English லேபிளுடன் இடுகைகளைக் காண்பிக்கிறது. அனைத்து இடுகைகளையும் காண்பி
English லேபிளுடன் இடுகைகளைக் காண்பிக்கிறது. அனைத்து இடுகைகளையும் காண்பி

செவ்வாய், 9 ஆகஸ்ட், 2022

 

As a service to society, 

Dr.  A JOSEPH

(former Professor and Head, Dept. of English

Director, Academic Staff College, 

Bharathidasan university, Tiruchirappalli)  

has made the following useful material available FREE 

to any , interested in COMMUNICATION IN ENGLISH.


1.COMMUNICATE IN ENGLISH, Work Book

2. TEACHER'S MANUAL 

The pdf is available here:


https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:f4684638-8b3a-3558-a6d6-2c233f23dd5f

 

https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:f65d6a1e-46b0-331c-b524-4b9df42ec20b


திங்கள், 14 பிப்ரவரி, 2022

சினிமாவுக்குத்தான் டிரெயிலரா?


இதோ இது...


வந்து கொண்டிருக்கும் பாட்டிடையிட்ட பாரதியார் சிறுகதைகள் தொகுப்பில்....


என் முகப்பில்

உள்ளவற்றுக்கான

டிரைலர்...


சும்மா


டிரைலர் தான்!





Family complaint about denial of immortality to Bharathi’s wife Chellammal:

Charge against maternal uncle Appadurai Aiyer.

-----


According to both the daughters of Bharatiyar- Thangamma and Sakuntala- the “Kannamma’ in Bharathi’s songs was none other than “Chellamma”, their beloved mother. 


In fact, both of them, in separately recorded writings 

(more than once), have clearly stated that their maternal uncle (Chellammal’s brother) Appadurai Aiyer has made the change (from Chellamma to Kannamma) for reasons best known to him! 


The assumption by Bharati’s daughter Sakuntala is that Appadurai did’nt want his sister’s name (in love songs) go public.


According to Thangamma, the elder  daughter, Appadurai did’nt find the name Chellamma, “sophisticated enough” and so he opted for Kannamma.


This Appadurai Aiyer is the one who ditched his own sister

(Chellamma) and ran away with the books of Accounts of ‘Bharati Ashram’ (Publication effort initiated by Chellamma to get Bharati’s works published after his death.)


This fact is also recorded by Sakuntala Bharathi, in writing. 


This traitor-like action, by Appadurai Aiyer landed Chellamma in great financial troubles/issues that ultimately led to the closure of Bharati Ashram (Publications).


 Further, due to financial strain, and immediate need of some money for Sakuntala's marriage, Chellammal Bharathy was forced to sell all manuscripts of Bharathiyar, outright (with copy right), to Bharathi's step- brother C.Viswanatha Aiyer (Then HM of a school in Manamadurai) for a paltry amout of Rs 4000/.


It has gone on record that this Viswanatha Aiyer has not honestly paid the agreed amount but paid only a part.


From the actions of Appadurai Aiyer, it could be presumed that Appadurai Aiyer has been nursing plans to eliminate his sister from gaining lime light and also copyright(!) of Bharati’s works.


It should also be fairly mentioned that this Appadurai Aiyer has been previously helping Chellamma of and on to get out her out of domestic financial difficulties while she lived in Pondicherry. 


At the same time, he was also the one who blocked the efforts of Kanadukathan Chettiyar to buy all of Bharati’s works from Chellamma for a fat sum with an assurance of adequate support for her family throughout. 


But for, Appadurai Aiyer’s manipulations in the said negotiations, Chellamma and her daughters would have lived in some comfort after the demise of Bharatiyar.


 The lament of Bharathi’s daughters- about denial of immortality to their mother Chellamma, in Bharati’s poetry- would not have also happened!


(Note: I recluctantly use ‘Aiyer’ here only because both Thangammal and Sakuntala have always  mentioned the names herein with the 'title'.)

*


                                                                                   

சனி, 4 செப்டம்பர், 2021

 

On Virtue

- Phillis Wheatley

 

O thou bright jewel in my aim I strive

To comprehend thee. Thine own words declare

Wisdom is higher than a fool can reach.

