.
,
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
, .
,
,
,
,
,
.
‘
’
,
.
,
“
)
, (
,
,
,
- ‘
, .”
-
1-15 / 1991
***
1.
. 100
.
5.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
(Agro based industries)
,
.
,
.
, .
,
.
-
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
;
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
-
***
7.7.1990
1. 1980-
,
14
.
.
2.
.
,
,
.
,
.
. ,
,
6.
!
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
, “I cannot in all conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows. God alone can take life because he alone gives it.” .
1976-
1975
. 3.09
1976 . 1983.
.
2.74
,
.
1985
1988-
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
. 1949-
,
18
.
75
.
70
, 76
, 78
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
1950-
1987-
1950
.
,
. 1967-
,
18
1956-
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
. 1949-
,
18
.
75
.
70
, 76
.
, 78
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
1950-
.
,
1987-
1950-
.
. 1967-
18
.
,
,
Vs
.
(Special . ,
19831980-
,
Courts)
1956-
.
(Rarest of rare
cases)
.
1930-
,
- 1984-
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
, .
.
capital Punishment)
.
‘
,
.
.
.
’ .
(Public
1985-
, “
”
1985-
.
.
‘
.
.
’
.
.
.
,
.
28.4.89
.
.
35
.
.
18
27
.
(Terrorist)
.
40
.
100 .
,
.
.
,
.
1955145
, .
, 1957-
.
, 1967
1985
.
. (Death penalty criminology prospective Nigerian
situation)
1975-
Washington)
(National Academy of Science, ,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
-
.
-
1-15 / 1991
7.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
,
.
.
.
,
‘
.
,
. ,
,
’
.
,
.
. .
. .
,
,
.
(Custodial deaths) . 11.4.91 . , , . 1,000/- . . 25,000/- . (Public Interest Litigation) ,
,
.
‘
.
4
5
.
’
.
.
.
,
(Prevention of Custodial death) ,
.
.
.
., ,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
302, 307 .
.
24 ,
.
.
, .
(Appeal)
.
,
.
Vs
:
“
,
,
21
.
.
.
,
.
. .
. 50,000/-
,
. 3,000/
.
,
.”
.
.
-
-
16-31 / 1991
***
1.
12
,
,
,
,
“
.
”
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
2.
,
.
. 2.6
8.
“
:
” (Human Rights Commission) , , .
“
.
!”
.
.
“
.
,
,
,
,
, . ,
’ ,
‘
’
‘
.
.
,
.
.
,
, .
” .
!
“
”
,
,
?
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
“
”
.
-
.
. ‘
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
’
.
‘
’
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
- .
.
,
,
,
. .
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
(
,
. )
.
,
,
.
.
. .
,
.
.
-
11.5.1993
***
1.
, ‘
’
2.
)
(
.
.
9.
‘
’
.
.
, ‘
,
’
.
,
,
? -
.
‘
(GATT - General Agreement on Tariff and Trade) . 26 . . 1986 , , , , , , , , , .
, ,
44
20
1991 .
.
, (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) (Trade Related Investment Measures) (Multilateral Trade Organisation) (General Agreement on Trade in Service) . . 70 . , , .
1960
, ,
.
, .
,
,
.
,
, ,
.
,
17.5
10
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
, .
.
.
-
.
(Patent Rights) 1970
.
,
.
,
15
,
7
.
.
,
, ,
, ,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
1970
.
,
.
. .
1970
10, 15
.
,
.
.
,
3
5
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
!
.
,
.
,
. ,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
1.
.
.
.
-
.
,
2.
.
.
.
3.
.
4.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
5.
.
6.
,
,
,
, .
8.
,
.
7.
,
.
.
.
,
!
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
-
,
.
6
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
2.
.
.
.
.
4.
.
. ,
3.
.
.
1.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
1991
250
. “
.
;
”
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
“
,
, ,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
. ,
,
.
.
;
,
”
.
,
.
- “
” 8.2.1994
***
1.
,
.
2.
,
.
10. 356-
1992-
,
,
,
-
356-
. ,
356
.
.
-
.
. .
9
.
356
.
.
356
)
,
;
)
,
-
;
)
-
-
-
,
.
,
,
,
, ,
,
2)
.
,
.
3)
.
,
,
,
,
;
, (
.
,
,
)
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
4)
(
)
,
.
.
-
,
,
(
)
,
.
.
,
, ,
,
,
,
.
(4)
,
(5) (3)
,
,
,
-
( )
,
,
,
,
( )
;
,
(3)
356
.
(Draft Constitution) 227( ) 93 , . 35 46 90 .
. 1935
.
1976
.
.
.
.
,
.
, .
.
,
.
.
. 1957-
.
,
1991
,
. .
. .
.
. .
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
-
,
.
.
, 356
, (istrative Law) .
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
1977-
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
356
.
,
.
,
,
.
1989-
, 1990-92
.
, .
.
1991-
,
.
. .
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
, ,
,
,
,
.
- ‘
’
94
***
1.
’
‘
156
.
.
11.
.
,
.
1860 .
.
.
,
1921-
.
,
,
.
1945-
.
.
.
1955
,
.
“
,
,
” ,
.
1963-
.
.
,
.
1965
.
.
37
.
,
.
1981-
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
1.
1981-82
;
.
2.
.
-
.
,
.
.
.
.
(
. 376
- 434
)
(
)
.
(
)
3.
130
- 340
.
.
4.
.
,
,
, ,
,
,
, ,
, .
5.
, ,
,
,
, ,
,
.
6.
,
.
7.
.
8.
,
, ,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
9.
. ,
.
10.
.
11.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
. 1981-82
.
- “
” 7.12.1988
12.
,
.
.
,
.
‘
’
.
,
.
,
1974-
‘
’
.
,
,
,
.
.
. 1950-
.
.
.
.
. ,
,
.
... .
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
, ‘
’
,
,
.
,
. 50
23
. .
-
,
.
, ‘
,
’
.
.
,
.
, ,
.
.
,
.
.
.
. 1990
.
,
. ,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
Contempt Application 1980-90
.
1960-70
,
.
. ,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
, ,
,
.
. ,
,
,
.
- “
” 29.9.1993
***
1.
.
13.
,
. ,
.
.
,
,
.
.
‘
’
,
,
,
.
.
,
89-
,
,
.
,
,
“
”
.
.
.
. ,
.
.
,
,
;
1.
,
. ,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
. .
2.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
3.
.
,
,
.
.
4.
,
,
.
.
5.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
8.
7.
6.
.
,
,
9.
356-
.
,
11.
.
.
,
5
.
10.
,
.
,
,
.
12.
,
13.
,
.
-
.
,
14.
.
.
,
.
.
15.
,
16.
,
17.
.
.
.
,
18.
,
.
19.
20.
.
21.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
- “
” 2.9.1993
***
1. 83-
.
2.
,
.
.
.
3.
.
14.
–
,
,
,
,
, ,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
“
.
”
30% . .
.
29%
,
,
, 35%-
.
.
. 1,350
.
.
. 2,500
.
. .
.
.
, .
.)
850
11
.
.
.
8.20
1,100
(
.
.
85 . 1,98,000 1
25
.
1978
. 1976
.
,
,
.
11
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
, 150
18
. . .
,
,
. . .
. . .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
,
280 .
230
180 2 5 ,
,
.
77
.
.
. 9
. .
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
. 320
. .
.
, .
,
.
, 1956
380
.
.
,
160
.
.
,
9,000
.
.
,
,
16
.
.
160 110
.
.
. .
. .
. .
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
8
.
.
,
.
.
- “
” 2.11.86
***
1.
. (W.P.No.6207/83)
2.
,
. , 30
.
.
3.
-
,
-
.
.
.
.
.
15.
.
.
“
.
”
(
-
)
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
14
.
’
‘
.
‘
,
4,398
.
’
,
,
,
.
?’
, ‘
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
. ‘
’
.
‘
’
,
.
,
‘
. ’
.
.
(
.
) ,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
. ‘
’
.
19161937-
1883-
.
.
, 1893
,
.
. 1839-1896 183 (1.5.1918) - .
.
,
)
.
,
.
.
, ,
.
,
16.
?
.
1956
,
.
,
,
,
.
210 100
.
,
600
.
.
,
.
.
35.5
.
‘ .
’
.
46
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
. ( ‘
’
.
)
.
.
(1956)
.
.
.
.
2,000
.
,
‘
.
’
. . ., ’ ,
‘
.
710
?
. .
.,
200
.
.
.
. 30,000/-
.
,
.
2
3
.
1978
,
.
2
3 4
1988
. 210
1986
.
.
7
. 1989
,
11.2.1992
,
. 240 .
.
1991-
.
8-
210
8-
,
.
.
.
31.8.1992
8-
,
29.10.1992
750
.
.
600
150
. .
350 .
.
, ,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
. .
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
66.5
.
.
, ‘
.
. 4
.
.
’
. 2.75
. 1.22
.
,
.
200
,
.
.
‘
’
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
. ,
,
Memorandum of Understanding 11 ‘ ’ ,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
8
.
,
.
.
,
,
‘
.
’
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
- “
.
”
25.2.1994
17.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
, ,
.
.
.
.
155
,
.
60 .
.
,
,
.
. 1960-
,
. . 400
.
.
. .
200
. 1976 .
.
.
,
10
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
-
.
. 1983 -
-
-
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
. ,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
10
.
1
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
1.
,
. .
,
.
.
,
-
2.
,
-
.
.
.
.
.
3.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
4.
,
,
.
,
.
,
5.
.
,
,
-
6.
,
,
,
,
7.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
8.
,
-
,
.
.
.
,
.
9.
,
.
10.
,
.
11.
.
.
12.
-
,
.
.
,
.
13.
,
.
- “
”
18.
,
.
. ,
,
,
!
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
. ,
.
,
.
, ,
,
,
,
,
-
.
-
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
“
, .
.
”
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
?
?
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
43
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
- “
” 28.10.1993
19.
:
.
1924-
,
?
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
1972-
,
,
.
.
.
.
, .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
,
‘
.
’
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
205
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
356
.
,
,
.
.
.
. .
,
,
. .
.
.
1. 1924-
2.
28.2 .
393
,
,
.
.
.
. .
4.
.
.
.
5. 1972-
3. 1974-
.
,
.
6.
.
7.
,
.
,
,
.
.
1990 , . .
.
,
‘
.
. . .
.
. . .
,
.
. .
’
.
,
-
,
.
- “
” 10.12.1993
***
1.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
2.
.
.
3.
‘
506
.
.
.
:
.
,
,
.
.
1.
.
1924
, 50
. 2.
,
,
“
’
.
.
. 3. 1974 ,
.
. 4. 1989
“
”
.
,
,
1924-
50
. 1974
.
(8)
10(4)
,
,
-
.
10(10)
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
1924-
.
.
,
, .
.
. 1924
1924
.
, ,
,
.
1910
.
.
1974-
.
,
.
“
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
1989
.
.”
2
;
. 1990
20.
!
.
.
,
,
.
80
.
,
,
,
(Right to Recall) .
.
.
.
Vs (Tex Civ App; 109 SW - 21 = 251. 254 Black Law Dictionary 1989 Edition; Jones Vs Harian.)
.
,
,
,
“
”
‘
.
’
,
. “
(Nepotism)
” ‘
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
-
,
. .
,
.
,
,
.
Checks and balances
,
.
,
,
,
, (1936)
16-
.
,
,
.
, .
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
- “
” 16.8.1993
***
1.
.
.
.
.
21.
-
,
,
.
,
.
,
, ‘
’
. .
. ,
.
.
(
)
,
.
,
.
. . 17.50
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
. ,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
1981
,
.
, ,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
“
.
,
.
,
.
.
155
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
‘
,
.
’
,
.”
,
.
-
?
.
.
.
.
, 1950-
,
.
19
.
.
. 1969-
-
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
-
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
-
.
.
“Governor is to be formally The Constitutional Head with strictly limited powers whose discharge alınost all functions would be required to follow the advise of the Ministry” . , , , . . .
.
.
.
,
,
, .
,
,
.
.
,
.
-
.
.
,
.
.
. .
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
(Mutual Checks and Balances) . , “As a friend, Philospher guide to the State Government and defender of the Constitution. The Office of the Governor assumes crucial role in a Federal set up. He will be called upon to exercise his discretionery powers in the event of the breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State (Soli J.Sorabjee)” , , . .
154, 160, 161, 162 . 356 , .
,
.
.
.
- “
”
14.1.1994
22.
: !
.
. .
.
,
4.10.91
.
. .
.
. (
)
(
) 1919-
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
1985-
.
, .
.
.
,
, .
,
1935-
,
, 1969 -
.
14.5.85
,
.
.
,
.
. .
.
,
.
168, 169
.
,
, “I also agree with that view, that the idea of second chamber prevent and check hasty legislation". , . 1/3 171 (1) . Vs (AIR 1959 MP 353) , . , , , .
.
, ,
.
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
. ,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
, ?
,
.
,
.
,
-
.
-
,
,
,
“
.
.
. .
,
,
,
.
”
,
.
.
.
. .
“
.
”
.
” . .
, “
.
-
.
‘
,
,
.
.
’
, .
.,
,
,
, , .
,
.
.
.
.
.
.,
. .
.
– “
.
” -
. 16-31 / 1991
23.
; !
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
. ,
,
,
,
6
9
.
?
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
-
,
.
(1969
)
, ,
.
,
,
;
.
.
.
.
:
,
,
2.
.
,
,
1.
-
, .
.
3.
,
4.
.
, ,
,
5.
.
6.
,
,
8.
.
,
.
9.
.
,
7.
-
.
,
, .
,
.
,
10.
-
.
,
.
11.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
‘
’
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
, ,
.
,
, ,
.
- “
”
***
1.
.
, 1968-
,
.
,
,
.
.
2.
.
. .
.
,
3.
.
. .
24.
-
,
;
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
, ,
.
,
. -
.
,
, ,
.
. .
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
-
.
,
, -
.
-
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
-
-
,
,
,
, ,
.
,
‘
’
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
'
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
- .
“...
,
,
.
,
;
”
-
. .
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
. ,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
‘
’
,
. 'Blackmail'
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
. .
,
.
,
;
,
,
- “
.
”
1-15/1994.
***
1.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
2.
.
,
,
,
.
25.
;
!
1975-
,
.
,
.
.
.
, ,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
. 70
50
“
‘
‘
.
.
’
’
.
,
”
.
.
70%
37
30
.
15
.
.
7500 .
.
, 100
2
. .
100
1981
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
, , ,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
540
.
.
. .
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
, ,
,
15
. '
,
.
,
.
4.4.
,
.
.
. .
25
1.4
.
, -
-
60%
-
.
-
.
,
.
.
,
1980-
.
.
37
.
.
.
,
.
.
. ,
.
, ‘
’
.
,
.
.
. ,
, ,
, ,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
’
. ‘
Vs
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
‘
,
,
.
.
,
, 1990
.
,
, .
, (ENVIRONMENT AUDIT)
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
- “
.
” -
. 1-15 / 1991
26.
: !!
!
.
,
,
, (
)
.
.
. 1,200
,
.
,
.
1950
.
. 1978-
.
. 1956 . . . . 1971
,
.
1986
, - 1930, - 1950, - 1955, - 1969, - 1969,
– 1976 .
,
1986
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
90
.
5
, 5
,
.
,
.
,
,
1
.
(
)
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
. ( . .
.
. 1989
Vs .
.5)
. ,
.
. 50,000/-
. Vs
Guj 26)
(AIR 1988
3
,
Vs
.
.
. 25,000/-
,
,
.
Vs (
5/88)
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 1,26,077 . 1,000/
. ,
.
-
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
. 1,500/-
.
11.00
.
.
,
,
.
Vs
.
,
.
,
.
.
. 1,000/-
,
,
. 250/ .
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
- “
?
” -
. 16-30 / 1991
***
1. 18.6.1993
.
,
.
27.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
1.
2.
-
-
3.
(
4.
(
) -
5.
) -
(
) -
6.
7.
(
-
) -
8.
(
)
9.
(
) -
10.
-
10
1976.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
. -
,
, ,
,
. ,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
15
,
1973-
,
,
,
.
.
18
.
.
,
1933
. 1989-
,
. .
29.12.79
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
16.12.1989-
.
.
, .
.
31.3.79
.
.
.
.
.
. 1979,
,
,
,
.
1986
1986-
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
, . .
.
.
,
,
.
.
19-
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
. ,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
, ,
-
.
.
.
. 60
,
,
,
.
,
. 1990
.
.
.
(
.
. .)
.
.
,
, .
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
28.
-
, ,
,
,
,
,
.
,
‘
.
’
.
.
,
-
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
;
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
(antiestablishment) .
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
, ,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
. ,
,
‘ ’ .
.
,
.,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
. 38
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
. .
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
80-
,
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
, ,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
‘
’
.
‘
-
’ . ‘
’
.
,
:
“In order to ensure that uniform standards are applied while exainining films dubbed in various languages, the Central Government as appellate authority has decided that there should be no censorship of the visuals in the case of dubbed films, provided the Censor Board is satisfied that the visuals of the dubbed versions are exactly the same as the visuals of the original certified version. The Board will henceforth examine dubbed films in the light of this decision.”
.
(workshop)
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
. ‘
’
.
‘
.
’
.
.
.
, .
.
,
. .
.
.
,
.
‘
’
. . ‘
’
‘
’
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
‘
.
‘
.
.
1977
.
.
.
, ’
,
’
.
(1952)
:
1.
:
.
2.
.
.
3.
.
.
:
1.
,
.
( )
:
; ‘
’
,
12
.
,
; .
( )
‘
’
;
,
,
. ‘ ’
; ‘
’
( )
.
( )
;
2.
.
( )
,
( )
( )
1.
, .
:
.
,
.
2.
,
.
,
3.
.
4.
.
,
,
,
,
.
5.
.
,
:
:
1.
( )
...
( )
4
1.
( )
‘ ‘
’ ’
;
,
.
‘ ’ ‘
.
’
( )
( )
-
(
)
.
2.
,
,
.
3.
10
,
.
1.
:
,
, ,
,
,
, ,
,
,
.
2.
(1)
.
:
.
.
.
.
, ‘
‘ ’
’
.
,
,
.
.
1.
:
( )
,
( ) ‘ ’
-
;
;
( ) ‘
’
;
( ) ‘
’
;
( )
.
,
.
,
,
.
2.
.
.
.
5-
:
.
,
“
.
.
,
.
40
, “
“
. . ”, ”,
“
“ “
” .”
,
.
10, 15
.
15
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
, 70, 80
.
.
.
”
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
2, 3
10, 15
.
,
”
,
.
,
.
***
1.
,
, ,
.
,
29.
“21
,
,
? I
.
. .
.
.”
.
-
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
, .
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
‘
. (Theocratical State) .
,
,
.
,
.
.
’
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
(Nepotism)
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
. ,
,
,
, . ,
, .
,
, ,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
, ,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
(Referendum) .
.
,
, .
,
.
. (Right to work)
,
, . .
.
.
,
.
. ,
, ,
.
,
,
.
,
! ,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
“
.
.
,
.
, (
,
.
”
...
)
!
30.
? II
Geometric Ratio
44 ,
, .
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
, ,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
“
”
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
-
- . 1967
, ,
.
, .
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
-
,
.
,
;
,
-
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
(Nepolism)
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
, (Right to work) .
,
.
(Referendum)
,
.
,
-
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
(Welfare State)
,
‘
.
,
,
.
.
.
‘
,
,
’ ,
,
,
, ,
. (Theocratical State)
, .
, . ’ ,
(Westminster System) , , ‘
- “
, - . , .
” -
. 16-31/ 1991
31.
!
,
,
1976
.
.
1983-
,
;
250
315 500 . 50
;
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
!
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
“
3.10.1991 , .
,
:
,
,
,
,
,
,
. 1974
, 1976
,
,
,
,
.”
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
. .
,
.
.
1983
1991
1303
236 . 486 . 51
50
. 135
.
, 205 .
.
. .
,
,
,
,
.
. 57 65
.
.
, 1974
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
, ,
.”
,
.
,
,
.
2.7.1980) .
,
: . 510/ 70
,
,
.
(
,
,
, 1947-
.
.
,
.
.
1
.
,
.
.
. 1955-
,
.
: “
.
.
.
.
”
.
1.
.
,
,
4 1000
.
:
.
2.
,
,
.
3.
4.
,
5.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
6.
7.
.
,
.
1. (Adiministrative Secretary) 20.4.1950 1929-1945
.
,
.
2.
(1943)
,
.
.
.
3. 1913
1928
,
15 ,
. 1936
,
.
4. 19.2.1922 . .
,
.
,
.
5. 4.2.1985
: 27.2.1922.
. (
.
134/85)
6. 1.7.1947
30.6.1949
,
. 26.7.1947. 278/48.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
-
,
-
,
.
-
.
,
,
,
.
-
.
.
, ,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
- “
”
- 11.3.1994
32.
.
1967-
.
.
-
,
,
,
,
.
,
. ,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
“
.
,
.”
23.11.1946 . . .
