Qualcomm faces dispute in China over its local trademark

Qualcomm could face another regulatory headache in China, this time over a trademark dispute with a Chinese company that is asking the local government to intervene and fine the U.S. company US$100 billion for alleged infringement.

Last month, the chip company agreed to pay Chinese authorities a US$975 million fine for alleged monopolistic business practices relating to its patent licensing business.

Both Shanghai-based Genitop and Qualcomm have been battling over the trademark "Gaotong", which the two companies use as their Chinese brand names.

Genitop claims that it owned the trademark first in China and its products are continually mistaken for Qualcomm's. "People believe we are the fake Qualcomm, or that we maliciously try to depend on the Qualcomm name," Genitop said in a statement. In Chinese, Gaotong means "high communication".

Genitop develops telecommunications gear and chips, and first registered for the Gaotong trademark back in 1992, the year it was founded, it said Tuesday.

Qualcomm has allegedly "bullied" Genitop by refusing to respect the trademark laws, and has instead tried to buy from the Chinese company the trademark rights to Gaotong for 2 million yuan (US$326,000).

Genitop has already filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Qualcomm in Shanghai, demanding 100 million yuan in compensation. But it will also ask China's State Administration for Industry and Commerce to penalize the U.S. chip vendor for 15-years of trademark infringement.

Qualcomm did not respond to a request for comment.

It's not the first time a U.S. technology company has faced a trademark dispute in China. Back in 2012, Apple agreed to pay a company US$60 million for ownership of the iPad trademark, following a prolonged legal dispute. This came after the Chinese company wanted a $400 million settlement.

http://www.cio.in/news/qualcomm-faces-dispute-in-china-over-its-local-trademark

Some facts about National Green Tribunal (NGT)

The NGT is a specialized forum for effective and speedy disposal of cases pertaining to environment protection and conservation of forests.

BACKGROUND

Most conservationists would have heard of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), and some may have already filed applications before it. This short primer explains how, when and where to approach the NGT, and looks at the fundamental difference between courts and tribunals, and the structure and jurisdiction of the NGT.

The NGT was established on October 18, 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, passed by the Central Government. The stated objective of the Central Government was to provide a specialized forum for effective and speedy disposal of cases pertaining to environment protection, conservation of forests and for seeking compensation for damages caused to people or property due to violation of environmental laws or conditions specified while granting permissions.

STRUCTURE

Following the enactment of the said law, the Principal Bench of the NGT has been established in the National Capital – New Delhi, with regional benches in Pune (Western Zone Bench), Bhopal (Central Zone Bench), Chennai (Southern Bench) and Kolkata (Eastern Bench). Each Bench has a specified geographical jurisdiction covering several States in a region. There is also a mechanism for circuit benches. For example, the Southern Zone bench, which is based in Chennai, can decide to have sittings in other places like Bangalore or Hyderabad. Click here for a copy of the notification specifying jurisdiction of each bench. Provided below is a link to all NGT zonal benches, addresses & contact details.

The Chairperson of the NGT is a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, Head Quartered in Delhi. Other Judicial members are retired Judges of High Courts. Each bench of the NGT will comprise of at least one Judicial Member and one Expert Member. Expert members should have a professional qualification and a minimum of 15 years experience in the field of environment/forest conservation and related subjects.

POWERS

The NGT has the power to hear all civil cases relating to environmental issues and questions that are linked to the implementation of laws listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act. These include the following:

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;

The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

This means that any violations pertaining only to these laws, or any order / decision taken by the Government under these laws can be challenged before the NGT. Importantly, the NGT has not been vested with powers to hear any matter relating to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and various laws enacted by States relating to forests, tree preservation etc. Therefore, specific and substantial issues related to these laws cannot be raised before the NGT. You will have to approach the State High Court or the Supreme Court through a Writ Petition (PIL) or file an Original Suit before an appropriate Civil Judge of the taluk where the project that you intend to challenge is located.