I cease to wonder, and no more attempt

Thine height t’explore, or fathom thy profound.

But, O my soul, sink not into despair,

Virtue is near thee, and with gentle hand

Would now embrace thee, hovers o’er thine head.

Fain would the heaven-born soul with her converse,

Then seek, then court her for her promised bliss.

 

Auspicious queen, thine heavenly pinions spread,

And lead celestial Chastity along;

Lo! now her sacred retinue descends,

Arrayed in glory from the orbs above.

Attend me, Virtue, thro’ my youthful years!

O leave me not to the false joys of time!

But guide my steps to endless life and bliss.

Greatness, or Goodness, say what I shall call thee,

To give an higher appellation still,

Teach me a better strain, a nobler lay,

O Thou, enthroned with Cherubs in the realms of day!

 

**

Phillis Wheatley (1753–1784)

Phillis Wheatley Peters was one of the best-known poets in pre-19th century America. She was enslaved and educated in the household of a prominent Boston commercialist John Wheatley. We could say that she was an early proof that the blacks could be both artistic and intellectual. Her name became a household word among literate colonists and her achievements served as catalyst for the antislavery movement.

When she was about seven years old “a slender, frail female child ...  she was seized from Senegal/Gambia, West Africa and was transported to the Boston docks with a shipment of “refugee” slaves. In the month of August 1761, Susanna Wheatley, wife of a prominent Boston tailor John Wheatley, “in want of a domestic,” purchased the the girl for a trifle. Though she was enslaved by purchase, the Wheatleys, including their son Nathaniel and their daughter Mary, taught her to read and write. She read widely.

Her first poem “To the University of Cambridge in New England” was revealing her spirit that yearned for the intellectual challenge of a more academic atmosphere. Her later work, the ‘Whitefield elegy’ brought her national renown. By the time she was 18, Wheatley had gathered a collection of 28 poems .


She and  Nathaniel left for London on May 8, 1771. The now-celebrated poetess was welcomed by several abolitionist dignitaries, philanthropists including John Thorton, and Benjamin Franklin. The first edition of her Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral, (1773) was perhaps the first volume of poetry by an African American published in modern times. In her poems, in addition to classical and neoclassical techniques, Wheatley applied biblical symbolism to evangelize and to comment on slavery.


On 1st April 1778, she married John Peters and her married life was not so prosperous. Wheatley was suffering from a chronic asthma condition for long and she died, uncared for and alone, on December 5, 1784,.


In the past decade, Wheatley scholars have uncovered her poems, letters, and more facts about her life and her association with 18th-century Black abolitionists. They have also charted her notable use of classicism and have explicated the sociological intent of her biblical allusions. The research and interpretation of her works have proved Wheatley Peter’s disdain for the institution of slavery and her use of art to undermine its practice.

(Adopted and modified from: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/phillis-wheatley—Original by Sondra A. O’Neale, Emory University.)

சனி, 28 நவம்பர், 2020

 

Cheeseburger and Change of History.

 

The case citation 364 US 454 (1960) of the U.S. Supreme Court has become highly significant and historic as the decision in that case filed by a 21 year old negro law student of Howard University, Washington D.C. against the Commonwealth of Virginia has changed the course of history of racial segregation in the country.