“
,
.
-
.
1947
14-
. .
.
“
.
.
” “
”
.
,
.
,
.
.
-
,
“
.
. , ,
,
.
.
.
.
. . . ,
.
. ,
,
”
,
,
.
,
. .
, ,
.
. .
.
.
.
.
1977
,
,
.
. .
.
,
.
,
.
-
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
-
.
.
,
258-
.
.
,
.
,
,
. 1947-
.
,
.
‘
.
,
.
.
’
, 20
,
.
!
,
42
.
.
?
?
.
.
-
?
1967-
,
.
,
, ,
.
356
.
-
.
,
.
.
.
,
1967
,
.
,
.
. 1947
. 1967
.
.
-
.
-
.
,
.
. ,
.
.
-
.
,
, .
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
(Welfare State)
,
.
,
,
, -
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
“
, .
”, “
”
,
,
,
1.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
40
50
.
2.
60%
.
.
.
,
,
,
3.
.
,
,
. 275
,
,
.
4.
.
,
.
.
75%
,
.
25% .
-
.
100%
5.
,
.
: -
,
1.7.82
, 50%
. 30.6.1982 31.3.1982
.
5 .
.
.
,
269
.
,
, 75%
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
8-
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
83-
23.23%
40%
.
. 1982-
:
-
-
.
,
35
,
,
,
,
.
-
.
. ,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
, ,
,
.
.
.
.
.
-
,
.
,
-
.
,
:
“ -
256, 257 .
7
,
(
.
)
.
.
.
.
,
.
8
.
.
.
.”
.
11.12.1947-
.
“
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.”
1916-
‘
19 ’ -
,
.
,
3.4.1946-
,
,
, ,
.
.
-
,
-
.
.
,
.
,
,
. ,
.
,
8-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
- “
” -
***
1.
.
.
. 95
33. “
”
!
‘
,
’
.
.
.
“Rule of Law”
.
. 1985-
1985
“
,
.
”
.
‘
’
.
52,998 ‘ ’
,
52,998 ‘ ’
1985 .
1993 .
434 0.8
.
,
-
.
‘
’
,
,
,
. ‘
,
.
‘
.
’
.
85
.
‘
’
.
.
’
, .
.
.
.
40
‘
’
,
‘
.
’
, ,
‘
’
.
‘
,
.
,
40
’
‘
1985
20-
.
.
‘
.
’
6.40
,
.
’
, ‘
‘
.
’
.
‘
.
’
.
’
‘
’
. ,
.
.
.
‘
.
,
,
’
.
,
,
. ,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
‘
’
’
, ‘
.
.
,
.
***
1.
.
2.
.
34.
-
,
.
. .
, ,
.
,
.
,
-
,
.
,
, ,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
Research (ICMR)
.
Council of Medical ICMR ,
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
. 1968-69 .
. 8 . 1970-71. ,
.
90
, 80
. 25
60
5
7
.
.
,
. .
.
,
.
,
.
, Patent Right .
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
” .
“
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
. 1970-
,
1980
.
,
,
,
.
.
‘ .
.
. .
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
20
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
35. A DEPRIVED STATE
TAMIL NADU, which was second only to Maharashtra in industrialisation in the fifties, today ranks thirteenth among the states of India. There are many reasons attributed for this downhill slide - lack of power, raw materials, shortage of water and an even more obvious lack of enterprise acutely evident in the over whelming desire to “play it safe” rather than take it as a venture.
But one major factor, the importance of which has not been sufficiently appreciated, is the lack of adequate central investment in Tamil Nadu. Many major projects have not been given the nod by New Delhi.
Most of the major industrial projects in Tamil Nadu, funded by the centre, had come up almost a quarter century ago. Some of these are the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Hindustan Teleprinters, The Bharat Heavy Electricals projects at Tiruchi, Madras Refineries at Manali, and the Integral Coach Factory at Perambur. But in the last two decades or so, it is clear that the centre has not shown any real interest in the industrial developinent of Tamil Nadu.
The colour film factory should have come up in the Hindustan Photo Films complex in Ooty. It would have been economical to locate the unit there since the expertise and infrastructural facilities were ready at hand. Instead, the centre, with N D Tiwari as the industries minister, put up a colour film unit in Nainital.
The tale of the Salem steel plant is one woe. As a manufacturer of ‘stainless steel’ it is among the top twelve in the world. But the centre has not allowed it to expand its production from 36,000 tonnes to 65,000 tonnes.
The Salem steel plant has been doing well, with its sheets commanding a good market in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, United States, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. The Salem unit had for long been asking the centre for a Sendzemir mill but it has only been sanctioned. But the other demand that the steel plant must be an integrated one is rebuffed.
Tamil Nadu has been asking for an aromatics complex in the Manali refineries, but the centre has been dilly daying. The aromatics plant here would greatly enhance the industrial potential of the Madras area, making it a major petro chemical producing centre in the country. It now looks as if, Tamil Nadu would have to wait endlessly for this project to come through.
One of the most crucial areas of neglect is that of infrastructure. Tamil Nadu has an excellent road system but it is sadly lacking in railways. There are very few broad gauge routes in the state. Also, sea routes could be exploited and these could turn out to be economical. But the centre had done precious little for these decades old pleas from the state.
In Tamil Nadu, out of a total of 6,563 Kms of railways, 4,000 Kms are metre gauge. With the increase in goods and enger traffic, metre guage has to be converted to broad gauge. But this is going at a snail's pace, with the budgetary allocations each year coming as shock to the people here. Right now, there are only two gauge conversion projects - the Karur - Dindigul route and the Tirunelveli Tuticorin routes. But the slow pace of the implementation of the project pains the people of the state. Elecrification of major routes has also not claimed the attention of the centre. While the centre is bent over backwards to build the Calcutta metro, the beach - Luz rapid transport system (MRTS) in Madras had made no progress, the budgetary allocation being meagre.
One of the most important projects, which have been virtually thrown into the garbage bin is the Sethusamudram project linking the gulf of Mannar with the Palk Strait, cutting across the Adam's bridge, which is a shallow rocky sea. If
this were implemented, Madras would become a major port and the sea route between east and west India could be opened. Many minor ports could come up along the coast which will boost trade. But the British, who first thought of the idea, apparently yielded to pressure from the Ceylon Government which feared that if this route were to be opened and Madras were to become a major port, Colombo would lose its status at the premier port east of Suez and west of Singapore. But if the British were indifferent, the post - independence governments in New Delhi have been no better.
In 1955, the noted industrialist and Sir A. Ramasway Mudaliar strongly urged the implementation of the project on strong economic grounds. But it all fell on deaf ears. In 1963, the Fourth Five Year Plan had the scheme in it. But even so, little was done to give it a concrete shape. In 1965, however a committee under V.C. Venkateswaren went into the merits of the scheme. The committee stated that the project would cost Rs.37 crore but income from it would be to the order of Rs one crore per year. But as this report was gathering dust in one of the Bhavans of New Delhi, the government appointed yet another committee to go into the merits of the project again, but this time, too, there was precious little follow up action, despite any number of questions in Parliament from Tamil Nadu MPs. On March 12 / 1986, the DMK MP, V. Gopalsainy, was told by the minister concerned, Rajesh Pilot, that the project was not being implemented because of financial constraints. Many wounders if the cost is more than that of the extravagance the government and the ministers are indulging in.
And look at the benefits! The distance between Tuticorin and Madras would be reduced by 434 miles. The distance between Tuticorin and Vizag would be reduced by 376 miles, and between Tuticorin and Calcutta, the distance would be 340 Miles less.
As a result of the canal, ports like Tuticorin, Rameswaram, Nagapattinam, Karaikal, Cuddalore, Pondicherry, Vizag and even Calcutta, would get more business and grow. The development of the Tuticorin port would in turn develop the dry and backward districts of Tirunelveli, Ramanathapuram and Madurai
districts. With the development of broad gauge lines in this area. Goods can brought to the ports and trade, industry and commerce would expand. The development of these backward areas is crucial for checking the infiltration and influence of foreign militant and anti-national forces. The troubled conditions in Sri Lanka make it imperative that these employment opportunities created for the youth. Sea transport is always less expensive than road or rail transport, for the goods are carried in great bulk. Its development would give an impetus to the economy. Economists assert that the cost of the project can be recovered in about a decade. Even so, why does the centre has shelved the project?
Tamil Nadu is short of electricity because it neither has coal nor water. But there are ever so many rivers in neighbouring Kerala which empty into the Arabian Sea. The waters of these rivers could be diverted to Tamil Nadu and help irrigate 8.2 lakh acres. As of now, 1,100 TMC of water is emptied into the sea and out of this, even if 82 TMC are diverted to Tamil Nadu, miracles could be worked. Small power projects could be set up and the border areas could be made a hospitable ground for the growth of industry. But what has the centre done? As usual, it appointed an expert committee in 1976 to go into the question. The committee gave a number of proposals which could benefit both Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
- The Business and Political Observer / 15.8.1991
36. THRICE TO HANG - NEVER TO DIE THE HISTORIC CASE OF GURUSWAMI
It was the 27th of September, 1984. Suspense was mounting in the halls of the Madras High Court - the final verdict for a seven year old case was to be pronounced. If the verdict was against the Petitioner, India would lose the rightful descendant of its foremnost freedom fighter Veerapandia Kattabomman, the pioneer of the Indian Independence struggle whose name and fame still reverberate in our ears. However, if the verdict went in favour of the Petitioner, the case of Guruswamy would be unique in the legal history of our country where hanging for any culpable offence is not uncommon.
During the emergency in 1977, Mr. V. Gopalsamy, D.M.K. Rajya Sabha M.P., was taken into custody under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act and imprisoned at Palayamkottai, Tamil Nadu. It was there that he came across his fellow prisoner, Guruswamy, who convicted of murder, was awaiting execution by hanging. His death sentence was already confirmed thrice on 15th June 1977, 15th September 1981 and 21st June 1984. His petitions for clemency to the Government of India having been rejected thrice, Guruswamy was reconciled to be gathered to his forefathers. He was sentenced to death by the Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, in S.C. No.87 of 1976. The Special Leave petition filed by the condemned prisoner was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 1977. Regular conversations between Mr. Gopalswamy and Guruswamy revealed that a dispute over family property had been concocted by Guruswamy's maternal uncle and a serious struggle for property ensued between the two. Guruswamy's uncle drove him out of the village and therefore he had to spend a part of his life incognito and finally he returned homeward to resume farming his lands. When his uncle set upon him with weapons in hand, Guruswamy struck back in self defence, causing the death of his uncle.
Upon hearing all this, Mr. Gopalswamy was determined to save Guruswamy from the gallows and approached the then President of India, His Excellency
Sanjiva Reddy, with a Memorandum signed by as many as 38 of Parliament. The President was moved as he was well aware of the labour of Guruswamy's illustrious forefather, Veerapandia Kattabomman whose statue he had once unveiled at Kayatharu in Tirunelveli District. Unfortunately the mercy petition fell through for the second time (the first petition was also rejected) and the date of execution was fixed as 15th September 1981.
Once again, on 8th September 1981, Mr. Gopalsamy submitted a Memorandum signed by 50 M.Ps. to the President, and was directed to submit the same to the Minister of State for Home, Mr. Venkata Subbiah. The then Home Secretary, succeeded in convincing the Minister that the Government had authority to stay the sentence. By now, it was already the 9th of September, just 5 days ahead of the death knell being rung for Guruswamy. The Execution was put off but not quashed. Meanwhile the Home Department directed the Tamil Nadu Government to the bonafides of Guruswamy's direct lineage to Veerapandia Kattabomman. Execution was delayed for a year till the verification was Complete and his case was recommended for commutation. However, it was only a one year reprieve, for President Zail Singh's Secretariat rejected the mercy petition on the ground that no law could extenuate a criminal in consideration of his being the direct descendant of a freedom fighter.
At this juncture, Hon'ble Justice Chinnappa Reddi of the Supreme Court has pronounced in a far reaching Judgement that, considering the prolonged detention at the condemned cell, a death sentence may be commuted to a life sentence. On the strength of this judgement another petition was submitted to President of India on the plea that Guruswamy had already been languishing in prison for five long years. It was already the 14th of June, 1984 and the date of execution being fixed as 21st June; petitions for stay of execution were filed both before the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court. Mr. Radhakrishnan, Advocate and General Secretary, Tamil Nadu Kamaraj Congress, undertook the responsibility of filing the affidavit in public interest and leading senior lawyers like Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai and Mr. I. Subramaniyan agreed to appear in court for no consideration. Mr. Radhakrishnan's affidavit set out that the sentence of death is justifiable only in the following circumstances:
(a) In the ‘rarest of rare cases’, where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed;
(b) In the case of professional murderers who deserve no sympathy even in of the evolving standards of decency of a matured society.
(c) In cases where there is no one for the murdered to ;
(d) In cases where life imprisonment proves absolutely inadequate
The affidavit was ated by a goodwill certificate from all the 150 prisoners and the jailors of the Palayamkottai Central Prison.
Amidst all this din and hustle, the only person who patiently and agonisingly waited for events to run their course was Guruswamy himself and his only wish was that if his life was to be taken, his body should be handed over to Mr. Gopalsamy.
The day of last judgement arrived. Their Lordships Justice V. Ramaswami, now Chief justice of Punjab and Haryana and Justice David Annousamy pronounced;
“If professional murderers can be excused from being hanged, it should only be just that the descendent of a freedom fighter too be saved from climbing the gallows. I order the death sentence quashed and commute the sentence to life imprisonment”
Their Lordships cited the decision of the Supreme Court in T.V. Vaitheeswaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1983 S.C. 361) where in it was held that delay exceeding two years in the execution of a death sentence should be considered sufficient to entitle the person under sentence of death to invoke Article 21 of the Constitution of India and demand the quashing of the death sentence. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Sher Singh - Vs - State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1983 S.C.465) was also cited wherein it was held that prolonged delay in executing a death sentence is an important consideration for deterinining whether the sentence should be allowed to be executed, but that delay exceeding 2 years would not be itself be sufficient for commutation. It has been held in the case of Bachan Singh - vs - State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 898) that the death sentence is to be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases, and their lordships of the Madras High Court were of the definite opinion that the case of Guruswamy did not fall in the category of such cases.
The long drawn seven year battle to save the life of a condemned prisoner did not go in vain. Guruswamy is now spending his life terin as a convict warden and is expected to his family shortly, the life sentence being reduced on of his good conduct.
Had Guruswamy been hanged, he would have followed his ancestors to the grave. But this unprecedented verdict will go down in the annals of Indian jurisprudence as it has for the first time in the country's legal history saved one doomed to death, not once but thrice.
- LEX ET JURIS The Law Magazine December - 1987
,
–
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
200
,
.
64
, .
. 654
.
,
-
,
-
, ,
-
-
-
,
,
-
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
“ .
“
.
” “
. ”,
” .
“...
“
,
;
...”
.
‘ ’ ( ) (Soverignty) ? (Political Sovereignty) (Constitution) . (Legal Sovereignty) ( ) ( ) . , ?
,
‘
’
? .”
“…
(Federal form) . ,
from)
,
;
(Unitary
.
,
,
.”
“
.
,
,
,
.”
“...
,
.
.
,
.
.
-
. ,
-
...”
“...
(Spearhead)
.
(
.
(
“
? )
)
; (
)
...”
, 1969 “ ,
“
!
.
” (Ilome Rule)
.
” (Hail the Dawn) “ ”
,
,
(
.
,
.
.
;
.
,
.
, ,
)
.
. .
,
.”
ESTIMATES COMMITTEE (1981-82)
(Seventh Lok Sabha)
Thirty Second Report Ministry of Shipping and Transport.
C. SETHUSAMUDRAM PROJECT
9.42 Is has been represented to the committee that at present India does not have a continuous navigable route around the peninsula running within her own territerial waters, due to the presence of Sand Stone Reef called Adams Bridge at Pamban between South Eastern coast of India near Rameshwaram and Talai Manar of Sri Lanka where the depth navigable is only 11 feet. As a result all ships from the West to East and from Tuticorin Port to the West have to go round Sri Lanka. Hence the question of excavating an artificial canal known as Sethusamudram similar to Suez Canal and Panama Canal to enable the ships to through these reefs had been under consideration for a long time. It has been urged before the Committee that this project is of national importance not only for the efficiency of Tuticorin Port but also for national shipping. It is a dredging project and can be taken up by the Dredging Corporation of India. It is felt that the project is economically viable and technically feasible and should be undertaken as soon as possible as a national project in the national interest.
9.43 Secretary, Shipping and Transport informed the Committee that this idea
had been there for the last 30 years and had once even been dropped. But recently it has been taken up again. A committee has now been set up and it is going into the technical and economic viability of the project. The report of this committee has not yet been received.
9.44 Asked whether any senior officer of Defence Services had been associated by the Committee so that strategic consideration was also taken into consideration Secretary (Shipping and Transport) stated that recently a proposal to associate an officer from Navy had been approved.
9.45 Secretary added that the main point was that it was considered economically not viable and his personal views was that it might not be economically viable even now because it would cost Rs.200 crores, It has to have return in of money. In his view not many ships would as there would be one-way traffic. A ship might have to pay something like Rs.1 lakh if it wanted to cross such a channel, which is a very high charge. The main constraint was the financial aspect.
9.46 When asked if apart from the monetary consideration the construction of this canal was desirable, the Secretary stated:
“I should say that it is definitely desirable.”
9.47 It was brought to the Committee's notice that in a memorandum presented to Special Techno Economic Appraisal Committee, that following benefits of the proposed Sethusamudram canal had been enumerated:
a. Since India does not have a Continuous Navigable Sea Route around its
Peninsular Coast of 3554 miles in length, running within her own territorial waters, the necessity for cutting a ship canalacross the rocky barrier called Adam's Bridge, to connect Indian Ocean with Bay of Bengal had been felt even from 1960 onwards.
b. Since the Tuticorin Harbour Project and Sethusamudram projects formed “Twin projects” and since the Tuticorin Harbour has been completed and commissioned even in 1974,the Sethusamudram project has to be taken up and completed without further delay.
c. This ship canal will give better shaltered sea route from Tuticorin to various ports on the East Coast as below:
d. Saving in Fuel: Because of the saving in distance as indicated above, there will be considerable saving in fuel and consequently it would reduce our expenditure in foreign exchange by atleast Rs.130 crores every year.
e. Quicker turn about: Because of the saving in distance and saving in fuel the ships will have quicker turn - about leading to appreciation by 20 percent in performance of coast Shipping and 5 percent in Foreign Shipping Trade.
f. Earning Foreign Exchange: Considerable foreign exchange could be earned because the foreign ships ing through canal would be paying their canal dues in foreign currency.
g. Coastal shipping and Coastal Trade: Because of the saving in distance and due to availability of direct route along the coast, Coastal shipping and Trade would develop rapidly and consequently the Minor Ports along the East Coast especially those in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, will develop at a rapid stride. This will incidentally reduce the load and congestion on Railways and Roadways.
h. This will help fisherman from the South to go to the areas in Bay of Bengal for fishing in mechanised boats and launches and will thus develop the Districts of Tirunelveli and Ramanathapuram and other backward areas all along the coast of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. This will also give protection to our fishermen, who are repeatedly being attacked by Sri Lanka's naval ships and also by the naval ships of other south eastern nations.
i. From strategy and naval point of view, this ship canal will be a great asset for protection of the Indian Coast and Naval Officers have shown keen interest right
throughout.
j. This project will develop the Backward Districts of Ramanathapuram and other ading backward coastal areas.
k. This will help rehabilitation of repatriates from Ceylon and Burina and there will be innumerable other benefits which could not be visualised or estimated immediately.
9.48 The desirability of taking up Sethusamudram project providing for an artificial canalacross the rocky barrier called Adam's Bridge to connect the Indian Ocean with the Bay of Bengal similar to Suez and Panaina canals has been represented before the committee. It is claimed that the project is economically viable and technically feasible and should be undertaken as a national project in national interest.
9.49 While Secretary, Shipping and Transport had doubts about its econoinic viability and felt that the main constraint was the financial aspect, he categorically stated that apart from monetary considerations the construction of Sethusamudram project was “definitely desirable”. The Government it is stated, has set up an expert committee to go into the technical and economic viability of the project once again. The committee hope that besides examining techno economic viability the committee will also consider the strategic importance of the channel for the country's defence, and the Government will take an early decision in the matter which will be in larger interest of the nation. The committee would like to be informed about the recommendation of technical committee and action taken there on.
D. CAPITAL DREDGING IN TUTICORIN
9.50 It has been represented to the committee that Tuticorin port has a draft of 30 feet. The draft can be increased by 5 feet if capital dredging is undertaken along with maintenance dredging. It has been brought to the Committee's notice that capital dredging is very essential to make Tuticorin Port suitable for bigger ships to meet the nationas needs. The proposal it is stated was included in the sixth Plan earlier but dropped later on.