PROCEDURE FOR FILING AN APPLICATION OR APPEAL

The NGT follows a very simple procedure to file an application seeking compensation for environmental damage or an appeal against an order or decision of the Government. The official language of the NGT is English. Click here for the prescribed template for filing an Application/Appeal before the NGT.

For every application / appeal where no claim for compensation is involved, a fee of Rs. 1000/- is to be paid. In case where compensation is being claimed, the fee will be one percent of the amount of compensation subject to a minimum of Rs. 1000/-.

A claim for Compensation can be made for:

Relief/compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage including accidents involving hazardous substances;

Restitution of property damaged;

Restitution of the environment for such areas as determined by the NGT.

No application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment shall be entertained unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose.

PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE ADOPTED BY NGT

The NGT is not bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by principles of natural justice. Further, NGT is also not bound by the rules of evidence as enshrined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, it will be relatively easier (as opposed to approaching a court) for conservation groups to present facts and issues before the NGT, including pointing out technical flaws in a project, or proposing alternatives that could minimize environmental damage but which have not been considered.

While passing Orders/decisions/awards, the NGT will apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principles.

However, it must be noted that if the NGT holds that a claim is false, it can impose costs including lost benefits due to any interim injunction.

REVIEW AND APPEAL

Under Rule 22 of the NGT Rules, there is a provision for seeking a Review of a decision or Order of the NGT. If this fails, an NGT Order can be challenged before the Supreme Court within ninety days.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS)

1. What is the difference between a Court and a Tribunal?

The Supreme Court has answered this question by holding that “Every Court may be a tribunal but every tribunal necessarily may not be a court”. A High court for instance, where a PIL would be filed, may have wide ranging powers covering all enacted laws (including the power of contempt) but the NGT has only been vested with powers under the seven laws related to the Environment.

2. We are trying to protect a National Park/Sanctuary from various pressures including a dam proposal and widening of a highway. Should we approach the NGT?

No. As explained above, the NGT is not empowered to hear matters pertaining to issues coming under the ambit of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, which is applicable in case of National Parks, Sanctuaries and Tiger Reserves. It would be appropriate to approach either the High Court in your State or the Supreme Court. Please consult a competent lawyer for advice.

3. Can I personally argue a matter before the NGT or do I need a lawyer?

Yes. You can argue the matter yourself provided you are well acquainted with the facts and are reasonably knowledgeable about the law and procedures. The language of the NGT is English, and some guidelines related to dress apply. However, it would be best if a lawyer represents you since (s)he will be better equipped to argue and handle all procedural aspects.

4. What is the penalty for non-compliance of an NGT Order?

If a project proponent or any authority does not comply with the directions contained in an NGT order, the penalty can be imprisonment for three years or fine extending to 10 crores or both. Continued failure will attract a fine of twenty five thousand rupees per day.

5. Is there a bar on civil courts to hear /take up cases under the seven specified laws in Schedule I of the NGT Act?

Yes. With the enactment of the NGT Act, Civil courts cannot hear matters related to Environmental issues under the seven laws which the NGT is empowered to deal with.

http://www.conservationindia.org/resources/ngt

Media as Arbiter of Law Harmful

The Constitution of India very clearly divides powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Executive power vests in the president and in officers appointed by him through whom he will exercise his powers. This applies mutatis mutandis (making the small changes that are necessary for each individual case) to the states also, except that here it is in the governor that executive power vests. It is the duty of the executive, within the laws framed by the legislature, to administer the country. The legislature itself enacts laws keeping in mind the provisions of the Constitution and directive principles given therein. The judiciary interprets laws and adjudicates all disputes. The role of each of these organs of the state is independent, though there is a coming together at the margin of the executive and the legislature and, to the extent that effect has to be given to the judgments of courts, at the margin of all three organs.

