Bhutto’s handpicked army chief (who was supposed to save his rule instead of sending him to the gallows) was the father of Pakistan’s Talibanization. He was the first ‘Mullah Omar’ for Pakistan. With a single stroke of pen, he enforced the hudood punishments like flogging and increased the punishment of blasphemy from a few years imprison to death. He set up Namaz committees to make people pray five times a day through stick. We saw mushroom growth of seminaries during his regime. According to a member of the banned Sipah Sahaba Pakistan, had Zia lived for a couple of years, the Shias would have been declared as kafir constitutionally like the Ahmadis. We have yet to rid ourselves from at least one single Zia-policy that contributed in Pakistan’s Talibanization.
Pakistan used to be a peaceful land when Arabic was not compulsory in schools. Moreover, it was imposed on children by General Ziaul Haq in the late 70’s. The same Zia is remembered today as Jade-Fisad (father of evil). The term was coined the other day in response to the fresh military operation against terrorists under the title Radde-Fisad i.e. rejection of evil.
The comic side: A former chief minister of Balochistan – Aslam Raisani’s response – once said that a degree is a degree, no matter fake or real! When somebody asked him about his qualifications, he said he was chief minister of Balochistan.
SAPAKS, which stands for “samanya Pichda Alpsankhyak Adhikari Karmchari Sanstha” (society formed by government employees belonging to the general category, backwards and minorities) is fighting this battle from the front and is playing a monumental role in keeping the suffering employees united for the common cause and also in mobilising resources to fight the reservation in promotion case in the apex court.
Madhya Pradesh Government and Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Jati/Janjati Adhikari Karmchari Sangh (AJJAKS) are on the same side and have gone to the Supreme Court as petitioners challenging the April 30, 2016 order of the Jabalpur High Court quashing the Madhya Pradesh provision for Reservation in Promotion for the SC and ST (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) employees.
The matter is listed for hearing in the Supreme Court of India on February 28.
The High Court order had come as a relief to majority of Madhya Pradesh Government employees and officers falling under the unreserved category who have stagnated on the same post for long years and have been denied promotion on the basis of seniority and merit due to the 2002 reservation in promotion rule for SCs and STs.
Immediately after the Madhya Pradesh Government had challenged the High Court order in Supreme Court, State Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, while addressing an AJJAKS meeting, had told the SC/ST officers and employees that they were free to choose the best of lawyers and the state government would pay their fees.
A couple of advocates who have appeared on behalf of individual petitioners in cases linked with the case (no 5247/2016) in Supreme Court -the case arising due to the appeal by the Madhya Pradesh Government – have also been appointed by the State Government to appear on its behalf. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who has earlier appeared in this case for AJJAKS, was appointed by the State Government on January 30, 2017 to appear on its behalf in this matter.
Attorney General of India Mukul Rohatgi was appointed by the Madhya Pradesh Government to appear in this case in Supreme Court on May 10, 2016 and was paid a fees of Rs. 1.1 million on May 27, 2016.
Rohatgi appeared in Supreme Court when the Civil appeal by the State Government against the High Court order came up for mentioning on May 10, 2016. Admitting the petition, the Apex Court had granted leave and ordered that the status quo, as on that date, shall be maintained and the matter was listed for hearing in the third week of September.
In between, the counsel for Madhya Pradesh Government came up with an application for permission to file SLP and interim relief and office report. These petitions were called for hearing on August 30, 2016. The supreme Court bench comprising Justice Mr J. Chelameswar and Justice Mr. Abhay Manohar Sapre passed an order rejecting the SLPs on the ground that there was no reason to entertain these SLPs as already an SLP challenging the impugned order of the High Court was pending in the Supreme Court. However considering the nature of the question of law including issues of constitutional significance involved the Court asked the counsel for the petitioner to assist the Court at the time of hearing.
During the next hearing on September 16, 2016, an interim application was filed before the Court. In response, it directed that a copy be served on the appearing parties with proof within two weeks. The respondents too were asked to reply within the same deadline. The matter was then ordered to be listed after two weeks.
