|
New Delhi: K.G. Balakrishnan, who has been elevated Chief Justice of India, has delivered
several landmark judgments dealing with Constitutional and othermatters, criminal laws and public interest litigation.
Setting aside a long-standing convention, Mr. Justice Balakrishnan, as Supreme Court judge, declined to show any leniency to two sisters, found guilty of kidnapping 13 children and murdering nine of them, in Mumbai. He awarded them death sentence.
He was part of the Bench which held that courts could not interfere in criminal proceedings in public interest litigation and thus gave relief to Railway Minister Lalu Prasad in income tax cases. He was also on the Bench that upheld the constitutional validity of a provision in the Representation of the People Act changing the domicile norm for contesting elections to the Rajya Sabha.
Mr. Justice Balakrishnan came down heavily on the practice of High Court judges granting bail to the accused during their visits to prisons, while performing their administrative duty of inspection.
Landmark judgment that enhances press freedom |
Few British legal judgments have caused quite as much world interest as the one delivered yesterday by the law lords in favour of the Wall Street Journal Europe
In overturning previous decisions by the high court and the court of appeal, all five judges agreed that the paper had not acted improperly in reporting that bank accounts associated with a number of prominent Saudi citizens had been monitored by Saudi authorities at the request of the US to ensure that no money was provided to support terrorists. Nor was it wrong to name one of those citizens, Mohammed Jameel. Even if the allegations were false and defamatory, there was a defence of public interest.
Jameel sued the Wall Street Journal Europe because of its story, published in February 2002. He was awarded £40,000 in damages, which was upheld by the court of appeal. The reporter, James Dorsey, had several sources for his story but was unable to bring witnesses to court because they wished to remain anonymous. So his story could not be proved true. But, as the law lords pointed out, that didn't mean it didn't happen. In a further observation, the judges said that, with "leisure and hindsight", they should not second-guess editorial decisions made in busy newsrooms. Now that's a very significant ruling indeed. |