9.51 The Ministry have stated that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was contemplating to deploy 35,000 DWT geared vessels to transport coal from Haldia to Tuticorin to meet the requirement of coal for the Thermal Power Project and accordingly pressing the port to improve the drought by deepening the channel. Similarly M/s Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation was also pressing to deepen the port to facilitate them to charter deep droughted vessels for fertiliser raw materials and finished products. Accordingly the port formulated a proposal to improve the droughts up to 10.1 m(33 ft) at a cost of Rs.13.00 crores. The scheine was dependent on the improvement of draught to Haldia Port as coal was to be shipped from this port.
9.52 Considering the complex problem of improving the draft of shipping channel to Haldia and paucity of funds, the scheme was not included in the sixth Plan as, within the available resource, inore definitive schemes were available and had to be included.
9.53 During evidence Secretary, Shipping and Transport stated that the Tuticorin bed is all rocky and so the dredging is very difficult. If we go 5 feet down, it will cost something like Rs.30 crores, If not more. From the economic point of view, to deepen it is not viable because it is mainly handling coal which comes from Haldia. Haldia is 30 ft. That ship which is Haldia can negotiate Tuticorin. If Haldia is deepened to 35 ft. We could have bigger ship bringing coal 10 Tuticorin. But Haldia is 30 ft. We feel that there is a possibility of our taking up the scheme in the Seventh Plan.
9.54 The need for capital dredging at Tuticorin Port to increast its draft by 5 feet has been represented to the committee. It has been stated that capital dredging is very essential to make Tuticorin Port suitable for bigger ships to meet the national needs. The Ministry has stated that deepening of draft at Tuticorin Port is linked with the scheme for improvement of draft of shipping channel 10 Haldia port from which bigger ships carrying coal are expected to sail to tuticorin. But considering the complex problem of improving the draft at Haldia and paucity of funds, the Tuticorin scheme was not included in the Sixth Plan. The committee take note of the observation made by secretary, shipping and Transport that there is a possibility of the Ministry taking up the capital dredging scheme for Tuticorin in the Seventh Five Year Plan.
E. DRAFT FOR 1, 00,000 DWT SHIPS
9.55 It was brought to the committee's notice that the trend all over the world is to commission bigger and bigger ships of 1 lakh DWT and above requiring deeper draft.
9.56 The committee wanted to know whether the Ministry had studied the international trend in this regard and review the drafts available in major Indian ports in this context.
9.57 Secretary, Shipping and Transport, stated during evidence that “We are aware that the ships have been getting bigger and bigger in the last 35 years. Of course, we are not sure how much bigger we will become in future. But we do it that the ships have become bigger and certain ports of India are not tailored to take those ships. The only port which could take 100 thousand DWT ships is Vizag. We hope that some day, the country will also handle the ships of bigger size.”
9.58 The committee wanted to know the steps being taken to make Indian ports usable for bigger ships 1, 00,000 DWT and above. Secretary stated that “We are in the process of putting up to the Public Investment Board a proposal in respect of Madras Port. This is under active consideration.” Another representative of the Ministry stated that there were a few other ports where basic infrastructural facilities were available, such as Salaya. At Bombay also a port is being constructed and this would take about 1, 00,000 DWT vessels. Cochin could also take about 1, 00,000 DWT vessels. This could be deepened further in course of time. The Secretary added that “Deepening a harbour is just nothing but money. It is a question of spending more crores of rupees. It is not a new technology. We have to introduce heavy dredging.”
9.59 Asked about the position at New Mangalore, Secretary stated that “It was designed for 12.5 metres. It is taking about 60,000 DWT. We have again redredged it up to 12.5 metres and we may dredge it upto 15 metres as soon as business picks up.”
9.60 At present the only port which could take 1, 00,000 DWT ships is Vishakhapatnam. Cochin too could take such ships. A proposal to make Madras port usable for bigger ships is also under active consideration of the Government. At Bombay also a port is being constructed to take about 1, 00,000 DWT vessels. New Mangalore port with a draft of 12.5 metres can take about 60,000 DWT vessels, and it can be dredged further upto 15 metres as soon as the business there picks up. The Committee feel that the Ministry should keep the international trend of commissioning bigger and bigger ships under watch and plan well in advance to make Indian ports usable for bigger ships so as to keep pace with the international trend.
SETHU CANAL PROJECT
Rajya Sabha proceedings on 12.3.86
SHRI V. GOPALSAMY: Mr. Chairman, Sir, this most vital Sethusamudram project is pending for the past 120 years. On the recommendation of the Ramasamy Mudaliar Committee the project was cleared in the union cabinet meeting on 13th Spetember, 1963. It was sanctioned for advance action, but when there was an unreasonable request from Sri Lanka not to carry on with the project as it will hamper their own economic interest, this project was shelved. The Hon.Minister has now said that there are constraints of funds. Sir, this is not a development project. This is a project which is very vital for security reasons, in the interest of India. So, when there is a will there will be a flow of funds also but there is no will from your side. That is why you are talking about the constraints of funds. Will the Minister reconsider this, get the sanction from the Cabinet and get the project cleared this year itself?
SHIRI RAJESH PILOT: Mr. Chairman, I do share the feeling of the Hon. Member. Government is aware of the importance of the project, but because of the funds we are still on the way to take a decision.
SHRI V. GOPALSAMY: Mr. Chairman, sir, there is a grave threat from Indian Ocean to the security of India. This is because of the in Diego Garcia by the US and attempt to get in Trincomalee another base. These ships have to go via. Sri Lanka that will come within the striking range of Sri Lanka. For these reasons, for strategic and security reasons, will the Government take an immediate decision to implement this vital Sethusamudram project. If it is implemented, these ships need not go via Sri Lanka.
SHRI RAJESH PILOT: As I have mentioned, when Government considers things, all factors affecting the security, economic and other factors are considered. I have said that Government is aware of the importance of this
project but...
SHRI V. GOPALSAMY: Had you realised, you would not have said about constraints of funds.
SHRI RAJESH PILOT: I assure you that Government is equally keen and interested. (Interruptions). I certainly share your feelings on the subject.
AGREEMENT
dt: 17.6.1929
WHEREAS on the 18th February 1924 an agreement between the Governments of Mysore and Madras was signed and whereas by clause 10 (2) of the said agreement the Mysore Government agreed to regulate the discharges through and from the Krishnarajasagara reservoir strictly in accordance with the Rules of Regulation being Annexure I to the said agreement, and
WHEREAS disputes had arisen between the two Government in regard to the interpretation, operation and carrying out of rules 7 and 8 of the said Rules of Regulation, and
WHEREAS both the Governments have submitted the matters in dispute to the Arbitration of the Honourable Mr. Justice Page with Messrs. Howley and Forbes as assessors.
Now the two Governments have agreed in lieu of an award in that behalf to adopt finally for all Regulation subsequent to 1st July, 1929, the following discharges for the respective months in place of the averages referred to in clause 8 of Annexure I:
June for 6.5 feet gauge - 29,800 cusecs.
July and August for 7.5 feet gauge - 40,100 cusecs
Septemper for 7 feet gauge - 35,000 cusecs
October for 6.5 feet gauge - 29,800 cusecs
November for 6 feet gauge - 25,033 cusecs
December for 3.5 feet gauge - 8,913 cusecs
January for 3 feet gauge - 6,170 cusecs
and in rule 10, defining the impounding formula, C.will denote the said above mentioned discharges. This agreement is without prejudice to the other questions outstanding between the parties in regard to the clauses of the agreement other than clauses 7 and 8 of the Rules of Regulation.
17 June 1929. (signed) R.RANGA RAO, Officiating Chief Secretary to
the Government of Mysore.
(signed) A.G. LEACH, Secretary to the Government, Public Works and Labour Departments, Madras.
***
MADRAS-MYSORE AGREEMENT, 1924.
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT,
DATED 22ND JUNE 1929.
(G.O. NO.2580, P.W., dated 12th September 1930.)
(1)
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS on the 18th February 1924 an agreement between the Government of Mysore and Madras was signed and whereas under elause 10 (ii) of the said agreement the Mysore Government agreed to regulate the discharges through and from the Krishnarajasagara reservoir strictly in accordance with the Rules of Regulation set forth in Annexure I to the said agreement and whereas disputes arose touching certain points provided for in the said Rules of Regulation and whereas a statement of agreements resulting from a discussion at Government House, Mysore between Messrs. W.J.J. Howley and S.G. Forbes, Assessors, nominated by both the Governments relating to those points was arrived at and is annexed to this agreement and whereas in regard to one of these points namely, the mode of ing compensation water conferences were held at Bangalore and Ootacamund between the representatives of both the Governments. Now the two Governments have agreed as follows:
1. That P shall be examined for final adoption exactly as provided for in rule 11 (ii) of Annexure I to the agreement of 1924;
2. That transmission losses shall be fixed at 10 percent for use in column 7 of the sample form B given in part II of the Appendix to the Rules of Regulation annexed to the 1924 agreement;
3. that for the calculation of evaporation from the reservoir a correction coefficient 0.85 be adopted tentatively pending further observation and that definite proposals should be drawn up and agreed to within two months from the date of this agreement and t observations started immediately there after and continued for not more than three irrigation seasons;
4. that the co-efficients for the Krishnarajasagara sluice gates already determined for the several stages should be adopted tentatively for those respective stages and that observations should be continued until the full set of co-efficients have
been determined and agreed upon and that the tentative figures adopted should be revised from time to time as additional data become available;
5. That no corrections are necessary for vertical velocity observations; and finally;
6. (i) that the Mysore Government shall restrict the excess area of irrigation under canals and channels above the three standard gauging stations to 5,000 acres;
(ii) that while water is being impounded in the Krishnarajasagara in accordance with the formula laid down in rule 10 of the agreement no compensation water need be ed down to Madras on of the excess area irrigated under canals and channels taking off above the three standard gauging stations;
(iii) that compensation water (calculated as per the of rule 17 of Annexure I to the agreement of 1924) shall be ed down to Madras during the irrigation season on non-impounding days (a) from the 10th June to 10th January inclusive irrespective of the level in the Krishnarajasagara as also (b) during the periods from 28th May to 9th June inclusive and from 11th to 27th January inclusive provided that the level in the Krishnarajasagara is not less than 118 on the 15th of May and not less than 124 on the 1st January respectively.
A.G. LEACH, Secretary of Government, Public Works and Labour Departments, Madras.
N. MADHAVA RAU, Chief Secretary to Government, Mysore.
Statements of agreements resulting from a discussion at Government House, Mysore, on the 18th June 1929, between Messrs. W.J.J. Howley and S.G. Forbes, Assessors, nominated by Madras and Mysore Governments, respectively, relating to the undermentioned subjects (referred to in the preamble above).
Deterinination of ‘P’. - We have agreed that ‘P’ shall be examined for final adoption exactly as provided for in rule 11 (ii) of the Annexure I to the agreement of 1924 and shall be given effect to from the 1st July 1929.
2. Transmission losses. - We have agreed that the transinission losses shail be fixed in 10 percent for use in column 7 of the sample form B given in part II of the Appendix to the Rules and Regulations of 1924 agreement.
3. Evaporation from the reservoir. - We recommend a tentative adoption of correction co-efficient of 0.85 pending further observations. We consider that definite proposals should be drawn up and agreed to within two months from the 1st of July 1929 and the t observations started immediately there after and continued for not more than three irrigation seasons.
4. Krishnarajasagara Sluice gates co-efficient. - It was agreed that the coefficients for the several stages already determined should be adopted tentatively
for those respective stages and that observations should be continued until the full set of co-efficients have been determined and agreed upon. The tentative figures adopted should be revised from time to time as additional data is available.
5. Compensation water. - We agreed that compensation water shall be calculated and ed down from Krishnarajasagara in exact accordance with rules 15, 16 and 17.
OOTACAMUND, 22ND JUNE 1929
S.G. FORBES, W.J.J. HOWLEY.
Discussions were held on 29th May, 1972 at New Delhi between the Chief Ministers of Mysore, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Union Ministers for irrigationn and Power and Deputy Minister were present. The Chief Minister were assisted by Ministers of respective States. Those present were as follows:
1. Tamil Nadu:
1. Thiru M. Karunanidhi, Chief Minister.
2. Thiru S. Madhavan, Minister for law.
3. Thiru S.J. Sadiq pasha, Minister for public Works.
2. Mysore:
1. Shri D. Devaraj Urs, Chief Minister.
2. Shri M.N. Nanja Gouda, Minister for state for Major Irrigation.
3. Kerala:
1. Shri C. Achutha Menon, Chief Minister.
2. Shri T.K. Divakaran, Minister for Public Works.
Union Minister for Irrigation and power stated that river problems are best settled through negotiations and this was the course the Central Government was adopting for the last few years in settling the differences on the use of waters of Cauvery. Earlier, it was aimed to arrive at an interim agreement to be valid till 1974, when the earlier agreement of 1924 would have come up for review after 50 years, as provided in the agreement. Now, as 1974 is near, this attempt has been given up in favour of finding an overall approach to solve the problems amicably amongst the several States. The discussions amongst the Chief Ministers revealed general consensus on the three following points as in para 2.
2.1 A serious attempt should be made to resolve by negotiations the Cauvery between the States as early as possible.
2.2 The centre may appoint a Fact Finding Committee consisting of Engineers, retired Judges and, If necessary, Agricultural Experts to collect all the connected data pertaining to Cauvery waters, its utilisation and irrigation practices as well as projects both existing, under construction and proposed in the Cauvery basin. The committee will examine adequacy of the present supplies or excessive use of water for irrigation purposes. The committee is only to collect the data and not make any recommendations. The Committee may be asked to submit its report in three months time.
2.3 Making use the data, discussions will be held between the Chief Minister of the three States to arrived at an agreed allocation of waters for the respective states.
3. Union Government will assist in arriving at such a settlement in six months, and in the meanwhile, no State will take any steps to make the solution of the problem difficult either by impounding or by utilising water of Cauvery beyond what it is at present.
S/d. K.L. Rao, 31.05.72 Union Minister for Irrigation & Power.
S/d. M. Karunanidhi, 31.05.72. Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
S/d. D. Devaraj Urs. 31.05.72. Chief Minister for Mysore
S/d. C. Achutha Menon, 31.05.72. Chief Minister of Kerala.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND SRI LANKA ON THE BOUNDARY IN HISTORIC WATERS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES AND RELATED MATTERS.
(26 June 1974)
The Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Republic of Sri Lanka,
Desiring to determine the boundary line in the historic waters between India and Sri Lanka and to settle the related matters in a manner which is fair and equitable to both sides,
Having examined the entire question from all angles and taken into the historical and other evidence and legal aspects there of,
Have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE 1
The boundary between India and Sri Lanka in the waters from Adam's Bridge to Palk Strait shall be arcs of Great Circles between the following positions, in the sequence given below, defined by latitude and longitude:
ARTICLE 2
The coordinates of the positions specified in Article I are geographical coordinates and the straight lines connecting them are indicated in the chart annexed hereto which has been signed by the surveyors authorized by the two Governments, respectively.
ARTICLE 3
The actual location of the aforementioned positions at sea and on the seabed shall be determined by a method to be mutually agreed upon by the surveyors authorized for the purpose by the two Governments, respectively.
ARTICLE 4
Each country shall have sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction and control over the waters, the islands, the continent0al shelf and the subsoil there of, falling on its own side of the aforesaid boundary.
ARTICLE 5
Subject to the foregoing, Indian fisherinen and pilgrims will enjoy access to visit Kachchativu as hitherto, and will not be required by Sri Lanka to obtain travel
documents or visas for these purposes.
ARTICLE 6
The vessels of India and Sri Lanka will enjoy in each other's waters such rights as they have traditionally enjoyed therein.
ARTICLE 7
If any single geological petroleumn or natural gas structure or field, or any single geological structure or field of any other mineral deposit, including sand or gravel, extends across the boundary referred to in Article 1 and the part of such structure or field which is situated on one side of the boundary, is exploited, in whole or in part, from the other side of the boundary, the two countries shall seek to reach agreement as to the manner in which the structure or field shall be most effectively exploited and the manner in which the proceeds deriving there from shall be apportioned.
ARTICLE 8
This agreement shall be subject to ratification. It shall enter into force on the date of exchange of the instruments of the ratification which will take place as soon as possible.
For the Government of the Republic of India
sd/ - Indira Gandhi
For the Government of the Republic of Sri Lanka
sd/-Sirimavo R.D. Bandaranaike
Source: Indian Journal of International Law (New Delhi), Vol.16, No.1, January - March 1976, pp.126-127.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND SRI LANKA ON THE MARITIME BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES IN THE GULF OF MANAAR AND THE BAY OF BENGAL AND RELATED MATTERS.
(23 March 1976)
The Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Republic of Sri Lanka,
RECALLING that the boundary in the Palk Strait has been settled by the Agreement between the Republic of India and the Republic of Sri Lanka on the boundary in Historic Waters between the Two Countries and Related Matters, signed on 26/28 June, 1974,
AND DESIRING TO extend that boundary by determining the maritime boundary between the two countries in the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal,
HAVE AGREED as follows:
ARTICLE 1
The maritime boundary between India and Sri Lanka in the Gulf of Mannar shall be arcs of Great Circles between the following positions, in the sequence given below, defined by latitude and longitude:
The extension of the boundary beyond Position 13m will be done subsequently.
ARTICLE II
The maritime boundary between India and Sri Lanka in the Bay of Bengal shall be arcs of Great Circles between the following positions, in the sequence given below, desined by latitude and longitude:
ARTICLE III
The coordinates of the positions specified in Articles I and II are geographical coordinates and the straight lines connecting them are indicated in the chart annexed hereto, which has been signed by the surveyors duly authorised by the two Governments respectively.
ARTICLE 1V
The actual location at sea and on the seabed of the positions specified in Articles I and II shall be determined by a method to be mutually agreed upon by the surveyors authorised for the purpose by the two Governments, respectively.
ARTICLE V
1. Each party shall have sovereignty over the historic waters and territorial sea, as well as over the islands, falling on its side of the aforesaid boundary.
2. Each party shall have sovereign rights and exclusive jurisdiction over the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone as well as over their resources, whether living or non-living, falling on its side of the afore said boundary.
3. Each party shall respect rights of navigation through its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone in accordance with its laws and regulations and the rules of international law.
ARTICLE VI
If any single geological petroleum or natural gas structure or field, or any single geological structure or field of any mineral deposit, including sand or gravel, extends across the boundary referred to in Article I and II and the part of such structure or field which is situated on one side of the boundary is exploited, in whole or in part, from the other side of the boundary, the two countries shall seek to reach agreement as to the manner in which the structure or field shall be most effectively exploited and the manner in which the proceeds deriving therefrom shall be apportioned.
ARTICLE VII
The Agreement shall be subject to ratificaton. It shall enter into force on the date of exchange of instruments of ratification which shall take place as soon as possible.
sd/Kewal Singh For the Government of the Republic of India
sd/- W.T.Jayasinghe
For the Government of the Republic of Sri Lanka
Source: Indian Journal of International Law (New Delhi), Vol.16, No.1, January - March 1976, pp.128-129.
INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Before in the mid-twentieth century, there were no restraints on what a state could do to its citizens; the relationship between a state and its citizens was thought to be a domestic, internal matter, of no concern to the rest of the world. However, the unprecedented genocides committed during World War II spurred the creation of the United Nations, one of whose basic purposes was international cooperation“in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” (Article 1,55c). To make those references in the U.N. Charter explicit, a commission was authorized to draft an International charter of human rights. The chairwoman of the commission was Anna Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of the late U.S. President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
During a two - and - a - half year period, representatives from all of the United Nations negotiated the wording of the Declaration. Those from Western democracies insisted on the primacy of the political and civil rights of individuals; those from socialist countries wanted to emphasize the social and economic rights that were owed citizens by the state. The Declaration incorporated both sets of demands; but not to the satisfaction of the socialist countries, which abstained when the Deciaration was put to a vote.
On December 10, 1948, the Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the
United Nations. The Vote was 48 for, none against. Eight nations abstained; Byelorussian S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R., Union of South Africa, and Yugoslavia. Saudi Arabia objected to the Declaration's affirmation of freedom of religion. South Africa objected to the Declaration's commitment to racial equality and freedom from discrimination.
Although it was not intended to be a binding covenant, the Declaration was eventually accepted as a statement of universal aspirations by which to assess the behavior of all nations. Although the specific provisions of the Declaration have been repeatedly violated over the years by many of the United Nations, the Declaration has nonetheless served as a useful gauge. In every Nation, human rights organizations and dissidents refer to the Declaration as a consistent standard of human rights and freedoms.
Virtually every national consititution reiterates the major provisions of the Declaration, regardless of the actual nature of the government. Even tyrannical states that strictly regulate the press, limit their citizens freedom of movement, prohibit free trade unions, and abuse every other aspect of the Declaration, nonetheless pay it obeisance, either by endorsing it or by incorporating parts of it into their constitution. No nation repudiates the declaration; instead, those who violate it deny doing so.
In view of the fact that so many of the United Nations regularly ignore the letter and spirit of the Declaration, it may appear that the Declaration of Human Rights has little force or validity. Yet its very existence serves as a standard by which people judge the conditions of their lives and as a continuing Inspiration to people who live in Nations that make unkept promises.