Adjudication is entirely within the domain of the judiciary, which is why so much emphasis is laid in the Constitution on the independence of the judiciary. Under the umbrella of the Supreme Court we have the high courts in which all the judges are given constitutional protection against removal except through a process of impeachment. The entire subordinate judiciary, from the district and sessions judge right down to the civil judge at the lowest level and judicial magistrate, is under the control of the high court and totally immunised from any interference by the executive. Under Article 227, superintendence of courts and tribunals located within the territorial jurisdiction of a high court is vested in the high court, which is empowered to lay down the rules and procedures to be followed by subordinate courts.

The independence of the judiciary and its sole authority to adjudicate and pronounce judgment are laboured because in the ultimate analysis it is only a court that can judge and deliver a decree or a judgment. In criminal matters the police can investigate, the media can report, but only the court can judge.

There is a presumption of innocence till guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, which is not only a basic principle of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence but is also a part of our legal system. That is why under Article 20 of the Constitution no person may be convicted of an offence except for violation of a law. Under Article 21, a person cannot be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Under Article 20(3), a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself in any criminal proceedings. Under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the person who alleges a fact or accuses a person of having committed a crime. That is the refrain of Chapter VII of the Indian Evidence Act. Under Indian law, the accused has to prove nothing, certainly not his innocence. All he has to do is to rebut the admissibility, relevance and credibility of the evidence led against him and if any doubt remains, then it is the accused who will get the benefit of doubt.

The police investigates, determines whether prima facie an offence can be brought home to an accused and then proceeds under CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) Chapter XII to prosecute the offender in a competent court. The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 does not supersede the constitutional competence of courts to pronounce judgment, nor does it permit the media to report matters in a way that would suggest that a certain person is in fact either the perpetrator of an offence or is the victim of the actions of a particular offender. Unfortunately, the Indian media, in particular some TV channels, are only too eager to act as accusers, inquisitors and judges and pronounce judgment freely on cases that lie within the domain of the judiciary. One recent example is that of the death of D K Ravi, an IAS officer of the Karnataka cadre of the 2009 batch who was found hanging from a ceiling fan in his house. Bangalore Police took notice of this and reported the matter to the nearest executive magistrate under Section 174 of the CrPC. The media jumped on this, claimed Ravi was an honest officer who as district magistrate of Kolar took action against illegal sand mining and subsequently, as joint commissioner, commercial taxes, launched a probe against land developers for tax evasion. The media concluded, without any investigation, that Ravi is an honest officer who has annoyed vested interests and these persons murdered him, and that he had not committed suicide. The Karnataka Police have been upbraided by the media, whose reports have triggered a popular agitation, for not registering an offence under Section 302 of the IPC and instead having recourse to Section 174. Unfortunately, the agitators and the mediapersons do not seem to have read Section 174 of the CrPC, which requires the police, on receiving information about a suspicious death, an alleged suicide, an accidental death, etc., to immediately report the matter to the nearest executive magistrate, who is then required to conduct an inquest. The magistrate can record evidence, send the body for post-mortem and subsequently to direct the course of action which, if the death appears to be a homicide, could take the form of recording of a FIR and subsequent investigation. The Karnataka Police had no option except to follow this course and I think the police have acted appropriately in D K Ravi’s case.

Before being judgmental our press must learn not to suddenly make a person a hero and someone else to be a villain. Do the media know enough about D K Ravi to decide here is an honest young officer who has been virtually tortured mentally by vested interests? Did he make any complaint in this behalf to his own superiors? One story emerging is that perhaps Ravi wanted a relationship with someone that was not reciprocated and, therefore, he could have been perturbed. All this will come out in the course of investigation and, therefore, any prejudgment in this behalf would be totally premature. Unfortunately, a media that is becoming increasingly immature in its hunt for sensationalism recognises none of the rules of prudence because it is so much easier to typecast people as heroes and villains in the unending saga, which it loves to create.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/Media-as-Arbiter-of-Law-Harmful/2015/03/27/article2731556.ece

Supreme Court Judgment for Women Make Up Artists Really Deserve Applause?