On September 26, 2016, the Court ordered the listing of this case on November 8 on top of the Board subject to part heard matter.
The matter was again called for hearing on October 3, 2016. and when the counsel appearing on behalf of a respondent submitted that he had served counter affidavit in response to the Interim application on the parties, specific interim applications were ordered to be listed after 4 weeks. The Court also gave the last opportunity of two weeks to the petitioners’ counsel to file a rejoinder affidavit and the matter was ordered to be listed on November 23, 2016.
On November 8, the next date of hearing, the Court ordered that the matter be listed for hearing on December 14.
On December 2, 2016, Indira Jaising was present in Court to represent Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Jati/Janjati Adhikari Karmchari Sangh (AJJAKS); V Shekhar was there to represent the State of Madhya Pradesh and others; S.R. Hegde with Manoj Gorkela was there in connection with separate civil appeals by State of Madhya Pradesh and others. K.K. Venugopal was there representing individual petitioners in a case connected with the present case.
That day, senior Advocate Harish Salve was representing another set of appeals connected to this case by State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
Manoj Gorkela was also there to represent the State government which was petitioner through a couple of more petitions.
During the proceeding of this case senior counsel Indira Jaising sought leave of the Court to implead AJJAKS – one of the petitioners.
On December 14, when the case came up for hearing by a two Judge Bench comprising of Justice Mr. J Chelameswar and Justice Mr. Prafulla C. Pant, representing the appellants were Senior advocates S.R. Hegde, V. Shekhar, and advocate Manoj Gorkela.
On December 15, 2016, senior advocates S.R. Hegde, Indira Jaising and advocate Manoj Gorkela were representing separate appeals. While SR. Hegde and Manoj Gorkela appeared on behalf of the State Government, Indira Jaising was representing Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Jati/Janjati Adhikari Karmchari Sangh (AJJAKS). On this day, the matter was ordered to be listed on January 24.
Harish Salve was appointed by the Madhya Pradesh Government in this case on September 30, 2016 and was paid Rs. 1 million on January 11, 2017
Along with Salve, Gopal Subramanium was also appointed on September 30, 2016 by MP Government for this case and was paid Rs. 9,70,000 on January 13, 2017.
Sanjay R. Hegde was similarly appointed in this case by the State Government on November 22, 2016 and was paid Rs2.2 million on January 11, 2017.
Indira Jaising was appointed on January 30, 2017 and was paid Rs. 7,55,000 the same day. Another advocate, V. Shekhar was also appointed and paid Rs. 2,75,000 the same day.
In a written reply to the state Assembly, the Madhya Pradesh Government, while giving these details has also given a list of 9 more advocates who have been appointed by the government for this case but there is no mention about the fees paid to them. The question doing the rounds in concerned circles is whether these lawyers are doing charity or they have given their consent for deferred payment. Of these nine advocates eight were appointed along with Indira Jaising, who was simultaneously appearing for AJJAKS in this case and V. Shekhar on January 30, 2017. While
A Sundaram, S.S. Suri, K.K. Venugopal, Subramanian Prasad, Dinesh Gupta, Manoj Gorkela, Additional Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh, Purushendra Kaurav and Standing Counsel Saurabh Mishra were appointed on January 30, Tushar Mehta, the Additional Solicitor General of India, was appointed on February 17.
SAPAKS Samaj is opposed to reservation on the basis of caste but supports the idea of reservation on economic grounds. SAPAKS Samaj is totally against reservation in promotion and wants that the concept of creamy layer should be applied uniformly across the board. It also wants that there should be a review of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 because it is being misused by unscrupulous persons.
Pitted against the Madhya Pradesh Government and the SC/ST officers, who are being supported to the hilt by the government in this case, are the officers and employees from the unreserved category who constitute about 65 per cent of the State government workforce. SAPAKS, which stands for “samanya Pichda Alpsankhyak Adhikari Karmchari Sanstha” (society formed by government employees belonging to the general category, backwards and minorities) is fighting this battle from the front and is playing a monumental role in keeping the suffering employees united for the common cause and also in mobilising resources to fight the case in the apex court. There is also the SAPAKS Samaj (society formed by few leading members of society to build public opinion and the agenda to rationalise reservation. SAPAKS Samaj is opposed to reservation on the basis of caste but supports the idea of reservation on economic grounds. SAPAKS Samaj is totally against reservation in promotion and wants that the concept of creamy layer should be applied uniformly across the board. It also wants that there should be a review of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 because it is being misused by unscrupulous persons.