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
Whereas disregard and comtempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations.
Whereas the people of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge.
Now, Therefore,
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROCLAIMS
This universal declaration of human rights as a common standard of achievement for all people and all Nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent trust, non - self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude, slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel in human or degrading treatment or punishinent.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition every where as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and aganist any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14
1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the property.
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedoin, either alone or in community with others and inpublic or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary educational shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedom. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary.or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedom of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Justice K. Subba Rao On Fundamental Rights in his JUDGEMENT
If the doctrine of waiver is engrafted to the said fundamental principles, it will mean that a citizen can agree to be discriminated. When one realizes the unequal positions occupied by the State and the private citizen, particularly in India where illiteracy is rampant, it is easy to visualize that in a conflict between the State and a citizen, the latter may, by fear of force or hope of preferment, give up his right. It is said that in such a case coercion or influence can be established in a Court of Law, but in practice it will be well nigh impossible to do so.
***
A large majority of our people are economically poor, educationally backward and politically not yet conscious of their rights. Individually or even collectively, they cannot be pitted against the State organizations and institutions, nor can they meet them on equal . In such circumstances, it is the duty of this Court to protect their rights against themselves. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the fundamental rights created by the Constitution are transcendental in nature, conceived and enacted in national and public interest, and therefore cannot be waived.
(Basheshar Nath Vs.I.T. Commissioner)
1977
,
,
.
26.17.1977-
.
10 11 .
, ,
.
1.
2.
3.
.
4.
.
10.1.78
4.5.79 28.1.78
. .
43
.
1.
69 ,
61.72 .
:
1960-61-
57.55 1976-77-
34.08
.
.
2.
.
.
.
,
.
3.
57 ,
62
,
74
,
, , , 3
,
85 ,
,
,
,
,
.
3.04
.
3.33
,
.
,
.
:
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
-
.3507.00
- 29
1978-79-
-
.120.00.
.112.50. .
.85.00
5
. 3708
.
(1983-4)
.
.
?
1960-61
.2294.41
.750.93 -
.
.
?
1977-78
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
1974-
.
30.6.72
.
2
.
.
.
,
(
44 24.2
)
.
.
11
, ,
,
.
***
.
G.O.M.S.NO.2097 - Department of Agirculture Dt.26.12.1977
1.
:
.
(
2.
.
(
I.A.S.
-
.
(
3.
.
.
-
I.A.S.
-
. .
-
)
I.A.S.
-
-
)
)
4.
.
(
5.
.
(
6.
.
P.W.D.
. .
.
-
.
.
,
)
.
B.E.
)
-
(
-
,
)
)
(
8.
-
B.E.
,
.
I.A. & I.A.S.
. .
(
7.
.
-
)
9.
.
.
-
(
- ,
10.
.
.
I.A.S.
-
.
)
(
1.
)
.
-
,
.
2.
.
.
-
.
3.
.
.
,
-
.
4.
.
-
5.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
8.
.
-
.
.
. . -
7.
.
.
-
6.
-
.
–
.
-
.
9.
.
.
-
-
-
,
.
10.
.
.
11.
.
.
.
-
,
.
BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHAIRMAN NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Marumalarchi D.M.K, ‘THAYAGAM’
4, First Street, Karpagam Avenue, R.A.Puram, Madras - 600028.
... Petitioner.
We would like to bring to your notice that following issues which are benchmark cases of blatant human rights violation in the State of Tamilnadu so that the Commission can go through these matters and issue follow-up recommendations.
We state the law and order machinery in Tamilnadu is in a state of complete mess. Custodial deaths, custodial rapes and custodial violence have become a norm rather than an exception.
We wish to bring the following incidents of Human Rights violations in the State which are well-documented in the mainstream publications.
I. CUSTODIAL DEATH
a. Thiru Nandagopal, H/o Tmt.Pi in 1992 June at Annamalai Nagar Police Station in South Arcot - Vallalar District.
b. Thiru Rajakkannu of Muthanai Village was arrested on 21.3.1993 and tortured by the Kammapuram Police in the Presence of his wife and murdered by them on 22.3.1993.
c. Thiru Selvam of Puliyoor was arrested on 27.10.1993, tortured and murdered on 30.10.93 at Vadalur Police Station.
d. Thiru Sathish Kumar at Mylapore Police Station, Madras on 11.6.1994.
e. Thiru Muniyandi at Ramanathapuram on 28.4.1994.
f. Thiru Viruppalingam was murdered at Kullanchavadi Police Station.
g. Thiru George at Tondairpet Police Station, Madras.
h. Thiru Ramesh at Madras Ice House Police Station.
i. Thiru Malayaman at Trichy.
j. Thiru Kaliaperumal - Kuttalam, Thanjavur District.
k. Thiru Muthusamy - Ottanchatram.
l. Thiru Karuppasamy - Palladam, Coimbatore District.
m. Thiru Loganathan at Royapuram Police Station, Madras.
n. 12 years old boy at Chepet Police Station, Madras.
0. Another custodial death at Nangavalli Police Station, Salem District.
II. CUSTODIAL RAPE
a. Ms. Pi at Annamalai Nagar Police Station.
b. 19 Scheduled Tribe Girls at Vatachi, Dharmapuri District.
c. Ms. Vasantha at Muthandikuppam on 23.3.1994.
d. On 11,12,13.6.1994 scheduled tribe girls were raped in Chinnampathi Village, Coimbatore District.
e. Ms. Indira Gandhi at Madurai on 19.7.1994.
f. Ms. Rangammal at Orthanadu, Thanjavur District on 2.2.1994
g. Ms. Kalpana - Hosur, Dharmapuri District.
i. A family of 6 persons of the Palakudy Village, Myladuthurai Taluk, NagaiQuaide-Milleth District.
III. CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE
a. Ms. Chandrama - Marandahalli on 30.1.1994.
b. Ms. Rakkammal and Ms. Murugalakshmi at Rameswaram out Police Station, Ramnad District on 18.10.1994.
c. Thiru M.V. Manimaran, Ennore, Madras on 29.7.1994.
d. Ms. Shantha, Madras on 22.8.1994.
Mass organisations like Political Parties are not allowed to carryout their usual activities of mobilising the people to express their grievances to the Government in a democratic manner.
The above incidents were published in the dailies. The Govemment is dishing out petty compensations to the affected families to hide these incidents. So far the Government of Tamilnadu has not taken any serious steps to prevent the custodial violence.
Our MDMK Madras City Unit, Secretary, Mr. Elumalai and Mr. Thangiyan, (M), Kodavasal, Thanjavur District were murdered, no followup action in this regard.
It is further stated that there is no security for the life of a common man, media persons and political leaders, women, downtroddens are brutally attacked and their lives are in danger; media persons from Tharasu, Dinamalar, Nakkiran etc. were attacked by Goondas. Thiru Vijayan, an advocate was attacked at his residence. The Taj Coromandal Hotel, Madras was attacked. Nearly 100 autos and other vehicles were used for this hoolingan activity. Number of vehicles were damaged which were parked in the Hotel. The Car in which the former Union Minister P. Chidambaram was travelling was attacked. An IAS Officer was attacked by anti-socials by throwing acid. The Government and Police Officials are not serious in taking appropriate actions against the concerned accused. Each and every sections at the grass - roots level of the society are seriously affected. This is the order of the day. Some incidents are simply blacked out from the public knowledge through muscle and political power. This violence is endless. Therefore, the whole of such incidents can not be narrated in this memorandum.
These are just a few incidents which we bring to your knowledge. Therefore, we request you to consider the violations of Human Rights in Tamilnadu and make necessary recommendations to protect the Human rights of the individuals.
We believe that there should be a monitoring cell to keep tab on the activities of the police. The monitoring cell should be at the district level, and shall be comprised of eminent like from political parties, advocates, doctors,
journalists and women activities. etc. This will give a sense of ability to the Police. Further, I request you to recommend a formation of new legislation which is stringent with reference to the police excesses. The erring policemen should be treated as goondas and strict and severe punishment must be meted out to them.
Dated at Madras on 15.12.1994.
M.KANNAPPAN (Treasurer)
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN (Spokesperson)
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Notification
“National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulation” came into force w.e.f. 1st, March 1994.
The Commission shall ordinarily hold its meetings, sittings in its office located at Delhi. However, it may, in its discretion, hold its meetings and sittings at any other place in India if it considers it necessary and expedient.
Procedure for dealing with complaints: (1) All complaints in whatever form received by the Commission shall be ed and assigned a number and placed for ission before a Bench of two constituted for the purpose not later than two weeks of receipt there of. Ordinarily complaints of the following nature are not entertainable by the Commission: (a) in regard to events which happened more than one year before the making of complaints: (b) with regard to matters which are sub judice; (c) which are vague, anonymous or pseudonymous; (d) which are of frivolous nature; or (e) those which are outside the purview of the Commission. (2) No fee is chargeable on complaints. (3) Every attempt shoud be made to disclose a complete picture of the matter leading to the complaint and the same may be made in English or Hindi to enable the Commission to take immediate action. To facilitate the filing of complaints, the commission shall, however, entertain complaints in any language included in Eighth Schedule of the Consutution. It shall be open to the Commission to ask for further information and attidavits to be field in of allegations whenever considered necessary. (4) The Commission may, in its discretion, accept telegraphic complaints and complaints conveyed through Fax. (5) The Commission shall have power to dismiss a complaint in limine. (6) Upon ission of a complaint set down for inquiry by it or should be investigated into. (7) On every complaint on which a decision is taken by the Chairperson / Commission to either hold an inquiry or investigation, the Secretariat shall call for reports/comments from the concerned Government / authority giving the latter a reasonable time therefor. (8) On receipt of the comments of the concerned authority, a detailed note on the merits of the case shall be prepared for consideration of the Commission. (9) The directions and recommendations of the Commission shall be communicated to the concerned Government / authority and the petitioner as provided for in section 18 and 19 of the Act. (10) The Commission may, in its discretion, affored a personal hearing to the petitioner or any other person on his behalf and such other person or persons as in the opinion of the Commission should be heard for appropriate disposal of the matter before it and, where necessary,call for records and examine witnesses in connection with it. The Commission shall afford a reasonable hearing, including opportunity of cross examining witness, if any, in of the complaint and leading of evidence in of his stand, to a person whose conduct is enquired into by it or where in its opinion the reputation of such person is likely to be prejudicially affected. (11) Where investigation is undertaken by the team of the Commission or by any other person under its discretion, the report shall be submitted within a week of its completion or such further time as the Commission may allow. The Commission may, in its discretion, direct further investigation in a given case if
it is of opinion that investigation has not been proper or the matter requires further investigation for ascertaining the truth or enabling it to properly dispose of the matter. On receipt of the report, the Commission on its own motion, or if moved in the matter, may direct Inquiry to be carried by it and receive evidence in course of such inquiry. (12) The Commission or any of its when requested by the Chairperson may undertake visits for an on-the-spot study and where such study is undertaken by one or more , a report thereon shall be furnished to the Commission as early as possible.
Unless any document is classified by the Commission as Confidential, copy thereof would be available to the parties in the matter on payment of a reasonable fee raised to meet the cost. Every effort should be made to provide the copies with utmost expedition and, in any case, not later than one week of the date of request.
Annual Report: The Commission shall furnish its annual report for the period commencing from 1st April of the year to 31st March of the succeeding year of the Central Government and to the State Governments concerned as provided in Section 20 (1) of the Act. The original report shall be signed by the Chairperson and of the Commission and appropriately preserved and a duly authenticated copy shall be sent to the appropriate Government by end of May of every year.
Special Reports: The Commission may furnish such Special Reports on specific matters as may be considered necessary in of Section 20 (1) of the Act:
Reports of Complaints and Inquiries: Every report to which Section 18 or 19 of the Act applies shall be sent to the concerned Government, authority or person, as the case may be, within one week of completion of the proceedings before the commission and on receipt of the comments of the concerned Government or authority, the Commission shall publish the report in the manner provided in
Section 18(6) or 19 (3) of the Act, as the case may by within one week of the receipt of the appropriate intimation.
Printing of the Reports: The Secretariat of the Commission shall be responsible for the printing of the Annual Report and Special Reports with ulmost expedition and in any case, nor later than one month of Analisation of the same.
Investigation Team: The Commission shall have its own team of investigation to be headed by a person not below the rank of a Director General of Police appointed by it and such team shall consist of one Deputy Inspector General of Police, 2 Superintendents of Police, 6 Deputy Superintendents of Police and 24 Inspectors of Police and such other categories of officers as the Commission from time to time decides. The Commission may in any given case appoint an appropriate number of outsides to be associated with the investigation either as Investigators or Observers.
As and when any matter which is not covered by these Regulations arises, it shall be competenl for the Commission to make appropriate directions and the Commission may add, delete, amplify and amend these Regulations from time to time.
Source: NHRC Notification taken from PUCL April 1994.
Governors: some key issues
THE POSTS OF Governors in six States are going to fall vacant in the near future and yet another State namely, Manipur, does not have a permanent Governor. The State is being looked after by the Governor of Nagaland after Lt. gen. V.K. Nayyar had quit his post a few weeks ago. This gives a fresh opportunity to the Prime Minister, Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, to select new incumbents unless, of course, he decides to reappoint some of them. A second term for Governors is not new - as recently as in September last Mr. Khurshid Alam Khan was reappointed Govennor of Karnataka. Although the Constitution specifically says that a Governor continues to hold office till a new incumbent is chosen after the expiry of the normal term of five years, such prolongation beyond five years without a subsequent forinal reappointment has been regarded by constitutional experts as not strictly legal. They assert that the proviso in Article 156 was actually meant to enable the outgoing Governor to continue in office till such time as the Governor - designate took charge. Paja Naidu, for instance, continued as the Governor of West Bengal for at least three years after her term was over and only when its attention was drawn to this fact the Centre realised the constitutional impropriety of her continuance without her being formally reappointed.
It was also the contention of a few constitutional experts that extension either in the same State or in another State is not a healthy practice as the expectation of a second term has the possibility of turning in any Governors into willing instruments in the hands of the party in power. Of course it is nobody's case that extension of the term by a few weeks to meet temporary exigencies is unethical or undesirable. In view of the fact that there are a large number of vacancies, the Prime Minister could take into consideration some of these aspects before he makes the final selection. It is worth recalling the observation of the study team on Centre - State relations that there should be no possibility of a Governor's reappointment and this constraint will take the Governor beyond the pale of patronage of the Chief Minister or the Centre. It is also to be noted that no active politician should be appointed as Governor although this healthy principle first enunciated by Nehru was followed more in the breach.
A Governor being the constitutional head of the State must be seen as a neutral person holding the scales even. Frequent clashes with the Chief Minister do
lower the status and prestige of the Governor's office itself as could be seen in Tamil Nadu where Dr. M. Channa Reddi and Ms. Jayalalitha are in a state of perpetual conflict. Fortunately at least five Governors whose term is ending have had a full five-year tenure and none of them was disturbed when the Congress(I) party came to power at the Centre although they were first appointed by the National Front Government. In fact Mufti Mohammad Sayeed who was the Home Minister in the National Front Government wanted a convention to be adopted under which Governors would opt to resign on their own with the change in the Government at the Centre. The Mufti doctrine does not seem to be sound as the Governors are not mere agents of the Centre in the Sites, a fact which would become obvious on a more careful reading of the provisions of the Constitution relating to the post of Governor. Mr. Rao did well in not following this dictum and in keeping the post above political interference. He should now select really dynamic prsons as Governors. It is also time the Prime Minister set in motion a fresh exercise to see if it is necessary to assure a measure of security of tenure to the Governor's office as suggested by the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations.
- Courtesy “The Hindu” - Editorial 27.1.1995
Urimaikku Kural Koduppom!
Author: .
.
K.S. Radhakrishnan
For more books
https://www.pustaka.co.in/home/author/ks-radhakrishnan
Digital/Electronic Copyright © by Pustaka Digital Media Pvt. Ltd.
All other copyright © by Author.
!
All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review.
1.
2.
-
3.
4.
!
!
!
5.
6.
7.
9.
8.
:
!
10. 356-
11.
12.
13.
14.
–
15.
16.
?
17.
18.
19.
!
:
?
20.
21.
-
!
22.
:
23.
24.
-
; !
25.
!
-
;
!
26.
27.
28.
:
!
!!
-
29.
? I
30.
? II
31.
,
!
32.
33. “
34.
”
!
35. A DEPRIVED STATE
36. THRICE TO HANG - NEVER TO DIE THE HISTORIC CASE OF GURUSWAMI
.
.
. . .
,
-
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
!!
.
,
,
,
.
,
1986
(TESO)
, “
. ,
,
.
,
.
-
.”
“
!”
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
“
,
,
.
,
,
–
”
.
,
,
. “
” -
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
-
. 91
81 -
“
,
,
”
.
,
,
“
”
.
.
,
!
,
, 40
,
,
,
,
, ,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
“
”
,
,
,
,
(
)
,
,
“
”
,
.
,
,
,
“
,
.
, ”
,
,
.
,
-
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
-
.
,
.
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
. ,
,
!”
, “
,
.
,
,
!
!
24.11.1994
-
.
.
.
,
.
.
.,
(
)
– 600017 6.12.1994
.
“
“
!”
-
.”
!
!
,
, 356-
.
-
.
.
, ,
.
, ,
.
- .
, .
-
.
“
”
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.,
. . .,
– 600032 17.11.1994
.
.
!
.
“
”
.
.
,
. ,
1.
.13800
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
2.
.8600
.
, “
,
,
,
”
.
,
’
.
, ‘
(District Boards)
,
.
,
,
-
.
.
.
3.
-
,
.
, ,
-
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
-
. .
4.
,
,
,
, ,
.
,
,
,
, ,
.
,
.
,
,
“
”
.
5.
,
.
.
(Cold Storage)
.
,
.
, “
,
-
, . .1,000
.”
6.
,
,
.
, -
,
,
.
.
,
,
7.
.
.
,
.
,
8.
.
, .
,
,
,
.
, , ,
,
.
,
9.
.
, 20,000
.
,
.
.
,
,
’
.
11.
. , ‘
.
,
Market)
10.
. (International
.
.
. 10
,
.
.
.
12.
.
,
- , . ,
,
.
,
,
.
13.
. 3.75 . 31.50
.26.00
. 1960-
,
. 1966-
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
!”
,
.
“
.
,
14. “
,
,
,
, -
, ,
,
”
“
”,
,
–
“ ”,
.
-
.
. -
– 600017 15.10.1994
-
,
‘
’ -
.
.
!
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
‘
,
’
,
,
,
.
,
,
’ ,
,
, ‘
,
,
.
,
, ,
,
.
.
,
,
,
, .
.
,
1948 -
10-
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
65,000
,
,
.
,
, 48
, 350
290
.
. ,
.
.
,
, 82 .
1100
.
, .
. , 8.2
.
,
.
420
- ,
,
, ,
.
,
1956-
,
.
,
,
‘ ,
’
.
, 1992-
.
600
, 2000
?
.
,
,
66.5 .
2
.
. 75
-
‘
,
’ - ,
,
, -
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
, ,
, ,
,
.
,
.
,
.
-
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
-
.
,
.
,
.
-
.
,
-
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
, ,
,
...
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
-
,
.
,
...
.
.
-
.
25.10.94
!
.
.
.
.
36
,
.
,
.
.
“
;
”
,
“
;
,
.
,
-
.
,
,
,
***
.
!
”
,
;
,
,
, .
, .
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
***
.
.
,
.
;
!
.
.
?
-
,
,
.
1.
:
,
.
,
2.
3.
.
.
.
.
.
4.
.
,
. (
,
,
.
,
,
,
)
- ,
-
.
.
.
.
“
.
,
!
.
;
”
,
,
?
***
, , .
,
.
.
.
-
.
,
-
-
.
?
.
; .
,
.
.
.
, .
.
.
,
.
.
“
,
.
. ,
“
,
.”
***
:
?”
.
“
.
.
”
.
;
-
.
.
:
.
,
,
.
.
-
.
;
“
”
22.10.94
‘
’,
.
.
.
. .
,
.
-
’
, ‘
. ‘
,
-
,
’
,
,
.
,
.
,
‘
,
!’
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
, .
– ‘
.
.
!’
‘
’ ?
; ,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
, ‘
.’
,
,’
1965-
37
.
,
115
.
.
.
‘
-
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
, .
- .
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
, .
.
(Topicality)
. .
, .
. !
!
-
.
– 600104 4.10.1994
!
.
“
!”
,
.
, , .
,
.
-
.
,
-
,
,
(Public interest litigations)
,
,
. ,
.
,
. ,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
, ,
,
,
-
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
18-
.
,
.
.
, ,
.
.
,
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
28.11.1994
!
.
,
.
-
.
,
,
.
.
,
...
.
.
,
.
.
, .
,
.
,
,
,
.
-
;
;
!
,
-
; ;
.
?
,
-
-
.
.
?
?
,
?
-
?
,
-
.
?
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
-
.
.