The Supreme Court judgment, giving equal rights to woman in the Cine Costume and Makeup Artistes and Hair Dressers Association vis-à-vis their male counterparts comes as a welcome change and an eye opener.

It is welcomed because it enforces the "Rule of Law", the essential liberal spirit of our Constitution, and its sacrosanct fundamental rights. Far more, it is an eye-opener because we have been living in a liberal democracy for almost 70 years, yet we see a widespread existence of many regressive practices. Greater is the concern that there are still many vital segments of employment where such discriminatory practices still prevail and yet there is no substantive redress. For, we are yet to have many more brave ladies like Charu Khanna who endeavored to present such prevalent injustices right up to the Supreme Court.

That such regressive practice of denying women the right to practice as make up artists has managed to find its way into the 21st century itself is appalling. While Justice Dipak Mishra's strong verdict squashing the clause that allows such a practice is welcome, yet it is a harsh reminder that women in this country, in a city as urban as Mumbai, still have to fight a plethora of prejudiced systems to secure their fundamental rights under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. One could imagine then what would be the situation in small towns and rural areas, where the laws remain the same with a more conservative societal surroundings.

The contentious clause in the bye-laws of the Cine Costume Make-up Artists and Hair Dressers Association stated that membership of the Association would comprise make up men, costume men, and hair dressers who were admitted as members by the Association. Literally, this clause indicated that only men were eligible for the posts of costume and make up artists. But legally, such clauses have to be read in conjunction with the provisions of section 13(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which states that "words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females".

However, one thing which the Supreme Court ought to have addressed, but it did not, was the coercive actions of the Association in slapping fines on women who practised their lawful profession of make up artistes. Our country is governed by the principles of "Rule of Law". Any such coercive action can take place only if the duly broadcasted law provides for so. Thus, the acts of imposing fines on hapless woman were nothing short of extortion, which is a cognizable offence. It was required that the relevant officials faced a police FIR and a criminal prosecution. In fact, in certain cases, related to junior artistes, association members have been prosecuted for collecting such illegal fines.

An analysis of the film industry leads us to the conclusion that it has preferred to stick to convention rather than questioning the malpractices that the Association has promoted.

Powerful men, who are a judge in their own cause, have dominated the Association. They have evidently perceived the talents and capabilities of women as a threat to their livelihood. Instead of fostering an environment for healthy competition, they have been resorting to unconstitutional and discriminatory methods to keep women out of reckoning.

With India having ratified the Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), 1979, such abhorrent practices cannot find a place in our liberal democratic system. The Supreme Court's verdict has only confirmed this and secured the rights of these women make up artists. In order to uphold equality of the sexes, it is crucial for women to break the glass ceiling in their respective professions since there is sparse representation of women in the higher posts of any organisation. Indeed, the fight put up by the women make up artists is commendable and an inspiring precedent. The fruits of their struggles are going to be reaped by generations of women after them. They redeem what the wise men have said; it is better late than never.

http://idiva.com/opinion-work-life/equality-for-women-in-the-make-up-association-is-a-good-change/35784

Supreme Court ruling blow to aspiring college teachers

After a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, candidates having got their PhD degrees prior to 2009 have been left with little chance of becoming a lecturer (assistant professor) in any college or university of the country.

The apex court has upheld the UGC regulations which provide for National Eligibility Test (NET) or State-Level Eligibility Test (SLET) or PhD as per UGC guidelines, 2009, as the essential qualification for lectureship.

The judgment delivered by Justice T S Thakur and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman of the Supreme Court (in P Suseela vs UGC case) on March 16 has come as rude shock to thousands of scholars of Bihar who had been aspiring for lectureship with the PhD degrees obtained before 2009. They had been seeking exemption from NET on the basis of their doctoral degree.

The Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) had advertised 3,364 vacancies of assistant professors (lecturers) in September last year after a gap of over 17 years strictly as per UGC guidelines. But, following the intervention of Patna high court, even candidates having PhD degree sans UGC guidelines, 2009, were allowed to submit their applications. But now the apex court's judgment debars those who have done PhD without fulfilling the conditions of 2009 regulations.

The UGC regulations of 2010 related to appointment of assistant professors or equivalent positions in universities and colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education has been upheld by the apex court. As per it, NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment of assistant professors. Candidates, who had been awarded a PhD degree in accordance with the UGC regulations of 2009, shall be exempted from this minimum eligibility condition. Furthermore, NET/SLET/SET shall not be required for such Master's Degree programmes in disciplines for which such accredited test is not conducted. The SC also rejected the UGC committee's formula for granting exemptions to PhD degree holders who fulfil six out of 11 conditions (which formed the basis of Allahabad high court judgment of April 6, 2012). In this regard, the court observed all lecturers in universities/colleges/institutions governed by the UGC Act should have a certain minimum standard of excellence before they are appointed as such.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Supreme-Court-ruling-blow-to-aspiring-college-teachers/articleshow/46656115.cms

RIP Section 66A, Supreme Court Terms It Unconstitutional. Long Live Free Speech

Slowly, but gradually, a scenario was developing in India where online citizens were becoming afraid of sharing their opinions and views. People were being arrested due to Facebook posts and blogs, simply because their world view was different from the politician’s or police’s worldview.

In a landmark decision made by Supreme Court today, Section 66A of Information Technology Act, which was used to arrest people for sharing content online, has been scraped and termed as “unconstitutional” by the apex body.

Several victims of this draconian law had been subjected to torture and arrests in the last few years, and they had petitioned their case in the Supreme Court, challenging it’s operative. The first PIL was filed by Shreya Singhal, after two young girls were arrested by Mumbai police in 2012 for posting critical comments on Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray’s death. After that several NGOs, individuals and writers had joined the movement.

A bench of justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman from Supreme Court had reserved their judgment on February 26^th and announced it today morning.

Countering terms such as “offensive content”, the bench said, “what is grossly offensive to you, may not be grossly offensive to me and it is a vague term.. Highly trained judicial minds (judges of the UK courts) came to different conclusions by using the same test applied to judge as to what is grossly offensive and what is offensive,”

The bench observed that Section 66A directly conflicts with the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, which is one of the most important pillars of our democracy and constitution. They said that people have a right to know, and no law should be used to stop that.

As Section 66A is violating Article 19(1)(a), not saved by Article 19(2), hence its unconstitutional and has been removed henceforth.

As per the ruling, any online content can be blocked or action can be taken against the creator of that content, in three cases: The content can create communal disturbance, social disorder or affect India’s relationship with other countries.

What Section 66A Said

As per Section 66A of Information Technology Act, “Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.”

Here are some cases where police abused this law to arrest people:

Aseem Trivedi, Cartoonist, who was arrested in 2012 for mocking Parliament and politicians using cartoons

Palghar girls from Mumbai were arrested in 2012 for posting their critical views on the deal of Bal Thackeray

Professors from West Bengal were arrested for sharing cartoons mocking Mamta Banerjee, CM of West Bengal

Air India employees were arrested in 2013 for sharing jokes on Indian politicians

A Pondicherry businessman was arrested for sharing jokes on the son of P. Chidambaram

CPI (M) worker from Kerala was arrested for posting online jokes on PM Modi

A ship building professional from Goa was arrested for sharing some jokes on Indian politicians

Class 11^th student from UP was recently arrested for sharing his comments on hate speech delivered by UP Minister Azam Khan. Instead of arresting Azam Khan for spreading hatred, police arrested this 11^th class student for his views.

We congratulate the Supreme Court for restoring our faith in the Indian democracy and to support Free Speech.

http://trak.in/tags/business/2015/03/24/section-66a-scrapped-supreme-court/

Will drawn up in English is Valid, even if the testator is ignorant of the language.

