COMMON CAUSE :: Journal

Readers will recall that despite the categorical and time-bound directions given by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment dated September 22, 2006 in "Prakash Singh, Common Cause and Another Vs Union Of India and Others" (2006(8) SCC1), the Union of India and most of the states have failed to comply with the letter and spirit of the orders of the Supreme Court. Mr. Prakash Singh, who has been spearheading the campaign for police reforms, has assiduously followed the developments in regard to the implementation of the Supreme Court directions. Although the dilatory tactics adopted by the respondents have been exposed, it was becoming increasingly difficult to monitor and counter the manoeuvres of such a large number of defiant respondents. It was in this context that the petitioners suggested to the Supreme Court that a monitoring committee headed by a former Chief Justice of India should be appointed to monitor the compliance of the Supreme Court directions and submit periodical status reports to the Court. The Supreme Court was pleased to pass the following order in this regard in the hearing held on May 16, 2008.

As regards the implementation of the various directions made by this Court in judgment dated 22.9.2006 Justice K.T.Thomas, former retired Judge of this Court is suggested to be as Chairman of the Committee and two other persons, one of the choice of Justice Thomas and the other as recommended by the Ministry of Home Affairs (incorporating various terms and conditions in the Committee). The Committee may file the report by three months.

Terms and conditions which are subject to the variation by the committee are as under :

1. To examine the affidavits filed by the different States and the Union Territories in compliance to the Court's directions with reference to the ground realities.

2. Advise the Respondents wherever the implementation is falling short of the Court's orders, after considering the Respondents' stated difficulties in implementation. 3. Bring to the notice of the Court any genuine problems the Respondents may be having in view of the specific conditions prevailing in a State or Union Territory.

4. Examine the new legislations enacted by different States regarding the police to see whether these are in compliance with the letter and spirit of this Hon'ble Court's directions.

5. Apprise the Court about unnecessary objections or delays on the part of any Respondent so that appropriate follow up action could be taken against that Respondent.

The Committee shall be provided necessary infrastructure and required financial assistance by the Government of India (the Ministry of Home Affairs/Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) to enable it carry on its day to day functions. The Committee may, if necessary, visit a particular State for discussing any matter relating to implementation with officers of that State. Home Ministry is directed to deposit Rs.10 lakhs with the Secretary General of Supreme Court towards initial expenses of the Committee.

The Committee will function initially for a period of two years only. This Hon'ble Court may, however, extend its life span, if considered necessary.

He considered this for a moment and then replied, "I think so. I've always been especially fond of married women."

One jogger, huffing and puffing, to another: "The doctor told me jogging would add years to my life, and he certainly was right. I feel ten years older already."

A small Indian boy appeared in the class of a London schoolteacher for the first time and she asked him his name. "Venkataratnam Narsimha Rattaiah ," he said. Then she asked, "How do you spell it?" He replied, "My mother helps me."