,
‘
-
?
, ,
-
, ,
?
.
,
?
,
’.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
-
- -
, .
-
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
. .
.
,
-
,
,
: , -
, Emotional politics
,
.
,
.
. ,
,
,
: ,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
...
. .
Answerablity
,
.
.
.
.
.
“
.
.
”
.
,
,
, .
-
,
-
,
spere me Shanker
.
–
Don't
9
. ,
-
,
,
,
. .
-
.
.
,
,
-
.
-
-
, “ ,
,
,
,
” -
, .
,
.
,
-
.
“
.
,
!”
.
,
.
,
, -
.
-
,
, .
,
.
,
,
. 1950-60, ,
,
.
,
,
,
, “
-
”
. ,
,
, ,
,
. ,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
. ,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
-
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
, .
.
.
, .
.
.
,
?
.
,
.
.
, “
”
,
.
.
,
.
,
, ,
“
,
, , Lex Juris, observer”
.
,
,
.
.
. .
.
, .
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
. .
.
, “
.
. . ,
” ,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
, .
. ,
,
.
.,
.
.
.,
)
.
.
(
,
.
,
,
.
–
600020 23.1.1995
.
.
1.
23.7.89
.
.
,
.
,
, ,
,
,
.
20, 25
.
(Infrastructure)
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
1.
.
.
.
19.5.89
.
. 7 ,
.
2.
.
, .
2
65
.
-
,
,
,
,
,
. 12
. 2 ”
“ 55.75
,
, ,
.
7-
.
3.
36
.
.
,
300 - 350 48
.
.
-
,
37 ; 115
1965
. ,
.
.
290
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
4.
,
.
.
.
6563
.
. 4000
.
,
,
-
.
-
, ,
326 .
,
Railway lines)
.
,
.
(MRTS)
(Circular
.
:
1.
2.
:
,
, 1980 - 81.
3.
5.
1984.
:
, 1971,
1,
,
8.2 1100
.
.
82
.
. ,
II-B (ii)
,
.
.
.
1976-
.
.
.
.
6.
1961-
100 10
.
. .
.
7.
- .
.
.
,
. 1985
.
,
. 1987-
,
.
.
420
163
. 125
. .
.
773.20
.
90
.
.
.
4.5 .
, .
, 80 . .
40 .
. .
80
. 3
, 1988 .
.
40
.
.
,
8.
,
.
.
.
43 ,
.
,
.
5
52
, 13
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
30
,
. 120
1985-86
. 8,961
70 86 2942 -
.
.
.
1969 - 70-
75
. 311
9
1969 ; 85
9
.
.
- “
” - 12.9.1989
***
1.
2.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
3.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
5.
4.
,
.
-8
1996
.
.
6.
.
,
.
,
.
. 1
2.
- !
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
‘
.
(Secularism) ’ (Theocratic)
,
’
.
. , ‘
. .
,
,
!
,
.
,
, .
,
.
,
,
, “
.
,
”
.
.
.
!
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
. ,
!
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
‘
’
.
, ,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
-
,
, ,
,
,
,
‘
’
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
‘
’
.
,
.
-
. 15-30 / 1993
3.
!
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
, ‘
’
(Presidential System) ? (Parlimentary System-ie, Westminster Type) . .
?
?
,
. (Rigidity) (Flexibility) .
Policy)
(Unitary) (Quasi federal)
(Directive Principles of State
.
-
, ,
.
. .
.
‘Other wise’
356
‘
’
.
‘
’
.
‘
.
. .
’ .
40
81
,
.
. ‘
’
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
1978-
.
,
.
(The Spirit
,
of Law)
,
“
:
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
. 1967,
.
.
.
.”
(ambiguity)
,
. 1946
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
40
.
205 )
, 26 (1971
.
, .
(CUSTOMS AND CONVENTIONS) ,
.
.
‘
’
. ,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
“While trying to transplant foreign institution model and concepts in our soil, we tend to forget that they evolved in their original environment over a long period of time, in a different millieu, and came to acquire their present shape and content only at a particular stage of development in their history” . “ , ,” .
“Constitutions are made for men; not for constitution”
.
-
.
-
.
.
?
1-15 / 1991
4.
!
‘
,
’
. ‘
’
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
“
”
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
, ,
.
?
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
;
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
, , .
.
,
.
,
.
1.
:
.
2.
.
.
,
.
,
. 1960-
300
30
,
.
.
5
15 .
10
, 10 1-50
.
,
,
5
.
.
.
.
.
72
.
20
.
,
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
, .
,
,
,
,
,
.
‘
’
,
.
,
“
)
, (
,
,
,
- ‘
, .”
-
1-15 / 1991
***
1.
. 100
.
5.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
(Agro based industries)
,
.
,
.
, .
,
.
-
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
;
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
-
***
7.7.1990
1. 1980-
,
14
.
.
2.
.
,
,
.
,
.
. ,
,
6.
!
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
, “I cannot in all conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows. God alone can take life because he alone gives it.” .
1976-
1975
. 3.09
1976 . 1983.
.
2.74
,
.
1985
1988-
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
. 1949-
,
18
.
75
.
70
, 76
, 78
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
1950-
1987-
1950
.
,
. 1967-
,
18
1956-
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
. 1949-
,
18
.
75
.
70
, 76
.
, 78
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
1950-
.
,
1987-
1950-
.
. 1967-
18
.
,
,
Vs
.
(Special . ,
19831980-
,
Courts)
1956-
.
(Rarest of rare
cases)
.
1930-
,
- 1984-
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
, .
.
capital Punishment)
.
‘
,
.
.
.
’ .
(Public
1985-
, “
”
1985-
.
.
‘
.
.
’
.
.
.
,
.
28.4.89
.
.
35
.
.
18
27
.
(Terrorist)
.
40
.
100 .
,
.
.
,
.
1955145
, .
, 1957-
.
, 1967
1985
.
. (Death penalty criminology prospective Nigerian
situation)
1975-
Washington)
(National Academy of Science, ,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
-
.
-
1-15 / 1991
7.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
,
.
.
.
,
‘
.
,
. ,
,
’
.
,
.
. .
. .
,
,
.
(Custodial deaths) . 11.4.91 . , , . 1,000/- . . 25,000/- . (Public Interest Litigation) ,
,
.
‘
.
4
5
.
’
.
.
.
,
(Prevention of Custodial death) ,
.
.
.
., ,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
302, 307 .
.
24 ,
.
.
, .
(Appeal)
.
,
.
Vs
:
“
,
,
21
.
.
.
,
.
. .
. 50,000/-
,
. 3,000/
.
,
.”
.
.
-
-
16-31 / 1991
***
1.
12
,
,
,
,
“
.
”
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
2.
,
.
. 2.6
8.
“
:
” (Human Rights Commission) , , .
“
.
!”
.
.
“
.
,
,
,
,
, . ,
’ ,
‘
’
‘
.
.
,
.
.
,
, .
” .
!
“
”
,
,
?
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
“
”
.
-
.
. ‘
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
’
.
‘
’
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
- .
.
,
,
,
. .
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
(
,
. )
.
,
,
.
.
. .
,
.
.
-
11.5.1993
***
1.
, ‘
’
2.
)
(
.
.
9.
‘
’
.
.
, ‘
,
’
.
,
,
? -
.
‘
(GATT - General Agreement on Tariff and Trade) . 26 . . 1986 , , , , , , , , , .
, ,
44
20
1991 .
.
, (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) (Trade Related Investment Measures) (Multilateral Trade Organisation) (General Agreement on Trade in Service) . . 70 . , , .
1960
, ,
.
, .
,
,
.
,
, ,
.
,
17.5
10
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
, .
.
.
-
.
(Patent Rights) 1970
.
,
.
,
15
,
7
.
.
,
, ,
, ,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
1970
.
,
.
. .
1970
10, 15
.
,
.
.
,
3
5
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
!
.
,
.
,
. ,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
1.
.
.
.
-
.
,
2.
.
.
.
3.
.
4.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
5.
.
6.
,
,
,
, .
8.
,
.
7.
,
.
.
.
,
!
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
-
,
.
6
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
2.
.
.
.
.
4.
.
. ,
3.
.
.
1.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
1991
250
. “
.
;
”
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
“
,
, ,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
. ,
,
.
.
;
,
”
.
,
.
- “
” 8.2.1994
***
1.
,
.
2.
,
.
10. 356-
1992-
,
,
,
-
356-
. ,
356
.
.
-
.
. .
9
.
356
.
.
356
)
,
;
)
,
-
;
)
-
-
-
,
.
,
,
,
, ,
,
2)
.
,
.
3)
.
,
,
,
,
;
, (
.
,
,
)
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
4)
(
)
,
.
.
-
,
,
(
)
,
.
.
,
, ,
,
,
,
.
(4)
,
(5) (3)
,
,
,
-
( )
,
,
,
,
( )
;
,
(3)
356
.
(Draft Constitution) 227( ) 93 , . 35 46 90 .
. 1935
.
1976
.
.
.
.
,
.
, .
.
,
.
.
. 1957-
.
,
1991
,
. .
. .
.
. .
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
-
,
.
.
, 356
, (istrative Law) .
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
1977-
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
356
.
,
.
,
,
.
1989-
, 1990-92
.
, .
.
1991-
,
.
. .
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
, ,
,
,
,
.
- ‘
’
94
***
1.
’
‘
156
.
.
11.
.
,
.
1860 .
.
.
,
1921-
.
,
,
.
1945-
.
.
.
1955
,
.
“
,
,
” ,
.
1963-
.
.
,
.
1965
.
.
37
.
,
.
1981-
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
1.
1981-82
;
.
2.
.
-
.
,
.
.
.
.
(
. 376
- 434
)
(
)
.
(
)
3.
130
- 340
.
.
4.
.
,
,
, ,
,
,
, ,
, .
5.
, ,
,
,
, ,
,
.
6.
,
.
7.
.
8.
,
, ,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
9.
. ,
.
10.
.
11.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
. 1981-82
.
- “
” 7.12.1988
12.
,
.
.
,
.
‘
’
.
,
.
,
1974-
‘
’
.
,
,
,
.
.
. 1950-
.
.
.
.
. ,
,
.
... .
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
, ‘
’
,
,
.
,
. 50
23
. .
-
,
.
, ‘
,
’
.
.
,
.
, ,
.
.
,
.
.
.
. 1990
.
,
. ,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
Contempt Application 1980-90
.
1960-70
,
.
. ,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
, ,
,
.
. ,
,
,
.
- “
” 29.9.1993
***
1.
.
13.
,
. ,
.
.
,
,
.
.
‘
’
,
,
,
.
.
,
89-
,
,
.
,
,
“
”
.
.
.
. ,
.
.
,
,
;
1.
,
. ,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
. .
2.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
3.
.
,
,
.
.
4.
,
,
.
.
5.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
8.
7.
6.
.
,
,
9.
356-
.
,
11.
.
.
,
5
.
10.
,
.
,
,
.
12.
,
13.
,
.
-
.
,
14.
.
.
,
.
.
15.
,
16.
,
17.
.
.
.
,
18.
,
.
19.
20.
.
21.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
- “
” 2.9.1993
***
1. 83-
.
2.
,
.
.
.
3.
.
14.
–
,
,
,
,
, ,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
“
.
”
30% . .
.
29%
,
,
, 35%-
.
.
. 1,350
.
.
. 2,500
.
. .
.
.
, .
.)
850
11
.
.
.
8.20
1,100
(
.
.
85 . 1,98,000 1
25
.
1978
. 1976
.
,
,
.
11
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
, 150
18
. . .
,
,
. . .
. . .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
,
280 .
230
180 2 5 ,
,
.
77
.
.
. 9
. .
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
. 320
. .
.
, .
,
.
, 1956
380
.
.
,
160
.
.
,
9,000
.
.
,
,
16
.
.
160 110
.
.
. .
. .
. .
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
8
.
.
,
.
.
- “
” 2.11.86
***
1.
. (W.P.No.6207/83)
2.
,
. , 30
.
.
3.
-
,
-
.
.
.
.
.
15.
.
.
“
.
”
(
-
)
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
14
.
’
‘
.
‘
,
4,398
.
’
,
,
,
.
?’
, ‘
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
. ‘
’
.
‘
’
,
.
,
‘
. ’
.
.
(
.
) ,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
. ‘
’
.
19161937-
1883-
.
.
, 1893
,
.
. 1839-1896 183 (1.5.1918) - .
.
,
)
.
,
.
.
, ,
.
,
16.
?
.
1956
,
.
,
,
,
.
210 100
.
,
600
.
.
,
.
.
35.5
.
‘ .
’
.
46
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
. ( ‘
’
.
)
.
.
(1956)
.
.
.
.
2,000
.
,
‘
.
’
. . ., ’ ,
‘
.
710
?
. .
.,
200
.
.
.
. 30,000/-
.
,
.
2
3
.
1978
,
.
2
3 4
1988
. 210
1986
.
.
7
. 1989
,
11.2.1992
,
. 240 .
.
1991-
.
8-
210
8-
,
.
.
.
31.8.1992
8-
,
29.10.1992
750
.
.
600
150
. .
350 .
.
, ,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
. .
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
66.5
.
.
, ‘
.
. 4
.
.
’
. 2.75
. 1.22
.
,
.
200
,
.
.
‘
’
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
. ,
,
Memorandum of Understanding 11 ‘ ’ ,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
8
.
,
.
.
,
,
‘
.
’
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
- “
.
”
25.2.1994
17.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
, ,
.
.
.
.
155
,
.
60 .
.
,
,
.
. 1960-
,
. . 400
.
.
. .
200
. 1976 .
.
.
,
10
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
-
.
. 1983 -
-
-
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
. ,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
10
.
1
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
1.
,
. .
,
.
.
,
-
2.
,
-
.
.
.
.
.
3.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
4.
,
,
.
,
.
,
5.
.
,
,
-
6.
,
,
,
,
7.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
8.
,
-
,
.
.
.
,
.
9.
,
.
10.
,
.
11.
.
.
12.
-
,
.
.
,
.
13.
,
.
- “
”
18.
,
.
. ,
,
,
!
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
. ,
.
,
.
, ,
,
,
,
,
-
.
-
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
“
, .
.
”
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
?
?
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
43
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
- “
” 28.10.1993
19.
:
.
1924-
,
?
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
1972-
,
,
.
.
.
.
, .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
,
‘
.
’
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
205
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
356
.
,
,
.
.
.
. .
,
,
. .
.
.
1. 1924-
2.
28.2 .
393
,
,
.
.
.
. .
4.
.
.
.
5. 1972-
3. 1974-
.
,
.
6.
.
7.
,
.
,
,
.
.
1990 , . .
.
,
‘
.
. . .
.
. . .
,
.
. .
’
.
,
-
,
.
- “
” 10.12.1993
***
1.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
2.
.
.
3.
‘
506
.
.
.
:
.
,
,
.
.
1.
.
1924
, 50
. 2.
,
,
“
’
.
.
. 3. 1974 ,
.
. 4. 1989
“
”
.
,
,
1924-
50
. 1974
.
(8)
10(4)
,
,
-
.
10(10)
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
1924-
.
.
,
, .
.
. 1924
1924
.
, ,
,
.
1910
.
.
1974-
.
,
.
“
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
1989
.
.”
2
;
. 1990
20.
!
.
.
,
,
.
80
.
,
,
,
(Right to Recall) .
.
.
.
Vs (Tex Civ App; 109 SW - 21 = 251. 254 Black Law Dictionary 1989 Edition; Jones Vs Harian.)
.
,
,
,
“
”
‘
.
’
,
. “
(Nepotism)
” ‘
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
-
,
. .
,
.
,
,
.
Checks and balances
,
.
,
,
,
, (1936)
16-
.
,
,
.
, .
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
- “
” 16.8.1993
***
1.
.
.
.
.
21.
-
,
,
.
,
.
,
, ‘
’
. .
. ,
.
.
(
)
,
.
,
.
. . 17.50
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
. ,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
1981
,
.
, ,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
“
.
,
.
,
.
.
155
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
‘
,
.
’
,
.”
,
.
-
?
.
.
.
.
, 1950-
,
.
19
.
.
. 1969-
-
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
-
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
-
.
.
“Governor is to be formally The Constitutional Head with strictly limited powers whose discharge alınost all functions would be required to follow the advise of the Ministry” . , , , . . .
.
.
.
,
,
, .
,
,
.
.
,
.
-
.
.
,
.
.
. .
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
(Mutual Checks and Balances) . , “As a friend, Philospher guide to the State Government and defender of the Constitution. The Office of the Governor assumes crucial role in a Federal set up. He will be called upon to exercise his discretionery powers in the event of the breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State (Soli J.Sorabjee)” , , . .
154, 160, 161, 162 . 356 , .
,
.
.
.
- “
”
14.1.1994
22.
: !
.
. .
.
,
4.10.91
.
. .
.
. (
)
(
) 1919-
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
1985-
.
, .
.
.
,
, .
,
1935-
,
, 1969 -
.
14.5.85
,
.
.
,
.
. .
.
,
.
168, 169
.
,
, “I also agree with that view, that the idea of second chamber prevent and check hasty legislation". , . 1/3 171 (1) . Vs (AIR 1959 MP 353) , . , , , .
.
, ,
.
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
. ,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
, ?
,
.
,
.
,
-
.
-
,
,
,
“
.
.
. .
,
,
,
.
”
,
.
.
.
. .
“
.
”
.
” . .
, “
.
-
.
‘
,
,
.
.
’
, .
.,
,
,
, , .
,
.
.
.
.
.
.,
. .
.
– “
.
” -
. 16-31 / 1991
23.
; !
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
. ,
,
,
,
6
9
.
?
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
-
,
.
(1969
)
, ,
.
,
,
;
.
.
.
.
:
,
,
2.
.
,
,
1.
-
, .
.
3.
,
4.
.
, ,
,
5.
.
6.
,
,
8.
.
,
.
9.
.
,
7.
-
.
,
, .
,
.
,
10.
-
.
,
.
11.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
‘
’
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
, ,
.
,
, ,
.
- “
”
***
1.
.
, 1968-
,
.
,
,
.
.
2.
.
. .
.
,
3.
.
. .
24.
-
,
;
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
, ,
.
,
. -
.
,
, ,
.
. .
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
-
.
,
, -
.
-
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
-
-
,
,
,
, ,
.
,
‘
’
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
'
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
- .
“...
,
,
.
,
;
”
-
. .
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
. ,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
‘
’
,
. 'Blackmail'
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
. .
,
.
,
;
,
,
- “
.
”
1-15/1994.
***
1.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
2.
.
,
,
,
.
25.
;
!
1975-
,
.
,
.
.
.
, ,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
. 70
50
“
‘
‘
.
.
’
’
.
,
”
.
.
70%
37
30
.
15
.
.
7500 .
.
, 100
2
. .
100
1981
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
, , ,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
540
.
.
. .
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
, ,
,
15
. '
,
.
,
.
4.4.
,
.
.
. .
25
1.4
.
, -
-
60%
-
.
-
.
,
.
.
,
1980-
.
.
37
.
.
.
,
.
.
. ,
.
, ‘
’
.
,
.
.
. ,
, ,
, ,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
’
. ‘
Vs
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
‘
,
,
.
.
,
, 1990
.
,
, .
, (ENVIRONMENT AUDIT)
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
- “
.
” -
. 1-15 / 1991
26.
: !!
!
.
,
,
, (
)
.
.
. 1,200
,
.
,
.
1950
.
. 1978-
.
. 1956 . . . . 1971
,
.
1986
, - 1930, - 1950, - 1955, - 1969, - 1969,
– 1976 .
,
1986
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
90
.
5
, 5
,
.
,
.
,
,
1
.
(
)
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
. ( . .
.
. 1989
Vs .
.5)
. ,
.
. 50,000/-
. Vs
Guj 26)
(AIR 1988
3
,
Vs
.
.
. 25,000/-
,
,
.
Vs (
5/88)
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 1,26,077 . 1,000/
. ,
.
-
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
. 1,500/-
.
11.00
.
.
,
,
.
Vs
.
,
.
,
.
.
. 1,000/-
,
,
. 250/ .
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
- “
?
” -
. 16-30 / 1991
***
1. 18.6.1993
.
,
.
27.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
1.
2.
-
-
3.
(
4.
(
) -
5.
) -
(
) -
6.
7.
(
-
) -
8.
(
)
9.
(
) -
10.
-
10
1976.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
. -
,
, ,
,
. ,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
15
,
1973-
,
,
,
.
.
18
.
.
,
1933
. 1989-
,
. .
29.12.79
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
16.12.1989-
.
.
, .
.
31.3.79
.
.
.
.
.
. 1979,
,
,
,
.
1986
1986-
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
, . .
.
.
,
,
.
.
19-
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
. ,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
, ,
-
.
.
.
. 60
,
,
,
.
,
. 1990
.
.
.
(
.
. .)
.
.
,
, .
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
28.
-
, ,
,
,
,
,
.
,
‘
.
’
.
.
,
-
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
;
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
(antiestablishment) .
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
, ,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
. ,
,
‘ ’ .
