guidance in a case
AMIT TANEJA
(Querist) 25 June 2009
This query is : Resolved
Jayasthan is a state in the Indian Union. Raj Prakash is the Chief Minister of the state. Mrs. Vandana Verma is a member of the Jayasthan Legislative Assembly. Though Mrs. Vandana Verma is member of the ruling party, she is a strong critic of the ruling party.
In April 2002 the state witnessed large scale communal riot. According to the news paper reports the riot was the result of a planned scheme implemented under the leadership of a religious fundamentalist group known as ‘Black Tigers’. Certain newspapers published the allegation that the Government had ignored the police intelligence reports about the illegal activities of ‘Black Tigers’, submitted in January 2002. The Opposition parties strongly criticized the inaction of the Government in preventing the riot and demanded the resignation of the Chief Minister.
On 8-9-2002 Vandana Verma informed the media persons that she had collected clear evidence regarding the failure of the State Government in performing the constitutional duty of maintenance of law and order. On 9-9-2002 while participating in a discussion in the Legislative Assembly Mrs. Vandana Verma quoted a report submitted by the Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) to the Chief Secretary of the State on 16-1-2002. In the report it was stated that the fundamentalist group ‘Black Tigers’ had chalked out a plan for promoting enmity and hatred between different religious groups in the State. It was suggested that the activities of nearly 200 black listed persons should be closely watched. The name and address and other details were included in the report. The names of two ruling party M.L.A' s were included in the black list. Two ruling party M.L.A s Mr. Sham Manohar and Mr. Jit Kumar strongly denied the allegation against them and alleged that the report of the Inspector General (Intelligence) was not genuine. According to them report was a document fabricated by Mrs. Vandana Verma. However, the Chief Minister confirmerd the genuineness of the report.
After the discussion Vandana Verma left the Legislative Assembly Complex and proceeded towards the Legislator's Hostel in a car. However, on the way the police stopped her car and she was arrested by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
On 9-9-2002 Vandana Verma was produced before the First Class Judicial Magistrate and an F.I.R. was filed stating that she was accused of offence under Section 5 of Official Secrets Act.
During police investigation no evidence was received other than the fact that Mrs. Vandana Verma has received an intelligence report, which was a secret document. However on, 12-11-2002 police forwarded the final report and the charge was framed against her, for the commission of offence under Section 5 (2) of the Official Secret Act 1923.
On 20-11-2002 Vandana Verma filed a petition before the High Court of Jayasthan for quashing the Final Report of Police and thus charges against her, excercising the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner contended that the criminal case against her was politically motivated. It was further contended that since she had the privileges under Art. 194 (2) of the Constitution, no action could be taken against her.
One the same day a writ petition was filed by Vandana Verma challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1923 on the ground that the provision is against the basic concepts of democracy including "Rule of Law", "Open Government", "Freedom of Information" and "Freedom of Press". It was specially contended that Section 5 violates Art 14, Art 19 (1) (a) and Art 21 of the Constitution.
The single Judges referred the petition to the Chief Justice stating that the issues involved in the petitions may be decided by a larger bench. On 29-11-2002 Chief Justice constituted a Full Bench for the adjudication of the petitions filed by Mrs. Vandana Verma on 20-11-2002.
what points can be
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 27 June 2009
beta moot problem hi chipka di :-)
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 27 June 2009
well i must give u a bit of help in this regard.
have a look at Parkash Singh Badal v/s Union of Indian judgments...2008 judgment.
and another one State of Haryana v.s Bhajan Lal 1992 judgment.
u ll get a lot out of it.
thoda hardwork karo...moots are always interesting.
AMIT TANEJA
(Querist) 28 June 2009
thanks alot sir
this side is afab..
and the experts r 2 smart and helpful
ONCE AGAIN
THANXXXXXXXXX