The Supreme Court in Leela Rajagopal & Ors. Vs. Kamala Menon Cocharan & Ors held that a Will drawn up in English is valid, even if the person bequeathing his/her property was ignorant of the language, provided the content was explained to the testator. "The lack of knowledge of English even if can be attributed to the testator would not fundamentally alter the situation inasmuch as before registration of the Will the contents thereof can be understood to have been explained to the testator or ascertained from her by the Sub Registrar, PW-4, who had deposed that such a practice is normally adhered to."

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41890

Delhi High Court restrains distribution and exhibition of Badmashiyaan

Delhi High Court has issued an order restraining the distribution and exhibition of the film after a complaint of copyright infringement was filed against makers of the film VRG Motion Pictures.

MSM Motion Pictures and Kaleidoscope filed a plea stating that Badmashiyaanwas a blatant copy of the Korean film Couples, whose rights had been acquitted by them for their yet to release film Mango. 

"The Delhi High Court has restrained the distribution and exhibition of the trailer and the film titled Badmashiyaan, on the basis of a claim for copyright infringement by MSM and Kaleidoscope. The Plaintiffs claimed that Badmashiyaan is a copy of the Korean film Couples and their yet to be released film, Mango. The plaintiffs also claimed this relief based on an exclusive right that they obtained from the producer of Couples to make the Hindi language remake of Couples."

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/4665685/Delhi-High-Court-restrains-distribution-and-exhibition-of-Badmashiyaan

GUCCI LOSES TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE AGAINST GUESS IN FRANCE

Gucci has been accusing Guess of trademark violations for years, and on Friday the Court of Paris reached a decision in the matter that has already been addressed in Italian and American courts. 

The French court ruled in Guess's favor, finding no trademark infringement, no counterfeiting and no unfair competition between the luxury Italian label and American mall brand. Gucci's request for €55 million (about $62 million USD) in damages was denied and instead the company was ordered to pay Guess €30,000 about ($34,000 USD). The court also nullified Gucci's trademark of three of its "G" logos. In a statement, a representative for Gucci responded saying the company strongly disagrees with the verdict and "will certainly and immediately bring an appeal against the decision."

This marks Guess's second victory against Gucci so far. However, in 2012, a New York court ruled that Guess was guilty of copying four of the five trademarked logos Gucci addressed in its claim. According to the judge's decision in that case, the logos in question were the following:

a)     the green-red-green Stripe mark

b)     the repeating GG pattern

c)      the diamond motif trade dress, which is the repeating GG pattern with a pair of inverted Gs in each corner rendered in a brown/beige color combination,

d)     the stylized G design mark

e)     the script Gucci design mark

In a dramatic court case that involved tears and shady e-mails, Guess only ended up having to pay $4.7 million in damages, which was nothing compared to the $124 million Gucci was seeking and small change when you consider that Guess made nearly $2.7 billion in revenue in 2011. 

Two major points weakened Gucci's case and contributed to the small payout. First, the judge noted that Gucci could not have been ignorant of Guess's designs until it finally filed the case in 2009, especially since both brands had similar advertising budgets and stores near each other, often in the same mall. (Guess was founded in 1981 and started producing the designs in question around 1995) And secondly, the judge ruled Guess had diluted Gucci's logos, not counterfeiting them, saying, "courts have uniformly restricted trademark counterfeiting claims to those situations where entire products have been copied stitch-for-stitch."

http://fashionista.com/2015/02/french-court-rejects-gucci-trademark-claims-against-guess-paris-france