.
,
.,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
. 38
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
. .
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
80-
,
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
, ,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
‘
’
.
‘
-
’ . ‘
’
.
,
:
“In order to ensure that uniform standards are applied while exainining films dubbed in various languages, the Central Government as appellate authority has decided that there should be no censorship of the visuals in the case of dubbed films, provided the Censor Board is satisfied that the visuals of the dubbed versions are exactly the same as the visuals of the original certified version. The Board will henceforth examine dubbed films in the light of this decision.”
.
(workshop)
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
. ‘
’
.
‘
.
’
.
.
.
, .
.
,
. .
.
.
,
.
‘
’
. . ‘
’
‘
’
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
‘
.
‘
.
.
1977
.
.
.
, ’
,
’
.
(1952)
:
1.
:
.
2.
.
.
3.
.
.
:
1.
,
.
( )
:
; ‘
’
,
12
.
,
; .
( )
‘
’
;
,
,
. ‘ ’
; ‘
’
( )
.
( )
;
2.
.
( )
,
( )
( )
1.
, .
:
.
,
.
2.
,
.
,
3.
.
4.
.
,
,
,
,
.
5.
.
,
:
:
1.
( )
...
( )
4
1.
( )
‘ ‘
’ ’
;
,
.
‘ ’ ‘
.
’
( )
( )
-
(
)
.
2.
,
,
.
3.
10
,
.
1.
:
,
, ,
,
,
, ,
,
,
.
2.
(1)
.
:
.
.
.
.
, ‘
‘ ’
’
.
,
,
.
.
1.
:
( )
,
( ) ‘ ’
-
;
;
( ) ‘
’
;
( ) ‘
’
;
( )
.
,
.
,
,
.
2.
.
.
.
5-
:
.
,
“
.
.
,
.
40
, “
“
. . ”, ”,
“
“ “
” .”
,
.
10, 15
.
15
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
, 70, 80
.
.
.
”
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
2, 3
10, 15
.
,
”
,
.
,
.
***
1.
,
, ,
.
,
29.
“21
,
,
? I
.
. .
.
.”
.
-
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
, .
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
‘
. (Theocratical State) .
,
,
.
,
.
.
’
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
(Nepotism)
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
. ,
,
,
, . ,
, .
,
, ,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
, ,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
(Referendum) .
.
,
, .
,
.
. (Right to work)
,
, . .
.
.
,
.
. ,
, ,
.
,
,
.
,
! ,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
“
.
.
,
.
, (
,
.
”
...
)
!
30.
? II
Geometric Ratio
44 ,
, .
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
, ,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
“
”
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
-
- . 1967
, ,
.
, .
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
-
,
.
,
;
,
-
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
(Nepolism)
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
, (Right to work) .
,
.
(Referendum)
,
.
,
-
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
(Welfare State)
,
‘
.
,
,
.
.
.
‘
,
,
’ ,
,
,
, ,
. (Theocratical State)
, .
, . ’ ,
(Westminster System) , , ‘
- “
, - . , .
” -
. 16-31/ 1991
31.
!
,
,
1976
.
.
1983-
,
;
250
315 500 . 50
;
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
!
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
“
3.10.1991 , .
,
:
,
,
,
,
,
,
. 1974
, 1976
,
,
,
,
.”
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
. .
,
.
.
1983
1991
1303
236 . 486 . 51
50
. 135
.
, 205 .
.
. .
,
,
,
,
.
. 57 65
.
.
, 1974
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
, ,
.”
,
.
,
,
.
2.7.1980) .
,
: . 510/ 70
,
,
.
(
,
,
, 1947-
.
.
,
.
.
1
.
,
.
.
. 1955-
,
.
: “
.
.
.
.
”
.
1.
.
,
,
4 1000
.
:
.
2.
,
,
.
3.
4.
,
5.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
6.
7.
.
,
.
1. (Adiministrative Secretary) 20.4.1950 1929-1945
.
,
.
2.
(1943)
,
.
.
.
3. 1913
1928
,
15 ,
. 1936
,
.
4. 19.2.1922 . .
,
.
,
.
5. 4.2.1985
: 27.2.1922.
. (
.
134/85)
6. 1.7.1947
30.6.1949
,
. 26.7.1947. 278/48.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
-
,
-
,
.
-
.
,
,
,
.
-
.
.
, ,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
- “
”
- 11.3.1994
32.
.
1967-
.
.
-
,
,
,
,
.
,
. ,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
“
.
,
.”
23.11.1946 . . .
“
,
.
-
.
1947
14-
. .
.
“
.
.
” “
”
.
,
.
,
.
.
-
,
“
.
. , ,
,
.
.
.
.
. . . ,
.
. ,
,
”
,
,
.
,
. .
, ,
.
. .
.
.
.
.
1977
,
,
.
. .
.
,
.
,
.
-
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
-
.
.
,
258-
.
.
,
.
,
,
. 1947-
.
,
.
‘
.
,
.
.
’
, 20
,
.
!
,
42
.
.
?
?
.
.
-
?
1967-
,
.
,
, ,
.
356
.
-
.
,
.
.
.
,
1967
,
.
,
.
. 1947
. 1967
.
.
-
.
-
.
,
.
. ,
.
.
-
.
,
, .
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
(Welfare State)
,
.
,
,
, -
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
“
, .
”, “
”
,
,
,
1.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
40
50
.
2.
60%
.
.
.
,
,
,
3.
.
,
,
. 275
,
,
.
4.
.
,
.
.
75%
,
.
25% .
-
.
100%
5.
,
.
: -
,
1.7.82
, 50%
. 30.6.1982 31.3.1982
.
5 .
.
.
,
269
.
,
, 75%
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
8-
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
83-
23.23%
40%
.
. 1982-
:
-
-
.
,
35
,
,
,
,
.
-
.
. ,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
, ,
,
.
.
.
.
.
-
,
.
,
-
.
,
:
“ -
256, 257 .
7
,
(
.
)
.
.
.
.
,
.
8
.
.
.
.”
.
11.12.1947-
.
“
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.”
1916-
‘
19 ’ -
,
.
,
3.4.1946-
,
,
, ,
.
.
-
,
-
.
.
,
.
,
,
. ,
.
,
8-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
- “
” -
***
1.
.
.
. 95
33. “
”
!
‘
,
’
.
.
.
“Rule of Law”
.
. 1985-
1985
“
,
.
”
.
‘
’
.
52,998 ‘ ’
,
52,998 ‘ ’
1985 .
1993 .
434 0.8
.
,
-
.
‘
’
,
,
,
. ‘
,
.
‘
.
’
.
85
.
‘
’
.
.
’
, .
.
.
.
40
‘
’
,
‘
.
’
, ,
‘
’
.
‘
,
.
,
40
’
‘
1985
20-
.
.
‘
.
’
6.40
,
.
’
, ‘
‘
.
’
.
‘
.
’
.
’
‘
’
. ,
.
.
.
‘
.
,
,
’
.
,
,
. ,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
‘
’
’
, ‘
.
.
,
.
***
1.
.
2.
.
34.
-
,
.
. .
, ,
.
,
.
,
-
,
.
,
, ,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
Research (ICMR)
.
Council of Medical ICMR ,
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
. 1968-69 .
. 8 . 1970-71. ,
.
90
, 80
. 25
60
5
7
.
.
,
. .
.
,
.
,
.
, Patent Right .
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
” .
“
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
. 1970-
,
1980
.
,
,
,
.
.
‘ .
.
. .
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
20
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
35. A DEPRIVED STATE
TAMIL NADU, which was second only to Maharashtra in industrialisation in the fifties, today ranks thirteenth among the states of India. There are many reasons attributed for this downhill slide - lack of power, raw materials, shortage of water and an even more obvious lack of enterprise acutely evident in the over whelming desire to “play it safe” rather than take it as a venture.
But one major factor, the importance of which has not been sufficiently appreciated, is the lack of adequate central investment in Tamil Nadu. Many major projects have not been given the nod by New Delhi.
Most of the major industrial projects in Tamil Nadu, funded by the centre, had come up almost a quarter century ago. Some of these are the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Hindustan Teleprinters, The Bharat Heavy Electricals projects at Tiruchi, Madras Refineries at Manali, and the Integral Coach Factory at Perambur. But in the last two decades or so, it is clear that the centre has not shown any real interest in the industrial developinent of Tamil Nadu.
The colour film factory should have come up in the Hindustan Photo Films complex in Ooty. It would have been economical to locate the unit there since the expertise and infrastructural facilities were ready at hand. Instead, the centre, with N D Tiwari as the industries minister, put up a colour film unit in Nainital.
The tale of the Salem steel plant is one woe. As a manufacturer of ‘stainless steel’ it is among the top twelve in the world. But the centre has not allowed it to expand its production from 36,000 tonnes to 65,000 tonnes.
The Salem steel plant has been doing well, with its sheets commanding a good market in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, United States, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. The Salem unit had for long been asking the centre for a Sendzemir mill but it has only been sanctioned. But the other demand that the steel plant must be an integrated one is rebuffed.
Tamil Nadu has been asking for an aromatics complex in the Manali refineries, but the centre has been dilly daying. The aromatics plant here would greatly enhance the industrial potential of the Madras area, making it a major petro chemical producing centre in the country. It now looks as if, Tamil Nadu would have to wait endlessly for this project to come through.
One of the most crucial areas of neglect is that of infrastructure. Tamil Nadu has an excellent road system but it is sadly lacking in railways. There are very few broad gauge routes in the state. Also, sea routes could be exploited and these could turn out to be economical. But the centre had done precious little for these decades old pleas from the state.
In Tamil Nadu, out of a total of 6,563 Kms of railways, 4,000 Kms are metre gauge. With the increase in goods and enger traffic, metre guage has to be converted to broad gauge. But this is going at a snail's pace, with the budgetary allocations each year coming as shock to the people here. Right now, there are only two gauge conversion projects - the Karur - Dindigul route and the Tirunelveli Tuticorin routes. But the slow pace of the implementation of the project pains the people of the state. Elecrification of major routes has also not claimed the attention of the centre. While the centre is bent over backwards to build the Calcutta metro, the beach - Luz rapid transport system (MRTS) in Madras had made no progress, the budgetary allocation being meagre.
One of the most important projects, which have been virtually thrown into the garbage bin is the Sethusamudram project linking the gulf of Mannar with the Palk Strait, cutting across the Adam's bridge, which is a shallow rocky sea. If
this were implemented, Madras would become a major port and the sea route between east and west India could be opened. Many minor ports could come up along the coast which will boost trade. But the British, who first thought of the idea, apparently yielded to pressure from the Ceylon Government which feared that if this route were to be opened and Madras were to become a major port, Colombo would lose its status at the premier port east of Suez and west of Singapore. But if the British were indifferent, the post - independence governments in New Delhi have been no better.
In 1955, the noted industrialist and Sir A. Ramasway Mudaliar strongly urged the implementation of the project on strong economic grounds. But it all fell on deaf ears. In 1963, the Fourth Five Year Plan had the scheme in it. But even so, little was done to give it a concrete shape. In 1965, however a committee under V.C. Venkateswaren went into the merits of the scheme. The committee stated that the project would cost Rs.37 crore but income from it would be to the order of Rs one crore per year. But as this report was gathering dust in one of the Bhavans of New Delhi, the government appointed yet another committee to go into the merits of the project again, but this time, too, there was precious little follow up action, despite any number of questions in Parliament from Tamil Nadu MPs. On March 12 / 1986, the DMK MP, V. Gopalsainy, was told by the minister concerned, Rajesh Pilot, that the project was not being implemented because of financial constraints. Many wounders if the cost is more than that of the extravagance the government and the ministers are indulging in.
And look at the benefits! The distance between Tuticorin and Madras would be reduced by 434 miles. The distance between Tuticorin and Vizag would be reduced by 376 miles, and between Tuticorin and Calcutta, the distance would be 340 Miles less.
As a result of the canal, ports like Tuticorin, Rameswaram, Nagapattinam, Karaikal, Cuddalore, Pondicherry, Vizag and even Calcutta, would get more business and grow. The development of the Tuticorin port would in turn develop the dry and backward districts of Tirunelveli, Ramanathapuram and Madurai
districts. With the development of broad gauge lines in this area. Goods can brought to the ports and trade, industry and commerce would expand. The development of these backward areas is crucial for checking the infiltration and influence of foreign militant and anti-national forces. The troubled conditions in Sri Lanka make it imperative that these employment opportunities created for the youth. Sea transport is always less expensive than road or rail transport, for the goods are carried in great bulk. Its development would give an impetus to the economy. Economists assert that the cost of the project can be recovered in about a decade. Even so, why does the centre has shelved the project?
Tamil Nadu is short of electricity because it neither has coal nor water. But there are ever so many rivers in neighbouring Kerala which empty into the Arabian Sea. The waters of these rivers could be diverted to Tamil Nadu and help irrigate 8.2 lakh acres. As of now, 1,100 TMC of water is emptied into the sea and out of this, even if 82 TMC are diverted to Tamil Nadu, miracles could be worked. Small power projects could be set up and the border areas could be made a hospitable ground for the growth of industry. But what has the centre done? As usual, it appointed an expert committee in 1976 to go into the question. The committee gave a number of proposals which could benefit both Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
- The Business and Political Observer / 15.8.1991
36. THRICE TO HANG - NEVER TO DIE THE HISTORIC CASE OF GURUSWAMI
It was the 27th of September, 1984. Suspense was mounting in the halls of the Madras High Court - the final verdict for a seven year old case was to be pronounced. If the verdict was against the Petitioner, India would lose the rightful descendant of its foremnost freedom fighter Veerapandia Kattabomman, the pioneer of the Indian Independence struggle whose name and fame still reverberate in our ears. However, if the verdict went in favour of the Petitioner, the case of Guruswamy would be unique in the legal history of our country where hanging for any culpable offence is not uncommon.
During the emergency in 1977, Mr. V. Gopalsamy, D.M.K. Rajya Sabha M.P., was taken into custody under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act and imprisoned at Palayamkottai, Tamil Nadu. It was there that he came across his fellow prisoner, Guruswamy, who convicted of murder, was awaiting execution by hanging. His death sentence was already confirmed thrice on 15th June 1977, 15th September 1981 and 21st June 1984. His petitions for clemency to the Government of India having been rejected thrice, Guruswamy was reconciled to be gathered to his forefathers. He was sentenced to death by the Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, in S.C. No.87 of 1976. The Special Leave petition filed by the condemned prisoner was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 1977. Regular conversations between Mr. Gopalswamy and Guruswamy revealed that a dispute over family property had been concocted by Guruswamy's maternal uncle and a serious struggle for property ensued between the two. Guruswamy's uncle drove him out of the village and therefore he had to spend a part of his life incognito and finally he returned homeward to resume farming his lands. When his uncle set upon him with weapons in hand, Guruswamy struck back in self defence, causing the death of his uncle.
Upon hearing all this, Mr. Gopalswamy was determined to save Guruswamy from the gallows and approached the then President of India, His Excellency
Sanjiva Reddy, with a Memorandum signed by as many as 38 of Parliament. The President was moved as he was well aware of the labour of Guruswamy's illustrious forefather, Veerapandia Kattabomman whose statue he had once unveiled at Kayatharu in Tirunelveli District. Unfortunately the mercy petition fell through for the second time (the first petition was also rejected) and the date of execution was fixed as 15th September 1981.
Once again, on 8th September 1981, Mr. Gopalsamy submitted a Memorandum signed by 50 M.Ps. to the President, and was directed to submit the same to the Minister of State for Home, Mr. Venkata Subbiah. The then Home Secretary, succeeded in convincing the Minister that the Government had authority to stay the sentence. By now, it was already the 9th of September, just 5 days ahead of the death knell being rung for Guruswamy. The Execution was put off but not quashed. Meanwhile the Home Department directed the Tamil Nadu Government to the bonafides of Guruswamy's direct lineage to Veerapandia Kattabomman. Execution was delayed for a year till the verification was Complete and his case was recommended for commutation. However, it was only a one year reprieve, for President Zail Singh's Secretariat rejected the mercy petition on the ground that no law could extenuate a criminal in consideration of his being the direct descendant of a freedom fighter.
At this juncture, Hon'ble Justice Chinnappa Reddi of the Supreme Court has pronounced in a far reaching Judgement that, considering the prolonged detention at the condemned cell, a death sentence may be commuted to a life sentence. On the strength of this judgement another petition was submitted to President of India on the plea that Guruswamy had already been languishing in prison for five long years. It was already the 14th of June, 1984 and the date of execution being fixed as 21st June; petitions for stay of execution were filed both before the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court. Mr. Radhakrishnan, Advocate and General Secretary, Tamil Nadu Kamaraj Congress, undertook the responsibility of filing the affidavit in public interest and leading senior lawyers like Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai and Mr. I. Subramaniyan agreed to appear in court for no consideration. Mr. Radhakrishnan's affidavit set out that the sentence of death is justifiable only in the following circumstances:
(a) In the ‘rarest of rare cases’, where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed;
(b) In the case of professional murderers who deserve no sympathy even in of the evolving standards of decency of a matured society.
(c) In cases where there is no one for the murdered to ;
(d) In cases where life imprisonment proves absolutely inadequate
The affidavit was ated by a goodwill certificate from all the 150 prisoners and the jailors of the Palayamkottai Central Prison.
Amidst all this din and hustle, the only person who patiently and agonisingly waited for events to run their course was Guruswamy himself and his only wish was that if his life was to be taken, his body should be handed over to Mr. Gopalsamy.
The day of last judgement arrived. Their Lordships Justice V. Ramaswami, now Chief justice of Punjab and Haryana and Justice David Annousamy pronounced;
“If professional murderers can be excused from being hanged, it should only be just that the descendent of a freedom fighter too be saved from climbing the gallows. I order the death sentence quashed and commute the sentence to life imprisonment”
Their Lordships cited the decision of the Supreme Court in T.V. Vaitheeswaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1983 S.C. 361) where in it was held that delay exceeding two years in the execution of a death sentence should be considered sufficient to entitle the person under sentence of death to invoke Article 21 of the Constitution of India and demand the quashing of the death sentence. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Sher Singh - Vs - State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1983 S.C.465) was also cited wherein it was held that prolonged delay in executing a death sentence is an important consideration for deterinining whether the sentence should be allowed to be executed, but that delay exceeding 2 years would not be itself be sufficient for commutation. It has been held in the case of Bachan Singh - vs - State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 898) that the death sentence is to be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases, and their lordships of the Madras High Court were of the definite opinion that the case of Guruswamy did not fall in the category of such cases.
The long drawn seven year battle to save the life of a condemned prisoner did not go in vain. Guruswamy is now spending his life terin as a convict warden and is expected to his family shortly, the life sentence being reduced on of his good conduct.
Had Guruswamy been hanged, he would have followed his ancestors to the grave. But this unprecedented verdict will go down in the annals of Indian jurisprudence as it has for the first time in the country's legal history saved one doomed to death, not once but thrice.
- LEX ET JURIS The Law Magazine December - 1987
,
–
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
200
,
.
64
, .
. 654
.
,
-
,
-
, ,
-
-
-
,
,
-
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
“ .
“
.
” “
. ”,
” .
“...
“
,
;
...”
.
‘ ’ ( ) (Soverignty) ? (Political Sovereignty) (Constitution) . (Legal Sovereignty) ( ) ( ) . , ?
,
‘
’
? .”
“…
(Federal form) . ,
from)
,
;
(Unitary
.
,
,
.”
“
.
,
,
,
.”
“...
,
.
.
,
.
.
-
. ,
-
...”
“...
(Spearhead)
.
(
.
(
“
? )
)
; (
)
...”
, 1969 “ ,
“
!
.
” (Ilome Rule)
.
” (Hail the Dawn) “ ”
,
,
(
.
,
.
.
;
.
,
.
, ,
)
.
. .
,
.”
ESTIMATES COMMITTEE (1981-82)
(Seventh Lok Sabha)
Thirty Second Report Ministry of Shipping and Transport.
C. SETHUSAMUDRAM PROJECT
9.42 Is has been represented to the committee that at present India does not have a continuous navigable route around the peninsula running within her own territerial waters, due to the presence of Sand Stone Reef called Adams Bridge at Pamban between South Eastern coast of India near Rameshwaram and Talai Manar of Sri Lanka where the depth navigable is only 11 feet. As a result all ships from the West to East and from Tuticorin Port to the West have to go round Sri Lanka. Hence the question of excavating an artificial canal known as Sethusamudram similar to Suez Canal and Panama Canal to enable the ships to through these reefs had been under consideration for a long time. It has been urged before the Committee that this project is of national importance not only for the efficiency of Tuticorin Port but also for national shipping. It is a dredging project and can be taken up by the Dredging Corporation of India. It is felt that the project is economically viable and technically feasible and should be undertaken as soon as possible as a national project in the national interest.
9.43 Secretary, Shipping and Transport informed the Committee that this idea
had been there for the last 30 years and had once even been dropped. But recently it has been taken up again. A committee has now been set up and it is going into the technical and economic viability of the project. The report of this committee has not yet been received.