The petitioner, belonged to Selma, Alabama State and planned to return home from Washington D.C. He bought a Trailways bus ticket from there to Montgomery, Alabama. He boarded a bus on a fateful day in Oct 1958 at 8 p.m. and the bus arrived at Richmond 'Trailways Bus Terminal', Virginia, about 10:40 p.m. As the bus driver announced a forty-minute stopover there, the Petitioner got off the bus and went into the bus terminal to get something to eat. In the station, he found a restaurant in which one part was used to serve white people and one to serve Negroes. Disregarding this division, the petitioner stepped into the ‘clinically clean’ white section (compared to the “very unsanitary” black section) and sat at table. On noticing this ‘trespass’ by a black, a waitress rushed to ask him to move over to the other section where there were 'facilities' to serve coloured people. The Petitioner firmly refused to move and told her that he was an interstate bus passenger. He ordered a cheeseburger and tea. The waitress immediately withdrew not to bring the ordered items but to bring the Assistant Manager there who 'instructed' the petitioner to 'leave the white portion of the restaurant and advised him that he could be served in the ‘coloured portion.' Upon the petitioner's stout refusal to leave, an officer was called and the petitioner was arrested. He was jailed, tried and convicted with a fine of ten dollars in the Police Justice's Court of Richmond on a charge that he 'Unlawfully did remain on the premises of the Bus Terminal Restaurant of Richmond, Inc. after having been forbidden to do so' by the Assistant Manager. The young student was not willing to take it meekly; instead he was determined to fight against the punishment and the (small) fine imposed on him. Thus unfurled a historic legal battle, in 1958, against racial segregation in U.S.A. Here is how, much later in 2018, the then petitioner briefly recalled the incident to the Associated Press (AP):“She (the waitress) left and came back with the manager. The manager poked his finger in my face and said ‘N—-r, move, 'and I knew that I would not move and I refused to, and that was the case.” The majority 7 judge (with 2 dissentions) Supreme Court decision in the case [citation 364 US 454 (1960)] categorically outlawed racial segregation on public transportation, bus stations and other facilities linked to interstate travel in the United States of America. Thurgood Marshall, who represented the young law student in the above cited Supreme Court case, later became the first Black U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Had the cheeseburger and tea ordered by the young student then been served in the Richmond bus-station restaurant, perhaps we wouldn’t have had the emergence of the life-time Civil rights champion, Bruce Boynton, who, at the beginning of this week, succumbed after a ‘tremendous life well lived’ to his long-drawn battle with cancer at the age of 83. On the day of his mortal end, he was to have been honored by a courthouse in his native Selma being renamed after him. Boynton was a final-year law student at Howard University at the time of his arrest in 1958 and after the controversy he wasn’t allowed to practice law in Alabama even though he had passed the bar in 1960. Therefore he had to relocate to Tennessee and practice there until the Alabama bar finally admitted him in 1966. On being licensed by Alabama Bar, he became the first and only black County attorney in Alabama. He spent his entire career as a civil rights attorney. His relentless crusade against racial discrimination right from his student days till his end and the ‘Freedom ride of 1960s that he inspired through his legal battle (Boynton v. Virginia) against the Richmond bus station happening will ever be cherished by everyone in the sphere of civil rights in U.S.A. and those involved with human rights all over the world.

After the historic verdict on December 5, 1960 in Boynton V Virginia 1960- the first time since 1946 that the court got divided (7-2) on a matter of racial segregation- several groups of black and even white students, called ‘Freedom Riders’, set out on buses to travel the South and test whether the ruling in the case was being sincerely followed. But to their dismay, the “Freedom Riders” were arrested or attacked in Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina, and a bus was burned. It was appreciable that the then-President John F. Kennedy quickly diffused fire by ordering stricter enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws and the decision of the Supreme Court.

Bruce Boynton was born on June 19, 1937, in Selma, Alabama, to Amelia and S.W. Boynton. His parents were also prominent members of the civil rights movement and have greatly contributed to the freedoms that many Blacks have today. From his very young age, apart from being intelligent, Boynton was a gentleman always displaying exemplary courage and honesty to speak his mind. Through his legal work, till his end, he was always helpful to people that others refused to help. He served as Alabama’s first Black special prosecutor and boldly prosecuted the Mayor of Beatrice, Alabama for attacking a BIack man.  While practicing in Selma, Boynton was beaten by Wilcox county sheriff and his Chief Deputy. Afterward, he had to have body guards comprising volunteers. Bruce Boynton’s life is a great lesson to every one about how one can make a difference. About the Richmond happening and Boynton’s actions it is often remarked as: “All he wanted was a cheeseburger, and he changed the course of history.”