Judiciary: Soul of the Constitution

Free and fair judiciary is the soul of the Indian Constitution. By its pro-activeness the Indian judiciary has overcome the orthodox constitutional philosophy and has expanded the scope of right to life so as to read within its compass the right to live with dignity, right to healthy environment, right to humane conditions of work, right to know, right to adequate nutrition and clothing and so on. While dispensing with justice in civil, criminal or constitutional matter a judge not being a party to the Lis always decides the Lis impartially with the best of his ability and knowledge. A judge is deemed to have no knowledge of law but he is enriched by the knowledge of the Learned Councils of both sides. Sitting in the Chair of the Temple of Justice he listens patiently both the parties and comes to a decision which being the toughest job is avoided by the others. While deciding a Lis he cannot satisfy both the parties at a time. Any person being aggrieved by a decision of the court may carry the Lis to the higher forum in appeal or revision or may prefer review of the decision in the same court. This is the eternal beauty of the Indian Judiciary.

Any sort of interference in the functioning of the court in dispensing with justice amounts to contempt; which may be civil or criminal. The Supreme Court being highest body of the Indian judiciary is the custodian of the Constitution and its judgment is binding upon all citizens under Article 141 of the Constitution. Unlike the Supreme Court the High Court of each State is also the Court of Records and enjoys with writ and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Parliament and the State Legislature have right to enact law in their respective field but if such law contradicts with the basic structure of the Constitution or abrogates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution the judiciary has right to declare the same as void. That being the settled principle of law it is frequently noticed that some persons constantly attack the judiciary and make indecent statement which knocks down the very foundation of the Indian democracy. It is sadly enough that they are not illiterate or rustic persons but they are educated and sometimes hold responsible status in public life.  

A healthy democracy is a nightmare if Judiciary does not function freely, fairly and independently. To ensure free, fair and independent judiciary the peaceful environment of the court compound is very much essential so that a judge while dispensing with justice remains in peaceful mind and does not face extraneous situation in the court compound. A judge does not fall from the heaven but he is a man of the society with all common virtues of an ordinary man. A chaotic atmosphere inside the court room and also in the court compound distracts the thought-process of a judge. It is therefore, duty of the police to maintain peace and tranquility in and around the court compound. Excepting the Supreme Court and High Courts of different States we hardly find peaceful environment in the subordinate courts particularly the Magistrate Courts.

Recently we saw an unfortunate incident at Alipore Magistrates’ Court which makes this issue afresh. After arrest of one political leader cum minister by the CBI in multi-crores Sarada scam he was taken to produce before the Magistrate’s Court. Thousands of his supporters and party members came on the street, blocked all the public roads and railway tracks in protest of such arrest ignoring the sufferings of the people. Such acts are not only offences under Indian Penal Code but also offence under the provisions of the National Highway Act. The situation turned worst when the Chief Executive of the State joined hands with the law breakers. A panicky situation was also created inside the court compound by unlawful assembly of thousands of unruly persons in presence of police with shouting and slogans as if the court compound was situated in the State of lawlessness. Similar situation was also noticed inside the court room. Such a horror atmosphere is not congenial to a judge in dispensing with justice. It is no doubt an attempt to terrorize a judge by way of power projection which amounts to criminal contempt of the court also.

What wrong the CBI did? Has the CBI been ordered by the Central Government to investigate the Sarada Scam to malign the State Government? No. It is the Supreme Court of India that entrusted the CBI to investigate the Saradha scam spreading over not only in the State of West Bengal but in the States of Tripura, Assam and Orissa also. If the State machinery feels that the CBI has not been working in accordance with law it may approach the Supreme Court for suitable direction upon the CBI. Instead of doing so demonstration in front of the office of the CBI under the leadership of a State Minister and paralyzing the State in protest of arrest of their leader cum minister are ultimately an act of challenging the authority of the highest Court of India and also interference with independent functioning of the judiciary which will not be approved by any civil society. It is very sad to say that the innocent people were led to rise voice on the street by some persons with vested interest in favour of a person who is not only an accused of economic offence but who destroys the trust of the common people also under the cover of the constitutional oath.

http://echoofindia.com/reflex-action/judiciary-soul-constitution-74221