9.44 Asked whether any senior officer of Defence Services had been associated by the Committee so that strategic consideration was also taken into consideration Secretary (Shipping and Transport) stated that recently a proposal to associate an officer from Navy had been approved.
9.45 Secretary added that the main point was that it was considered economically not viable and his personal views was that it might not be economically viable even now because it would cost Rs.200 crores, It has to have return in of money. In his view not many ships would as there would be one-way traffic. A ship might have to pay something like Rs.1 lakh if it wanted to cross such a channel, which is a very high charge. The main constraint was the financial aspect.
9.46 When asked if apart from the monetary consideration the construction of this canal was desirable, the Secretary stated:
“I should say that it is definitely desirable.”
9.47 It was brought to the Committee's notice that in a memorandum presented to Special Techno Economic Appraisal Committee, that following benefits of the proposed Sethusamudram canal had been enumerated:
a. Since India does not have a Continuous Navigable Sea Route around its
Peninsular Coast of 3554 miles in length, running within her own territorial waters, the necessity for cutting a ship canalacross the rocky barrier called Adam's Bridge, to connect Indian Ocean with Bay of Bengal had been felt even from 1960 onwards.
b. Since the Tuticorin Harbour Project and Sethusamudram projects formed “Twin projects” and since the Tuticorin Harbour has been completed and commissioned even in 1974,the Sethusamudram project has to be taken up and completed without further delay.
c. This ship canal will give better shaltered sea route from Tuticorin to various ports on the East Coast as below:
d. Saving in Fuel: Because of the saving in distance as indicated above, there will be considerable saving in fuel and consequently it would reduce our expenditure in foreign exchange by atleast Rs.130 crores every year.
e. Quicker turn about: Because of the saving in distance and saving in fuel the ships will have quicker turn - about leading to appreciation by 20 percent in performance of coast Shipping and 5 percent in Foreign Shipping Trade.
f. Earning Foreign Exchange: Considerable foreign exchange could be earned because the foreign ships ing through canal would be paying their canal dues in foreign currency.
g. Coastal shipping and Coastal Trade: Because of the saving in distance and due to availability of direct route along the coast, Coastal shipping and Trade would develop rapidly and consequently the Minor Ports along the East Coast especially those in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, will develop at a rapid stride. This will incidentally reduce the load and congestion on Railways and Roadways.
h. This will help fisherman from the South to go to the areas in Bay of Bengal for fishing in mechanised boats and launches and will thus develop the Districts of Tirunelveli and Ramanathapuram and other backward areas all along the coast of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. This will also give protection to our fishermen, who are repeatedly being attacked by Sri Lanka's naval ships and also by the naval ships of other south eastern nations.
i. From strategy and naval point of view, this ship canal will be a great asset for protection of the Indian Coast and Naval Officers have shown keen interest right
throughout.
j. This project will develop the Backward Districts of Ramanathapuram and other ading backward coastal areas.
k. This will help rehabilitation of repatriates from Ceylon and Burina and there will be innumerable other benefits which could not be visualised or estimated immediately.
9.48 The desirability of taking up Sethusamudram project providing for an artificial canalacross the rocky barrier called Adam's Bridge to connect the Indian Ocean with the Bay of Bengal similar to Suez and Panaina canals has been represented before the committee. It is claimed that the project is economically viable and technically feasible and should be undertaken as a national project in national interest.
9.49 While Secretary, Shipping and Transport had doubts about its econoinic viability and felt that the main constraint was the financial aspect, he categorically stated that apart from monetary considerations the construction of Sethusamudram project was “definitely desirable”. The Government it is stated, has set up an expert committee to go into the technical and economic viability of the project once again. The committee hope that besides examining techno economic viability the committee will also consider the strategic importance of the channel for the country's defence, and the Government will take an early decision in the matter which will be in larger interest of the nation. The committee would like to be informed about the recommendation of technical committee and action taken there on.
D. CAPITAL DREDGING IN TUTICORIN
9.50 It has been represented to the committee that Tuticorin port has a draft of 30 feet. The draft can be increased by 5 feet if capital dredging is undertaken along with maintenance dredging. It has been brought to the Committee's notice that capital dredging is very essential to make Tuticorin Port suitable for bigger ships to meet the nationas needs. The proposal it is stated was included in the sixth Plan earlier but dropped later on.
9.51 The Ministry have stated that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was contemplating to deploy 35,000 DWT geared vessels to transport coal from Haldia to Tuticorin to meet the requirement of coal for the Thermal Power Project and accordingly pressing the port to improve the drought by deepening the channel. Similarly M/s Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation was also pressing to deepen the port to facilitate them to charter deep droughted vessels for fertiliser raw materials and finished products. Accordingly the port formulated a proposal to improve the droughts up to 10.1 m(33 ft) at a cost of Rs.13.00 crores. The scheine was dependent on the improvement of draught to Haldia Port as coal was to be shipped from this port.
9.52 Considering the complex problem of improving the draft of shipping channel to Haldia and paucity of funds, the scheme was not included in the sixth Plan as, within the available resource, inore definitive schemes were available and had to be included.
9.53 During evidence Secretary, Shipping and Transport stated that the Tuticorin bed is all rocky and so the dredging is very difficult. If we go 5 feet down, it will cost something like Rs.30 crores, If not more. From the economic point of view, to deepen it is not viable because it is mainly handling coal which comes from Haldia. Haldia is 30 ft. That ship which is Haldia can negotiate Tuticorin. If Haldia is deepened to 35 ft. We could have bigger ship bringing coal 10 Tuticorin. But Haldia is 30 ft. We feel that there is a possibility of our taking up the scheme in the Seventh Plan.
9.54 The need for capital dredging at Tuticorin Port to increast its draft by 5 feet has been represented to the committee. It has been stated that capital dredging is very essential to make Tuticorin Port suitable for bigger ships to meet the national needs. The Ministry has stated that deepening of draft at Tuticorin Port is linked with the scheme for improvement of draft of shipping channel 10 Haldia port from which bigger ships carrying coal are expected to sail to tuticorin. But considering the complex problem of improving the draft at Haldia and paucity of funds, the Tuticorin scheme was not included in the Sixth Plan. The committee take note of the observation made by secretary, shipping and Transport that there is a possibility of the Ministry taking up the capital dredging scheme for Tuticorin in the Seventh Five Year Plan.
E. DRAFT FOR 1, 00,000 DWT SHIPS
9.55 It was brought to the committee's notice that the trend all over the world is to commission bigger and bigger ships of 1 lakh DWT and above requiring deeper draft.
9.56 The committee wanted to know whether the Ministry had studied the international trend in this regard and review the drafts available in major Indian ports in this context.
9.57 Secretary, Shipping and Transport, stated during evidence that “We are aware that the ships have been getting bigger and bigger in the last 35 years. Of course, we are not sure how much bigger we will become in future. But we do it that the ships have become bigger and certain ports of India are not tailored to take those ships. The only port which could take 100 thousand DWT ships is Vizag. We hope that some day, the country will also handle the ships of bigger size.”
9.58 The committee wanted to know the steps being taken to make Indian ports usable for bigger ships 1, 00,000 DWT and above. Secretary stated that “We are in the process of putting up to the Public Investment Board a proposal in respect of Madras Port. This is under active consideration.” Another representative of the Ministry stated that there were a few other ports where basic infrastructural facilities were available, such as Salaya. At Bombay also a port is being constructed and this would take about 1, 00,000 DWT vessels. Cochin could also take about 1, 00,000 DWT vessels. This could be deepened further in course of time. The Secretary added that “Deepening a harbour is just nothing but money. It is a question of spending more crores of rupees. It is not a new technology. We have to introduce heavy dredging.”
9.59 Asked about the position at New Mangalore, Secretary stated that “It was designed for 12.5 metres. It is taking about 60,000 DWT. We have again redredged it up to 12.5 metres and we may dredge it upto 15 metres as soon as business picks up.”
9.60 At present the only port which could take 1, 00,000 DWT ships is Vishakhapatnam. Cochin too could take such ships. A proposal to make Madras port usable for bigger ships is also under active consideration of the Government. At Bombay also a port is being constructed to take about 1, 00,000 DWT vessels. New Mangalore port with a draft of 12.5 metres can take about 60,000 DWT vessels, and it can be dredged further upto 15 metres as soon as the business there picks up. The Committee feel that the Ministry should keep the international trend of commissioning bigger and bigger ships under watch and plan well in advance to make Indian ports usable for bigger ships so as to keep pace with the international trend.
SETHU CANAL PROJECT
Rajya Sabha proceedings on 12.3.86
SHRI V. GOPALSAMY: Mr. Chairman, Sir, this most vital Sethusamudram project is pending for the past 120 years. On the recommendation of the Ramasamy Mudaliar Committee the project was cleared in the union cabinet meeting on 13th Spetember, 1963. It was sanctioned for advance action, but when there was an unreasonable request from Sri Lanka not to carry on with the project as it will hamper their own economic interest, this project was shelved. The Hon.Minister has now said that there are constraints of funds. Sir, this is not a development project. This is a project which is very vital for security reasons, in the interest of India. So, when there is a will there will be a flow of funds also but there is no will from your side. That is why you are talking about the constraints of funds. Will the Minister reconsider this, get the sanction from the Cabinet and get the project cleared this year itself?
SHIRI RAJESH PILOT: Mr. Chairman, I do share the feeling of the Hon. Member. Government is aware of the importance of the project, but because of the funds we are still on the way to take a decision.
SHRI V. GOPALSAMY: Mr. Chairman, sir, there is a grave threat from Indian Ocean to the security of India. This is because of the in Diego Garcia by the US and attempt to get in Trincomalee another base. These ships have to go via. Sri Lanka that will come within the striking range of Sri Lanka. For these reasons, for strategic and security reasons, will the Government take an immediate decision to implement this vital Sethusamudram project. If it is implemented, these ships need not go via Sri Lanka.
SHRI RAJESH PILOT: As I have mentioned, when Government considers things, all factors affecting the security, economic and other factors are considered. I have said that Government is aware of the importance of this
project but...
SHRI V. GOPALSAMY: Had you realised, you would not have said about constraints of funds.
SHRI RAJESH PILOT: I assure you that Government is equally keen and interested. (Interruptions). I certainly share your feelings on the subject.
AGREEMENT
dt: 17.6.1929
WHEREAS on the 18th February 1924 an agreement between the Governments of Mysore and Madras was signed and whereas by clause 10 (2) of the said agreement the Mysore Government agreed to regulate the discharges through and from the Krishnarajasagara reservoir strictly in accordance with the Rules of Regulation being Annexure I to the said agreement, and
WHEREAS disputes had arisen between the two Government in regard to the interpretation, operation and carrying out of rules 7 and 8 of the said Rules of Regulation, and
WHEREAS both the Governments have submitted the matters in dispute to the Arbitration of the Honourable Mr. Justice Page with Messrs. Howley and Forbes as assessors.
Now the two Governments have agreed in lieu of an award in that behalf to adopt finally for all Regulation subsequent to 1st July, 1929, the following discharges for the respective months in place of the averages referred to in clause 8 of Annexure I:
June for 6.5 feet gauge - 29,800 cusecs.
July and August for 7.5 feet gauge - 40,100 cusecs
Septemper for 7 feet gauge - 35,000 cusecs
October for 6.5 feet gauge - 29,800 cusecs
November for 6 feet gauge - 25,033 cusecs
December for 3.5 feet gauge - 8,913 cusecs
January for 3 feet gauge - 6,170 cusecs
and in rule 10, defining the impounding formula, C.will denote the said above mentioned discharges. This agreement is without prejudice to the other questions outstanding between the parties in regard to the clauses of the agreement other than clauses 7 and 8 of the Rules of Regulation.
17 June 1929. (signed) R.RANGA RAO, Officiating Chief Secretary to
the Government of Mysore.
(signed) A.G. LEACH, Secretary to the Government, Public Works and Labour Departments, Madras.
***
MADRAS-MYSORE AGREEMENT, 1924.
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT,
DATED 22ND JUNE 1929.
(G.O. NO.2580, P.W., dated 12th September 1930.)
(1)
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS on the 18th February 1924 an agreement between the Government of Mysore and Madras was signed and whereas under elause 10 (ii) of the said agreement the Mysore Government agreed to regulate the discharges through and from the Krishnarajasagara reservoir strictly in accordance with the Rules of Regulation set forth in Annexure I to the said agreement and whereas disputes arose touching certain points provided for in the said Rules of Regulation and whereas a statement of agreements resulting from a discussion at Government House, Mysore between Messrs. W.J.J. Howley and S.G. Forbes, Assessors, nominated by both the Governments relating to those points was arrived at and is annexed to this agreement and whereas in regard to one of these points namely, the mode of ing compensation water conferences were held at Bangalore and Ootacamund between the representatives of both the Governments. Now the two Governments have agreed as follows:
1. That P shall be examined for final adoption exactly as provided for in rule 11 (ii) of Annexure I to the agreement of 1924;
2. That transmission losses shall be fixed at 10 percent for use in column 7 of the sample form B given in part II of the Appendix to the Rules of Regulation annexed to the 1924 agreement;
3. that for the calculation of evaporation from the reservoir a correction coefficient 0.85 be adopted tentatively pending further observation and that definite proposals should be drawn up and agreed to within two months from the date of this agreement and t observations started immediately there after and continued for not more than three irrigation seasons;
4. that the co-efficients for the Krishnarajasagara sluice gates already determined for the several stages should be adopted tentatively for those respective stages and that observations should be continued until the full set of co-efficients have
been determined and agreed upon and that the tentative figures adopted should be revised from time to time as additional data become available;
5. That no corrections are necessary for vertical velocity observations; and finally;
6. (i) that the Mysore Government shall restrict the excess area of irrigation under canals and channels above the three standard gauging stations to 5,000 acres;
(ii) that while water is being impounded in the Krishnarajasagara in accordance with the formula laid down in rule 10 of the agreement no compensation water need be ed down to Madras on of the excess area irrigated under canals and channels taking off above the three standard gauging stations;
(iii) that compensation water (calculated as per the of rule 17 of Annexure I to the agreement of 1924) shall be ed down to Madras during the irrigation season on non-impounding days (a) from the 10th June to 10th January inclusive irrespective of the level in the Krishnarajasagara as also (b) during the periods from 28th May to 9th June inclusive and from 11th to 27th January inclusive provided that the level in the Krishnarajasagara is not less than 118 on the 15th of May and not less than 124 on the 1st January respectively.
A.G. LEACH, Secretary of Government, Public Works and Labour Departments, Madras.
N. MADHAVA RAU, Chief Secretary to Government, Mysore.
Statements of agreements resulting from a discussion at Government House, Mysore, on the 18th June 1929, between Messrs. W.J.J. Howley and S.G. Forbes, Assessors, nominated by Madras and Mysore Governments, respectively, relating to the undermentioned subjects (referred to in the preamble above).
Deterinination of ‘P’. - We have agreed that ‘P’ shall be examined for final adoption exactly as provided for in rule 11 (ii) of the Annexure I to the agreement of 1924 and shall be given effect to from the 1st July 1929.
2. Transmission losses. - We have agreed that the transinission losses shail be fixed in 10 percent for use in column 7 of the sample form B given in part II of the Appendix to the Rules and Regulations of 1924 agreement.
3. Evaporation from the reservoir. - We recommend a tentative adoption of correction co-efficient of 0.85 pending further observations. We consider that definite proposals should be drawn up and agreed to within two months from the 1st of July 1929 and the t observations started immediately there after and continued for not more than three irrigation seasons.
4. Krishnarajasagara Sluice gates co-efficient. - It was agreed that the coefficients for the several stages already determined should be adopted tentatively
for those respective stages and that observations should be continued until the full set of co-efficients have been determined and agreed upon. The tentative figures adopted should be revised from time to time as additional data is available.
5. Compensation water. - We agreed that compensation water shall be calculated and ed down from Krishnarajasagara in exact accordance with rules 15, 16 and 17.
OOTACAMUND, 22ND JUNE 1929
S.G. FORBES, W.J.J. HOWLEY.
Discussions were held on 29th May, 1972 at New Delhi between the Chief Ministers of Mysore, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Union Ministers for irrigationn and Power and Deputy Minister were present. The Chief Minister were assisted by Ministers of respective States. Those present were as follows:
1. Tamil Nadu:
1. Thiru M. Karunanidhi, Chief Minister.
2. Thiru S. Madhavan, Minister for law.
3. Thiru S.J. Sadiq pasha, Minister for public Works.
2. Mysore:
1. Shri D. Devaraj Urs, Chief Minister.
2. Shri M.N. Nanja Gouda, Minister for state for Major Irrigation.
3. Kerala:
1. Shri C. Achutha Menon, Chief Minister.
2. Shri T.K. Divakaran, Minister for Public Works.
Union Minister for Irrigation and power stated that river problems are best settled through negotiations and this was the course the Central Government was adopting for the last few years in settling the differences on the use of waters of Cauvery. Earlier, it was aimed to arrive at an interim agreement to be valid till 1974, when the earlier agreement of 1924 would have come up for review after 50 years, as provided in the agreement. Now, as 1974 is near, this attempt has been given up in favour of finding an overall approach to solve the problems amicably amongst the several States. The discussions amongst the Chief Ministers revealed general consensus on the three following points as in para 2.
2.1 A serious attempt should be made to resolve by negotiations the Cauvery between the States as early as possible.
2.2 The centre may appoint a Fact Finding Committee consisting of Engineers, retired Judges and, If necessary, Agricultural Experts to collect all the connected data pertaining to Cauvery waters, its utilisation and irrigation practices as well as projects both existing, under construction and proposed in the Cauvery basin. The committee will examine adequacy of the present supplies or excessive use of water for irrigation purposes. The committee is only to collect the data and not make any recommendations. The Committee may be asked to submit its report in three months time.
2.3 Making use the data, discussions will be held between the Chief Minister of the three States to arrived at an agreed allocation of waters for the respective states.
3. Union Government will assist in arriving at such a settlement in six months, and in the meanwhile, no State will take any steps to make the solution of the problem difficult either by impounding or by utilising water of Cauvery beyond what it is at present.
S/d. K.L. Rao, 31.05.72 Union Minister for Irrigation & Power.
S/d. M. Karunanidhi, 31.05.72. Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
S/d. D. Devaraj Urs. 31.05.72. Chief Minister for Mysore
S/d. C. Achutha Menon, 31.05.72. Chief Minister of Kerala.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND SRI LANKA ON THE BOUNDARY IN HISTORIC WATERS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES AND RELATED MATTERS.
(26 June 1974)
The Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Republic of Sri Lanka,
Desiring to determine the boundary line in the historic waters between India and Sri Lanka and to settle the related matters in a manner which is fair and equitable to both sides,
Having examined the entire question from all angles and taken into the historical and other evidence and legal aspects there of,
Have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE 1
The boundary between India and Sri Lanka in the waters from Adam's Bridge to Palk Strait shall be arcs of Great Circles between the following positions, in the sequence given below, defined by latitude and longitude:
ARTICLE 2
The coordinates of the positions specified in Article I are geographical coordinates and the straight lines connecting them are indicated in the chart annexed hereto which has been signed by the surveyors authorized by the two Governments, respectively.
ARTICLE 3
The actual location of the aforementioned positions at sea and on the seabed shall be determined by a method to be mutually agreed upon by the surveyors authorized for the purpose by the two Governments, respectively.
ARTICLE 4
Each country shall have sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction and control over the waters, the islands, the continent0al shelf and the subsoil there of, falling on its own side of the aforesaid boundary.
ARTICLE 5
Subject to the foregoing, Indian fisherinen and pilgrims will enjoy access to visit Kachchativu as hitherto, and will not be required by Sri Lanka to obtain travel
documents or visas for these purposes.
ARTICLE 6
The vessels of India and Sri Lanka will enjoy in each other's waters such rights as they have traditionally enjoyed therein.
ARTICLE 7
If any single geological petroleumn or natural gas structure or field, or any single geological structure or field of any other mineral deposit, including sand or gravel, extends across the boundary referred to in Article 1 and the part of such structure or field which is situated on one side of the boundary, is exploited, in whole or in part, from the other side of the boundary, the two countries shall seek to reach agreement as to the manner in which the structure or field shall be most effectively exploited and the manner in which the proceeds deriving there from shall be apportioned.
ARTICLE 8
This agreement shall be subject to ratification. It shall enter into force on the date of exchange of the instruments of the ratification which will take place as soon as possible.
For the Government of the Republic of India
sd/ - Indira Gandhi
For the Government of the Republic of Sri Lanka
sd/-Sirimavo R.D. Bandaranaike
Source: Indian Journal of International Law (New Delhi), Vol.16, No.1, January - March 1976, pp.126-127.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND SRI LANKA ON THE MARITIME BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES IN THE GULF OF MANAAR AND THE BAY OF BENGAL AND RELATED MATTERS.