*

[The text of the judgment of Boynton V Commonwealth of Virginia can be accessed at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/364/454#]

 

புதன், 18 நவம்பர், 2020

 Punishment of death

Recently embarked on a brief study on death penalty (as part of periodic self- renewal of knowledge sources). Interesting finds are there for any who surfs the abundant variety of references and internet sources.

In ancient Tamil society, 'death punishment' seems rare. There are references to one Chieftain Nannan  ( Natrinai  292, Kurunthogai 73) who inflicted death punishment on a girl who ate a mango of the royal garden that came floating in a river. In Silappathikaram, the Pandiya King awards death punishment, without any enquiry, on Kovalan on the suspision of theft of the anklet of his wife, the queen. 

But in many societies, death penalty has been in vogue from very early times of recorded history. To mention a few,

i)        The Roman law of the Twelve Tables (5th Century B.C) contains reference to death penalty. Death sentences were carried out by brutal  means such as ‘beheading, boiling in oil, burying alive, burning, crucifixion, disembowelment, drowning, flaying alive, hanging, impalement, stoning, strangling, being thrown to wild animals, and quartering (being torn apart)’.

ii)   The Draco’s Law Code of Athens, (7th century B.C.) called ‘draconian law’ has made death penalty as the lone punishment for all crimes (hence the use of the term "draconian" to describe particularly harsh penalties). The myth about Draco’s code is that Code was written not in ink but in blood instead.

iii)     The Hittite Code (14th Century B.C) incorporates death penalty also but only marginally. The most serious offenses typically were punished through enslavement. Crimes of a sexual nature often were punishable by death.

iv)         The Code of Babylonian King Hammurabi (18th Century B.C) (Full code available at: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp) engraved on stone tablets for all the public to see has, among its 282 rules/codes, prescribed the death penalty for over 20 different offenses.

Perhaps like the Codes of Manu, Hammurabi code provides a peculiar, unequal kind of law based on social status. The code has rules separately for slaves, freed men, and the freeborn people of the city-state of Babylon.

This code has prescribed severe punishments for many of the offences now more lightly dealt with in most countries (E.g.: death by execution for theft, perjury, and such other crimes). The Code has the famous prescription that "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye."

A look at some of the crimes bringing liability for the death sentence under the Hammurabi Code offers interesting insights into the system of prevalent law then in Babylon.

In our days of carefree thefts of temple statutes, jewels and properties; construction of substandard public and private buildings by money-thirsty contractors; public indulging in baseless levelling of serious accusations against others; increasing illicit and incest affairs in the society, we have to see how the very harsh Hammurabi Code, has tried to address these social evils.

Death for theft

·       If someone stole anything from the temple or the court, he would be put to death.  

·    The buyer of the sold good or receiver of the stolen item from the thief that person would also be put to death. Escape from death was possible if he could prove that he had no knowledge of the item having been stolen.

·       If a man bought an item from a slave or the son of another man, the purchaser would be considered a thief and could be put to death.

·        If a person’s home was burning and someone went into his house to help put the fire out and if that person was caught stealing from that home, the ‘thief’ would be put to death by fire.

Meddling with Slaves

·        Meddling with another person’s slave could get a person killed.

·        Taking another person’s slave outside the city gates would attract a death sentence.

·        Hiding runaway slaves would also incur a death sentence.

Robbery

·        Any form of robbery was punishable by death.

·       If someone were to break into a home to steal and he was caught, the thief would be taken back to that home, killed there, and buried.

Conspirators

·        Any tavern keeper who allowed conspirators in the tavern, and if those conspirators were not caught, the tavern keeper would face the death penalty.

Adultery & Sexual offences

·        Adultery was a serious crime in ancient Babylon. If a wife and some other man were caught in the act of having an affair, both the wife and paramour could be tied up and thrown into the river. (The husband, if he desired, could pardon his wife and save her from drowning.)

·        If a man forced himself on another man’s wife and he is caught in the act, the man would be put to death. (Luckily, the wife would be held blameless in the situation.)

·        If a wife of a man and the husband of another woman were having an affair and plotted to murder their spouses, both the widows would face impalement.

