The year 2011 was a watershed for the Supreme Court, and its judges, led by Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia, left their mark on all walks of life, especially in exposing corruption in high places and ensuring filing of three charge sheets in the 2G spectrum allocation case.
Justice Kapadia, heading a three-judge Bench, sent a clear message early this year of what the court proposed to do under him for the rest of the year.
Entertaining a public interest litigation petition, he held that those holding high offices should be above board and free from any charges. He set aside the appointment of P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner on the ground that he was cited as an accused in the palmolein import case pending in the court of special judge, Thiruvananthapuram.
After ordering a CBI probe in December last into the 2G spectrum case, the Supreme Court started monitoring the investigation to ensure that there was no interference, either political or otherwise, from any quarter. It not only ensured that a charge sheet was filed against the accused but also directed day-to-day trial and appointed a special public prosecutor for the CBI to prosecute the case. After filing the initial charge sheet in April, the CBI filed two supplementary charge sheets.
The monitoring of the case had a telling effect on the grant of bail to the accused, as both the Special CBI Court and the Delhi High Court rejected bail petitions. Even the Supreme Court declined to grant bail to the accused, including Kanimozhi, daughter of the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, M. Karunanidhi. The court made it clear that she could seek bail after the charges were framed. As a result, the accused had to wait for more than six months to get bail.
Similarly, the Supreme Court enlarged on bail Ramalinga Raju and other accused in the Satyam accounting fraud case only after they spent more than two years in jail.
The court also jailed the former Kerala Minister, R. Balakrishna Pillai, for one year in the Edmalayar dam case.
No personal exemption
It was equally firm when it refused to grant Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa personal exemption from answering the remaining questions under Section 313 of the Cr.PC in the disproportionate assets case in a Bangalore special court.
YSR Congress founder Jagan Mohan Reddy also suffered a setback when the court refused to interfere with the Andhra Pradesh High Court ordering a CBI probe into his alleged disproportionate assets and of his associates. Nor did it interfere with a High Court ordering a CBI probe against the former Chief Minister, Chandrababu Naidu, and his associates. (The High Court itself granted relief later, staying the order of a single judge).
On starvation deaths
While hearing petitions relating to the streamlining of the Public Distribution System, the Supreme Court expressed serious concern at the increasing number of starvation deaths and wanted the government to ensure that no starvation death took place.
“See what the stark contradiction is in our whole approach. You say we are a powerful economy. You have a bumper crop this year and our godowns are full and it is a happy situation, no doubt. When you have your godowns full and people are starving, what is the benefit? You cannot have two Indias,” it observed.
The court asserted its supremacy, especially in protecting human rights, by declaring that mere membership in a terrorist organisation would not make a person a terrorist. Extending this concept, it granted bail to Binayak Sen, who was arrested by the Chattisgarh government on the charge of supporting Naxalites.
Personal liberty
Sending a clear message to the detaining authorities that procedural safeguards meant for the protection of personal liberty must be strictly followed, the court quashed the preventive detention of four persons under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA). In cases of preventive detention, the representations received from those detained must be disposed of expeditiously, and every day's delay must be properly explained, and unexplained delay would be a ground for quashing the order.
While hearing a petition filed by Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, facing the death sentence, the court, with a view to laying down guidelines for disposal of mercy petitions, directed the Union government to file a comprehensive affidavit, giving details of all such petitions pending before the President and the Governors.
The Centre has been asked to provide details of the date of conviction; the date on which mercy petition was sent to the Union Home Ministry and the date on which it was sent to the President and similar information in respect of mercy petitions pending before the Governors.
Time and again, various courts had upheld land acquisition for public purposes. But the Supreme Court decried the practice of mechanical acquisition of land from farmers and others on the pretext of public purpose. It expressed concern at misuse of the Land Acquisition Act, a colonial law, by all the States. In the name of globalisation and land development, the States had marginalised farmers, paying them a pittance in compensation.
Observing that the 1894 Act had become outdated as it did not provide for rehabilitation of the displaced from their land though compulsory acquisition affected their livelihood, the court called for its replacement without delay.
Trust in the court
On the whole, the Supreme Court reinforced the public confidence that the gavel in the judge's hand will act as a deterrent against any wrongdoing, and that the court will stand up to protect the rights of the common man.