(23 March 1976)
The Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Republic of Sri Lanka,
RECALLING that the boundary in the Palk Strait has been settled by the Agreement between the Republic of India and the Republic of Sri Lanka on the boundary in Historic Waters between the Two Countries and Related Matters, signed on 26/28 June, 1974,
AND DESIRING TO extend that boundary by determining the maritime boundary between the two countries in the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal,
HAVE AGREED as follows:
ARTICLE 1
The maritime boundary between India and Sri Lanka in the Gulf of Mannar shall be arcs of Great Circles between the following positions, in the sequence given below, defined by latitude and longitude:
The extension of the boundary beyond Position 13m will be done subsequently.
ARTICLE II
The maritime boundary between India and Sri Lanka in the Bay of Bengal shall be arcs of Great Circles between the following positions, in the sequence given below, desined by latitude and longitude:
ARTICLE III
The coordinates of the positions specified in Articles I and II are geographical coordinates and the straight lines connecting them are indicated in the chart annexed hereto, which has been signed by the surveyors duly authorised by the two Governments respectively.
ARTICLE 1V
The actual location at sea and on the seabed of the positions specified in Articles I and II shall be determined by a method to be mutually agreed upon by the surveyors authorised for the purpose by the two Governments, respectively.
ARTICLE V
1. Each party shall have sovereignty over the historic waters and territorial sea, as well as over the islands, falling on its side of the aforesaid boundary.
2. Each party shall have sovereign rights and exclusive jurisdiction over the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone as well as over their resources, whether living or non-living, falling on its side of the afore said boundary.
3. Each party shall respect rights of navigation through its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone in accordance with its laws and regulations and the rules of international law.
ARTICLE VI
If any single geological petroleum or natural gas structure or field, or any single geological structure or field of any mineral deposit, including sand or gravel, extends across the boundary referred to in Article I and II and the part of such structure or field which is situated on one side of the boundary is exploited, in whole or in part, from the other side of the boundary, the two countries shall seek to reach agreement as to the manner in which the structure or field shall be most effectively exploited and the manner in which the proceeds deriving therefrom shall be apportioned.
ARTICLE VII
The Agreement shall be subject to ratificaton. It shall enter into force on the date of exchange of instruments of ratification which shall take place as soon as possible.
sd/Kewal Singh For the Government of the Republic of India
sd/- W.T.Jayasinghe
For the Government of the Republic of Sri Lanka
Source: Indian Journal of International Law (New Delhi), Vol.16, No.1, January - March 1976, pp.128-129.
INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Before in the mid-twentieth century, there were no restraints on what a state could do to its citizens; the relationship between a state and its citizens was thought to be a domestic, internal matter, of no concern to the rest of the world. However, the unprecedented genocides committed during World War II spurred the creation of the United Nations, one of whose basic purposes was international cooperation“in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” (Article 1,55c). To make those references in the U.N. Charter explicit, a commission was authorized to draft an International charter of human rights. The chairwoman of the commission was Anna Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of the late U.S. President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
During a two - and - a - half year period, representatives from all of the United Nations negotiated the wording of the Declaration. Those from Western democracies insisted on the primacy of the political and civil rights of individuals; those from socialist countries wanted to emphasize the social and economic rights that were owed citizens by the state. The Declaration incorporated both sets of demands; but not to the satisfaction of the socialist countries, which abstained when the Deciaration was put to a vote.
On December 10, 1948, the Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the
United Nations. The Vote was 48 for, none against. Eight nations abstained; Byelorussian S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R., Union of South Africa, and Yugoslavia. Saudi Arabia objected to the Declaration's affirmation of freedom of religion. South Africa objected to the Declaration's commitment to racial equality and freedom from discrimination.
Although it was not intended to be a binding covenant, the Declaration was eventually accepted as a statement of universal aspirations by which to assess the behavior of all nations. Although the specific provisions of the Declaration have been repeatedly violated over the years by many of the United Nations, the Declaration has nonetheless served as a useful gauge. In every Nation, human rights organizations and dissidents refer to the Declaration as a consistent standard of human rights and freedoms.
Virtually every national consititution reiterates the major provisions of the Declaration, regardless of the actual nature of the government. Even tyrannical states that strictly regulate the press, limit their citizens freedom of movement, prohibit free trade unions, and abuse every other aspect of the Declaration, nonetheless pay it obeisance, either by endorsing it or by incorporating parts of it into their constitution. No nation repudiates the declaration; instead, those who violate it deny doing so.
In view of the fact that so many of the United Nations regularly ignore the letter and spirit of the Declaration, it may appear that the Declaration of Human Rights has little force or validity. Yet its very existence serves as a standard by which people judge the conditions of their lives and as a continuing Inspiration to people who live in Nations that make unkept promises.
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
Whereas disregard and comtempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations.
Whereas the people of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge.
Now, Therefore,
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROCLAIMS
This universal declaration of human rights as a common standard of achievement for all people and all Nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent trust, non - self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude, slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel in human or degrading treatment or punishinent.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition every where as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and aganist any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14
1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the property.
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedoin, either alone or in community with others and inpublic or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary educational shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedom. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary.or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedom of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Justice K. Subba Rao On Fundamental Rights in his JUDGEMENT
If the doctrine of waiver is engrafted to the said fundamental principles, it will mean that a citizen can agree to be discriminated. When one realizes the unequal positions occupied by the State and the private citizen, particularly in India where illiteracy is rampant, it is easy to visualize that in a conflict between the State and a citizen, the latter may, by fear of force or hope of preferment, give up his right. It is said that in such a case coercion or influence can be established in a Court of Law, but in practice it will be well nigh impossible to do so.
***
A large majority of our people are economically poor, educationally backward and politically not yet conscious of their rights. Individually or even collectively, they cannot be pitted against the State organizations and institutions, nor can they meet them on equal . In such circumstances, it is the duty of this Court to protect their rights against themselves. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the fundamental rights created by the Constitution are transcendental in nature, conceived and enacted in national and public interest, and therefore cannot be waived.
(Basheshar Nath Vs.I.T. Commissioner)
1977
,
,
.
26.17.1977-
.
10 11 .
, ,
.
1.
2.
3.
.
4.
.
10.1.78
4.5.79 28.1.78
. .
43
.
1.
69 ,
61.72 .
:
1960-61-
57.55 1976-77-
34.08
.
.
2.
.
.
.
,
.
3.
57 ,
62
,
74
,
, , , 3
,
85 ,
,
,
,
,
.
3.04
.
3.33
,
.
,
.
:
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
-
.3507.00
- 29
1978-79-
-
.120.00.
.112.50. .
.85.00
5
. 3708
.
(1983-4)
.
.
?
1960-61
.2294.41
.750.93 -
.
.
?
1977-78
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
1974-
.
30.6.72
.
2
.
.
.
,
(
44 24.2
)
.
.
11
, ,
,
.
***
.
G.O.M.S.NO.2097 - Department of Agirculture Dt.26.12.1977
1.
:
.
(
2.
.
(
I.A.S.
-
.
(
3.
.
.
-
I.A.S.
-
. .
-
)
I.A.S.
-
-
)
)
4.
.
(
5.
.
(
6.
.
P.W.D.
. .
.
-
.
.
,
)
.
B.E.
)
-
(
-
,
)
)
(
8.
-
B.E.
,
.
I.A. & I.A.S.
. .
(
7.
.
-
)
9.
.
.
-
(
- ,
10.
.
.
I.A.S.
-
.
)
(
1.
)
.
-
,
.
2.
.
.
-
.
3.
.
.
,
-
.
4.
.
-
5.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
8.
.
-
.
.
. . -
7.
.
.
-
6.
-
.
–
.
-
.
9.
.
.
-
-
-
,
.
10.
.
.
11.
.
.
.
-
,
.
BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHAIRMAN NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Marumalarchi D.M.K, ‘THAYAGAM’
4, First Street, Karpagam Avenue, R.A.Puram, Madras - 600028.
... Petitioner.
We would like to bring to your notice that following issues which are benchmark cases of blatant human rights violation in the State of Tamilnadu so that the Commission can go through these matters and issue follow-up recommendations.
We state the law and order machinery in Tamilnadu is in a state of complete mess. Custodial deaths, custodial rapes and custodial violence have become a norm rather than an exception.
We wish to bring the following incidents of Human Rights violations in the State which are well-documented in the mainstream publications.
I. CUSTODIAL DEATH
a. Thiru Nandagopal, H/o Tmt.Pi in 1992 June at Annamalai Nagar Police Station in South Arcot - Vallalar District.
b. Thiru Rajakkannu of Muthanai Village was arrested on 21.3.1993 and tortured by the Kammapuram Police in the Presence of his wife and murdered by them on 22.3.1993.
c. Thiru Selvam of Puliyoor was arrested on 27.10.1993, tortured and murdered on 30.10.93 at Vadalur Police Station.
d. Thiru Sathish Kumar at Mylapore Police Station, Madras on 11.6.1994.
e. Thiru Muniyandi at Ramanathapuram on 28.4.1994.
f. Thiru Viruppalingam was murdered at Kullanchavadi Police Station.
g. Thiru George at Tondairpet Police Station, Madras.
h. Thiru Ramesh at Madras Ice House Police Station.
i. Thiru Malayaman at Trichy.
j. Thiru Kaliaperumal - Kuttalam, Thanjavur District.
k. Thiru Muthusamy - Ottanchatram.
l. Thiru Karuppasamy - Palladam, Coimbatore District.
m. Thiru Loganathan at Royapuram Police Station, Madras.
n. 12 years old boy at Chepet Police Station, Madras.
0. Another custodial death at Nangavalli Police Station, Salem District.
II. CUSTODIAL RAPE
a. Ms. Pi at Annamalai Nagar Police Station.
b. 19 Scheduled Tribe Girls at Vatachi, Dharmapuri District.
c. Ms. Vasantha at Muthandikuppam on 23.3.1994.
d. On 11,12,13.6.1994 scheduled tribe girls were raped in Chinnampathi Village, Coimbatore District.
e. Ms. Indira Gandhi at Madurai on 19.7.1994.
f. Ms. Rangammal at Orthanadu, Thanjavur District on 2.2.1994
g. Ms. Kalpana - Hosur, Dharmapuri District.
i. A family of 6 persons of the Palakudy Village, Myladuthurai Taluk, NagaiQuaide-Milleth District.
III. CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE
a. Ms. Chandrama - Marandahalli on 30.1.1994.
b. Ms. Rakkammal and Ms. Murugalakshmi at Rameswaram out Police Station, Ramnad District on 18.10.1994.
c. Thiru M.V. Manimaran, Ennore, Madras on 29.7.1994.
d. Ms. Shantha, Madras on 22.8.1994.
Mass organisations like Political Parties are not allowed to carryout their usual activities of mobilising the people to express their grievances to the Government in a democratic manner.
The above incidents were published in the dailies. The Govemment is dishing out petty compensations to the affected families to hide these incidents. So far the Government of Tamilnadu has not taken any serious steps to prevent the custodial violence.
Our MDMK Madras City Unit, Secretary, Mr. Elumalai and Mr. Thangiyan, (M), Kodavasal, Thanjavur District were murdered, no followup action in this regard.
It is further stated that there is no security for the life of a common man, media persons and political leaders, women, downtroddens are brutally attacked and their lives are in danger; media persons from Tharasu, Dinamalar, Nakkiran etc. were attacked by Goondas. Thiru Vijayan, an advocate was attacked at his residence. The Taj Coromandal Hotel, Madras was attacked. Nearly 100 autos and other vehicles were used for this hoolingan activity. Number of vehicles were damaged which were parked in the Hotel. The Car in which the former Union Minister P. Chidambaram was travelling was attacked. An IAS Officer was attacked by anti-socials by throwing acid. The Government and Police Officials are not serious in taking appropriate actions against the concerned accused. Each and every sections at the grass - roots level of the society are seriously affected. This is the order of the day. Some incidents are simply blacked out from the public knowledge through muscle and political power. This violence is endless. Therefore, the whole of such incidents can not be narrated in this memorandum.
These are just a few incidents which we bring to your knowledge. Therefore, we request you to consider the violations of Human Rights in Tamilnadu and make necessary recommendations to protect the Human rights of the individuals.
We believe that there should be a monitoring cell to keep tab on the activities of the police. The monitoring cell should be at the district level, and shall be comprised of eminent like from political parties, advocates, doctors,
journalists and women activities. etc. This will give a sense of ability to the Police. Further, I request you to recommend a formation of new legislation which is stringent with reference to the police excesses. The erring policemen should be treated as goondas and strict and severe punishment must be meted out to them.
Dated at Madras on 15.12.1994.
M.KANNAPPAN (Treasurer)
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN (Spokesperson)
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Notification
“National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulation” came into force w.e.f. 1st, March 1994.
The Commission shall ordinarily hold its meetings, sittings in its office located at Delhi. However, it may, in its discretion, hold its meetings and sittings at any other place in India if it considers it necessary and expedient.
Procedure for dealing with complaints: (1) All complaints in whatever form received by the Commission shall be ed and assigned a number and placed for ission before a Bench of two constituted for the purpose not later than two weeks of receipt there of. Ordinarily complaints of the following nature are not entertainable by the Commission: (a) in regard to events which happened more than one year before the making of complaints: (b) with regard to matters which are sub judice; (c) which are vague, anonymous or pseudonymous; (d) which are of frivolous nature; or (e) those which are outside the purview of the Commission. (2) No fee is chargeable on complaints. (3) Every attempt shoud be made to disclose a complete picture of the matter leading to the complaint and the same may be made in English or Hindi to enable the Commission to take immediate action. To facilitate the filing of complaints, the commission shall, however, entertain complaints in any language included in Eighth Schedule of the Consutution. It shall be open to the Commission to ask for further information and attidavits to be field in of allegations whenever considered necessary. (4) The Commission may, in its discretion, accept telegraphic complaints and complaints conveyed through Fax. (5) The Commission shall have power to dismiss a complaint in limine. (6) Upon ission of a complaint set down for inquiry by it or should be investigated into. (7) On every complaint on which a decision is taken by the Chairperson / Commission to either hold an inquiry or investigation, the Secretariat shall call for reports/comments from the concerned Government / authority giving the latter a reasonable time therefor. (8) On receipt of the comments of the concerned authority, a detailed note on the merits of the case shall be prepared for consideration of the Commission. (9) The directions and recommendations of the Commission shall be communicated to the concerned Government / authority and the petitioner as provided for in section 18 and 19 of the Act. (10) The Commission may, in its discretion, affored a personal hearing to the petitioner or any other person on his behalf and such other person or persons as in the opinion of the Commission should be heard for appropriate disposal of the matter before it and, where necessary,call for records and examine witnesses in connection with it. The Commission shall afford a reasonable hearing, including opportunity of cross examining witness, if any, in of the complaint and leading of evidence in of his stand, to a person whose conduct is enquired into by it or where in its opinion the reputation of such person is likely to be prejudicially affected. (11) Where investigation is undertaken by the team of the Commission or by any other person under its discretion, the report shall be submitted within a week of its completion or such further time as the Commission may allow. The Commission may, in its discretion, direct further investigation in a given case if
it is of opinion that investigation has not been proper or the matter requires further investigation for ascertaining the truth or enabling it to properly dispose of the matter. On receipt of the report, the Commission on its own motion, or if moved in the matter, may direct Inquiry to be carried by it and receive evidence in course of such inquiry. (12) The Commission or any of its when requested by the Chairperson may undertake visits for an on-the-spot study and where such study is undertaken by one or more , a report thereon shall be furnished to the Commission as early as possible.
Unless any document is classified by the Commission as Confidential, copy thereof would be available to the parties in the matter on payment of a reasonable fee raised to meet the cost. Every effort should be made to provide the copies with utmost expedition and, in any case, not later than one week of the date of request.
Annual Report: The Commission shall furnish its annual report for the period commencing from 1st April of the year to 31st March of the succeeding year of the Central Government and to the State Governments concerned as provided in Section 20 (1) of the Act. The original report shall be signed by the Chairperson and of the Commission and appropriately preserved and a duly authenticated copy shall be sent to the appropriate Government by end of May of every year.
Special Reports: The Commission may furnish such Special Reports on specific matters as may be considered necessary in of Section 20 (1) of the Act:
Reports of Complaints and Inquiries: Every report to which Section 18 or 19 of the Act applies shall be sent to the concerned Government, authority or person, as the case may be, within one week of completion of the proceedings before the commission and on receipt of the comments of the concerned Government or authority, the Commission shall publish the report in the manner provided in
Section 18(6) or 19 (3) of the Act, as the case may by within one week of the receipt of the appropriate intimation.
Printing of the Reports: The Secretariat of the Commission shall be responsible for the printing of the Annual Report and Special Reports with ulmost expedition and in any case, nor later than one month of Analisation of the same.
Investigation Team: The Commission shall have its own team of investigation to be headed by a person not below the rank of a Director General of Police appointed by it and such team shall consist of one Deputy Inspector General of Police, 2 Superintendents of Police, 6 Deputy Superintendents of Police and 24 Inspectors of Police and such other categories of officers as the Commission from time to time decides. The Commission may in any given case appoint an appropriate number of outsides to be associated with the investigation either as Investigators or Observers.
As and when any matter which is not covered by these Regulations arises, it shall be competenl for the Commission to make appropriate directions and the Commission may add, delete, amplify and amend these Regulations from time to time.
Source: NHRC Notification taken from PUCL April 1994.
Governors: some key issues
THE POSTS OF Governors in six States are going to fall vacant in the near future and yet another State namely, Manipur, does not have a permanent Governor. The State is being looked after by the Governor of Nagaland after Lt. gen. V.K. Nayyar had quit his post a few weeks ago. This gives a fresh opportunity to the Prime Minister, Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, to select new incumbents unless, of course, he decides to reappoint some of them. A second term for Governors is not new - as recently as in September last Mr. Khurshid Alam Khan was reappointed Govennor of Karnataka. Although the Constitution specifically says that a Governor continues to hold office till a new incumbent is chosen after the expiry of the normal term of five years, such prolongation beyond five years without a subsequent forinal reappointment has been regarded by constitutional experts as not strictly legal. They assert that the proviso in Article 156 was actually meant to enable the outgoing Governor to continue in office till such time as the Governor - designate took charge. Paja Naidu, for instance, continued as the Governor of West Bengal for at least three years after her term was over and only when its attention was drawn to this fact the Centre realised the constitutional impropriety of her continuance without her being formally reappointed.
It was also the contention of a few constitutional experts that extension either in the same State or in another State is not a healthy practice as the expectation of a second term has the possibility of turning in any Governors into willing instruments in the hands of the party in power. Of course it is nobody's case that extension of the term by a few weeks to meet temporary exigencies is unethical or undesirable. In view of the fact that there are a large number of vacancies, the Prime Minister could take into consideration some of these aspects before he makes the final selection. It is worth recalling the observation of the study team on Centre - State relations that there should be no possibility of a Governor's reappointment and this constraint will take the Governor beyond the pale of patronage of the Chief Minister or the Centre. It is also to be noted that no active politician should be appointed as Governor although this healthy principle first enunciated by Nehru was followed more in the breach.
A Governor being the constitutional head of the State must be seen as a neutral person holding the scales even. Frequent clashes with the Chief Minister do
lower the status and prestige of the Governor's office itself as could be seen in Tamil Nadu where Dr. M. Channa Reddi and Ms. Jayalalitha are in a state of perpetual conflict. Fortunately at least five Governors whose term is ending have had a full five-year tenure and none of them was disturbed when the Congress(I) party came to power at the Centre although they were first appointed by the National Front Government. In fact Mufti Mohammad Sayeed who was the Home Minister in the National Front Government wanted a convention to be adopted under which Governors would opt to resign on their own with the change in the Government at the Centre. The Mufti doctrine does not seem to be sound as the Governors are not mere agents of the Centre in the Sites, a fact which would become obvious on a more careful reading of the provisions of the Constitution relating to the post of Governor. Mr. Rao did well in not following this dictum and in keeping the post above political interference. He should now select really dynamic prsons as Governors. It is also time the Prime Minister set in motion a fresh exercise to see if it is necessary to assure a measure of security of tenure to the Governor's office as suggested by the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations.
- Courtesy “The Hindu” - Editorial 27.1.1995
Related Documents 171j1w
Urimaikku Kural Koduppom! 5z441p
September 2021 0
Deivathin Kural - Volume 1 z2c2a
November 2019 9
The Sacred Kural By Rev.g.u.pope 74r36
December 2019 154
0-6-yas-donemi-cocuk-egitiminde-100-temel-kural i3z31
October 2020 0
Soundaryalahari - Paramacharyal's Discussion In Daivaitin Kural - Translated By Prof.v.krishnamoorthy.docx 34206b
October 2021 0
Ebook-deivathin Kural In Tamil-part 1-01 1jb2v
December 2019 311More Documents from "Sharie Noren" 552v9
Le Tigri Di Mompracem r5y2m
October 2021 0
Adventures Of The Restless Youth: The Dunkirk Spirit: Adventures Of The Restless Youth, #1 296p53
September 2021 0
2c82t
September 2021 0
Stregati Da Chernobyl 2l303e
October 2021 0
Urimaikku Kural Koduppom! 5z441p
September 2021 0