·        If any father has intimate moments with the wives of their sons and if the son’s father was caught red-handed, the father would be bound and cast into the river.

·   If a son indulges in incest (with his own mother), both he and his mother would be burned to death.

Assault

·    If a pregnant woman was hit and the hit woman was a freeborn woman and if she lost her child due to the injury, the man had to pay a fine. If the woman died as a result of the assault, then besides him, his daughter would also be put to death.

House builder

·    If a house builder did not build a home properly, and if the house collapsed killing the owner, the house builder would be put to death.

·      If the house collapsed and the owner’s son was killed, then the son of the house builder would be put to death.

 

Certainly, the Hammurabi Code is ‘barbaric in nature’ than being legal to our senses. But there is justification to give necessary allowance to the relevant time period, level of civilization and the nature of the society in question.

**

ஞாயிறு, 15 நவம்பர், 2020

A gruesome glimpse of the past.

In these days of practices of and raised voices for human rights, the following information about Sir Walter Raleigh presents a glimpse of the gruesome days of the past.

Sir Walter Raleigh.

Sir Walter Raleigh (1554- 1618)

The much used phrase” many- sided personality” would certainly suit most the one- an English aristocrat, writer, poet, soldier, courtier, spy, and explorer- Sir Walter Raleigh (1554-1618)

Raleigh was educated at the Oriel College, Oxford (1572) and at the Middle Temple law college (1575). His outspoken criticism of the English policy implemented in Ireland and also his help to put down a rebellion in Ireland brought him to the attention of Queen Elizabeth. By 1582, he had become the crown’s favorites, rose to occupy many positions, became a M.P. and was made a Governor of Jersey. Raleigh was also made captain of the queen’s guard.

That Sir Walter Raleigh, was a writer, poet, and adventurer is known to many. But, it may not be known to many that he was one of the earliest victims of the successive injustices of the crowns.

It was Queen Elizabeth I who knighted Walter Raleigh in 1585 and the same Queen put him in prison, seven years later, for not informing his marriage to her. Raleigh married one Elizabeth Throckmorton – one of the ladies -in waiting to the queen - and kept this as a secret from the jealous queen for some time. In 1592, the birth of a son betrayed him, and for this ‘heinous crime’ he and his wife were both imprisoned in the Tower of London. Somehow, he was released after some time.

After Queen Elizabeth I’s death, her successor James I (reigned 1603–25), a peace-loving monarch, wanted to have absolutely nothing to do with Raleigh. James I desired to achieve peaceful relations with other countries. Raleigh’s aggressive policies toward Spain was not to the liking of the peace lover King James I. Raleigh’s enemies too worked to bring about his ruin. In 1603, Raleigh and others were accused of plotting to dethrone the king. Raleigh was convicted on the written evidence of Henry Brooke, Lord Cobham. As a last minute reprieve to Raleigh, the death sentence was ultimately reduced to a lifetime of imprisonment in the Tower of London. After twelve years, though Raleigh was released, he was not pardoned.

After release in 1616, Raleigh was sent out on a mission that he had already been on—and failed at. That was, finding the elusive city of El Dorado. Raleigh and his crew didn’t find the mythical city, but what they did find on the way home was the Spanish. Raleigh getting into a fight with the Spanish went directly against the king’s wishes and orders, and it was considered an act of treason for which Raleigh got his second notice of execution. King James invoked the suspended sentence (of 1603) and Raleigh was finally executed in October 1618.

The execution was gruesome. It has been recorded that it took the executioner two blows to remove Raleigh’s head. The detached head was displayed to the crowd that had assembled for the event. Later, it was placed in a red bag, covered with velvet and presented to his wife. The rest of Raleigh’s body was immediately buried in St. Margaret’s Church in Westminster. He was laid to rest in a place of honour in spite of the accusations of treason that eventually led to his death sentence. For reasons that remain unclear, he was buried in an unmarked grave.

Lady Raleigh (Elizabeth Throckmorton, former lady-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth), truly loved her doomed husband. She did not remarry and kept her embalmed husband’s head with her until the day she died after 29 years of the execution. According to some stories, she kept the head in a glass case in her home, and curiosity seekers and family friends would travel miles to visit and pay their respects to the head. After her passing away, the head of Raleigh passed on to their son, Carew. He also continued the tradition of keeping the embalmed head, and when he passed away, the head was also buried with him in Surrey.

Though executed for treason, the popular feeling had remained on Raleigh’s side ever since 1603. After his execution, his occasional writings were collected and published. Some 560 lines of verse hand written by him is preserved to date. His best-known prose works in addition to The Discoverie of Guiana are A Report of the Truth of the Fight About the Iles of Açores This Last Sommer (1591; generally known as The Last Fight of the Revenge) and The History of the World (1614).

In the light of the unbelievable happenings, there is room to present Raleigh either as a hero or as a ‘traitor’. 

His original death sentence was especially gruesome: "... [you are] to be hanged and cut down alive, and your body shall be opened, your heart and bowels plucked out, and your privy members cut off, and thrown into the fire before your eyes; then your head to be stricken off from your body, and your body shall be divided into four quarters, to be disposed of at the king's pleasure." 

Imagine the road travelled to achieve human rights for all.

**

வெள்ளி, 16 அக்டோபர், 2020

 The Right to Information Act and the Official Secrets Act 1923 .


Prior to the advent of the RTI Act 2005, the colonial Official Secrets Act 1923 (OSA) remained as the iron curtain to totally block any transparency in Governmental functions. The administrative hierarchy was using the OSA, indiscriminately, to simply deny any access to public regarding information pertaining to government's activities, expenditures and actions impacting public and its own employees. The RTI Act 2005 has brought a sea- change by indirectly striking a death knell to the  OSA.

 The section 22 of the RTI Act  has a specific enabling provision that 

" the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act 1923 and any other law for the time being in force..."

Though the OSA is not repealed as it is, the section 22 of the RTI Act means that any provision in OSA or any other law in force that is inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act, could be overridden by the 2005 Act. 

The RTI Act 2005 is a special social legislation, a complete code in itself, brought into use for the benefit of the people of this democratic nation. The Act is a strong weapon in the hands of the people of India and it is up to them to effectively put into operation. The much sought after statute, won after long-drawn and consistent battles in several fronts of our society envisages making the state affairs more fair and transparent, most obviously to provide the people their legitimate right to know. 


*

வியாழன், 15 அக்டோபர், 2020

 RTI FLASH-12

At times the courts surprise us by their outreach of decisions going beyond the letters of law. In a case in Punjab and Haryana High court, the court went out a mile to extend the benefit of RTI Act (enacted in 2005) to a Civil revision petitioner  who filed the original case in 2001.


 C.R. No. 1051 of 2001. (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.R. No. 1051 of 2001. Date of Decision: 29.1.2006.

Punjab Public Service Commission ...Petitioner.

Versus

Rajiv Kumar Goyal. ...Respondent.

 

Background

The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is duly qualified and selected for the post of Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) in the examination and interview for the post conducted by respondent no.3, the result for which was declared on 7.11.1994. The plaintiff has also sought consequential relief of appointment as member of PCS (Executive) along with seniority with effect from 7.11.1994 or with effect from such other date when other selected candidates were appointed. Before filing the replication, the plaintiff filed the application for production of record on the ground that the written statement is evasive.

In reply to the said application, it was the stand of the Commission that the issues raised by the plaintiff relate to internal working of the Commission and that the internal procedure cannot be divulged publicly in the public interest. It is also pleaded that the maintainability of the Civil Suit is yet to be determined by the Court in as much as the Civil Suit is time barred and the Courts at Patiala have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Civil Suit. It has been further pleaded that the Public Service Commission is Constitutional Body as defined under Article 315 of the Constitution of India and the Constitutional obligation can only be determined by a Constitutional Bench. It was also submitted that complete record pertaining to the examination of the candidates has already been submitted before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 17490 of 1994 and that the Commission is not in possession of the record pertaining to selection of PCS (Executive) and other like services of the year 1994.

While admitting the present revision petition, this Court on 23.1.2004, passed an order permitting the plaintiff to move an application for inspection of the record. It was ordered that if an application is moved, the plaintiff shall be allowed to inspect the record in the meantime.

Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application for recall of the said order. The said application was dismissed on 31.1.2005.

Both the orders i.e. the order dated 23.1.2004 and that of 31.1.2005 are subject matter of challenge by the Public Service Commission in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 8394 and 8396 of 2005, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued notice in the Special Leave Petition and passed an order that the operation of the orders of the High Court permitting inspection shall remain stayed.

The Court held:

“Earlier the present revision petition came up before me on 30.9.2005, when on an argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the hearing of the revision petition was deferred till the decision of the SLP. But the matter was listed before this Court on 4.1.2006 when it was pointed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that SLP is only against an interim order passed by this Court, therefore, hearing of the revision petition need not be deferred. On the said date, it was ordered that it is not a fit case to stay the proceedings sine die. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, sought time to argue the matter on merits and to examine the effect of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act').

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and I am of the opinion that de-hors of the provisions of Order 11 Rule 14 of the CPC, all citizens have been given right to information in terms of Section 3 of the Act.

The information is defined under Section 2(f) of the Act to mean any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.

Section 4 of the Act contemplates the obligation of public authorities to maintain all its record duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under the Act.

Section 6 of the Act provides that a person, who desires to obtain any information under the Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed. Any applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him in terms of Sub Section 2 of Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of the Act, every citizen of the country has a right to seek information as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act from a public authority. Therefore, without going into the merits of the controversy raised in the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to seek information in terms of the Act.

The application has been moved by the plaintiff before the Civil Court, but it cannot said that since the application has not been filed before the Information Officer, the plaintiff would not be entitled to the information.

-       Hemant Gupta ds Judge.

 

**

 

திங்கள், 12 அக்டோபர், 2020

 

Many times it is not all noble in Literature Nobel.

 



The Prelude

The annual October buzz from Stockholm - announcement of Nobel Prizes - for 2020 is just over. The laborious process comprising of inviting nominations (except for Peace Prize), short-listing, final selection and announcement spanning over a period from September of the previous year to October of the award-year has been repeated without much change since 1901. The theatre of culmination for the majority of prizes is Stockholm with the grand award ceremony on 10th December and for Peace Prize, it is in Oslo, on some other date. The Economic Sciences Award, established in 1968 by Sweden's Central Bank, is technically not a Nobel but an award in honour of Alfred Nobel. Up to 2019, the Nobel Prizes plus the Prize in Economic Sciences have been awarded 597 times. Regarding literature, including 2020 nominations, 112 persons have so far been decorated ‘Nobel Laureates.’  

The information in public domain is that three different bodies i) the Royal Swedish Academy appoints its own members to committees for the Nobels in Physics, Chemistry, Literature, and Economics, ii) the Karolinska Institutet, a Swedish medical university, selects the names for the Physiology and Medicine prize and for the Peace Prize, iii) the Norwegian Nobel Committee, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, handles the matter.

To any one accessing the details from the official website of the Nobel Prizes, the whole exercise would appear really daunting. The Nobel Committee commences the exercise by sending out letters with nomination forms to hundreds of individuals and organizations qualified to nominate candidates, latest by 31st January, for consideration. By April, perhaps from out of a large pool of nominations received, a preliminary short listing to 15- 20 names is made by the committee for the consideration of the Swedish Academy. Further exercises are rolled out up to May to whittle down the list to ‘five priority’ candidates. The members of the Academy have to go through produced materials pertaining to each of the priority candidates to make considered assessments and prepare individual reports on each of the finalized five. After completion of this June- August exercise, the Academy members confer and discuss the merits of candidates and their contributions in September. For peace prize, nominators are not generally invited, but the nominators have to be members or advisors of the committee, previous Nobel laureates and people working in relevant fields (social sciences, peace research, etc.), national politicians, or members of international courts. By early October the candidate for each award is chosen by the Academy (by majority, receiving more than half of the votes cast) and announced.

There is claim of strict confidentiality in the Committee inviting qualified people to nominate potential winners. The nominations are generally kept a secret for 50 years. On that score, the public now have access to nominations/nominators from 1901-1969. The nominators generally consist of members of the academy or institute itself, members of the relevant Nobel committee, past Nobel laureates in the field. Moreover the list of nominators from academia is regionally limited to ‘tenured professors from Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Norway, department chairs from elsewhere, and other scientists or presidents of author societies’.

After all, the consideration and confirmation of the awardees are the work of fallible humans and so on several occasions, awards, and particularly awards for literature, are shrouded with accusations including Eurocentrism, sexism, favouritism and such. On many occasions better individuals have been ignored and not-much known candidates have been awarded. The selection of the laureate for literature has become controversial since the very first award in 1901. This year also the choice of the 77 year old American Poet Loiuse Gluck, a Professor of English at Yale and a resident of Cambridge, Massachutes, for Literature Prize is quite unexpected. Though she had made her debut some fifty two years ago with her first collection (Firstborn 1968), she is “not more well known outside the U.S borders” according to Nobel Committee’s Chair, Anders Olsson. Her works have not been translated into many other languages. To be fair, it must be accepted that though an unexpected choice, there is no great controversy about her selection.

Had it been normal, the Nobel Prize winners (except Peace Prize winners) will attend at Stockholm a high profile award ceremony (White tie ceremony)in December wherein the Swedish Royalty will honour them with an exquisitely designed Diploma, an elegantly carved heavy gold medal and a document confirming their award money (more than 93 000 U.S Dollars now). The ceremony will normally be followed by a lavish banquet. But this year due to the pandemic, the award ceremony is already cancelled.    

(to be continued)

 

.

.

 

 

 

.

 

 

புதன், 7 அக்டோபர், 2020

RTI FLASH 11

The State Information Commissioner is not entitled to appeal against a HC order. SIC can not be regarded as an "aggrieved person".

Supreme Court of India
Spl Leave to Appeal (Civil) 2013 CC 183/2013
Karnataka Information Commissioner Vs State PIO & Another 
Date of Decision: 18-01-2013


Originally, there was a request for some information regarding Karnataka High Court guidelines and rules pertaining to scrutiny and classification of writ petitions and the procedure followed by the HC in respect of a writ petition (N0 26657/2004).

The PIO /Dy Regr of the HC responded that the information is  available under Karnataka HC Act & Rules and on appropriate application under the said rules, information can be furnished. Against this the petitioner went on appeal to the SIC, which directed the court's PIO to provide copies and documents pertaining to the request free of cost.

When the SIC order was challenged by the PIO of the Court, a single judge quashed the SIC order. The SIC did not challenge the  single judge order but after a gap of 335 days filed an appeal  along with appeal for condonation of delay. The Division Bench of the Karnataka HC passed an order in Writ Appeal ( No 3255/2010, Karnataka Information Commission  Vs State PIO& Another.) stating that the Commission can not be treated as an aggrieved person. On this the SIC filed the Spl.leave petition.

After hearing both sides, the Supreme court frowned at the SIC filing a Spl.leave petition challenging the HC Division Bench order. The SC held that the SIC has no locus to file appeal as an 'aggrieved person'. The SIC was asked to pay cost of one lakh for filing frivolous petition.

*

செவ்வாய், 6 அக்டோபர், 2020

 RTI FLASH -10

Unless 'bonafide larger public interest in disclosure (of personal/ third party information)' is brought out, the operation of Section 8(1) (j) can not be stopped. Information can be denied in such cases.

Supreme Court of India 
Spl. Leave Petition (Civil) No 27734/2012 (2 CC 14781/2012)
Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs CIC & Others
Decided on Oct 3, 2012. 


In an appeal by a petitioner, the CIC ordered the Regional PF Commissioner to  disclose the information requested by the petitioner. Earlier the PIO and the First Appellate Authority have denied the request under Section 8(1) of the Act.

The Court observed that in cases where disclosure of 'private', 'personal information' of third parties, is ordered by the CIC/SIC , it should be fully convinced that larger public interest  justifies the disclosure of such personal information.

*