India has a tremendous opportunity with its many drivers of growth and a political will to reform and disinvest will prove to be a plus. Also with its technology upbeat and skilled manpower here and now as in long term many companies such as automakers will like to move from building plants in the US to low-cost countries such as India for vehicle production. The I Phone production facility has many reasons for us to cheer at Bangluru and may foretell a future for a new India in the making.
It appears to the world that the emergence of Donald Trump and the consequent hardening of attitudes across the globe will re-trigger political fault lines that may result in a trade war which may put the U.S. and global economies into recession. It is true a Trump will in future have to contend with the U.S. Constitution in place of the Executive Orders that were hastily issued to keep pace with his radical electoral promises. In contrast the Chinese economy is not at the risk of blowing up as many would make us believe for two reasons: they have a current account surplus and foreign exchange reserves in addition to the state owned banks. In the U.S. as in the rest of the world for almost half a century now it was the capital that outpaced returns instead of the labor. But the backlash is now evident! The question remains, will it help labor intensive economies such as India?
Will the protectionism fever now gripping the globe be the new normal? Perhaps yes! More so as the western world already reeling with the economic meltdown will be impacted, in particular the fundamentals in Europe will continue to be weak and the crisis of confidence will put Europe and the emerging economies to a subsequential path of the U.S. The recent IMF forecast warns that Italy is heading for recession in the next few years. Quite in tandem most developed economies may forgo a rate hike rather than facing the risk of putting their own economies into recession. Perhaps the U.S. with its poor growth and unemployment rates will deter the Federal Reserve from undertaking any rate hikes during the year.
There may be apprehension that relief in sanctions would lead Russia to return to a state of economic stagnation with annual growth slumping back to 1.3 per cent as earlier.
Let us consider the impact on India! Well yes, as it would always happen, countries with high debt to GDP ratio, considering their debt servicing costs, will be severely impacted by a global downturn. Ominous clouds of an emerging trade war due to scuttling of NAFTA and the border tariffs by the U.S. will result in job losses in the entire Atlantic rim.
In such a situation, India has the opportune moment to be the beacon of hope. There is an emerging paradigm of opportunities for India to attract investment with aggressive reformation considering its moderate inflation and present level of interest rates. Formalization of economy consequent to demonetization despite the initial hiccups and the introduction of the GST regime will be thumbs up for India. Globally, with rates below 0.5 percent that may raise only very slowly, our policy mandarins should be focused more on macroeconomic stability as any small shock internationally in the next few years could cause major economic damage. India has a tremendous opportunity with its many drivers of growth and a political will to reform and disinvest will prove to be a plus. Also with its technology upbeat and skilled manpower here and now as in long term many companies such as automakers will like to move from building plants in the US to low-cost countries such as India for vehicle production. The iphone production facility has many reasons for us to cheer at Bengaluru and may foretell a future for a new India in the making.
Bhopal: Madhya Pradesh Government has continuously been paying a large amount of money as fees from the public exchequer to senior advocates appearing on its behalf in the Supreme Court each time the writ petition filed by the government challenging the Jabalpur High Court decision to quash the Madhya Pradesh Public Service (Promotion) Rule, 2002, which provides for “reservation in promotion” for the SCs and STs (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) gets listed for hearing.
In a written reply to a query, the Madhya Pradesh Government yesterday informed the State Assembly that seven more SLPs have been filed besides the special leave petition (SLP) no. 13954/2016 (Civil Appeal no. 5247/2016) filed by the State Government challenging the Jabalpur High Court order declaring the 2002 reservation in promotion Rule as “Non est” – a term frequently used in Indian legal parlance. It means “does not exist”.
Responding to the SLP by the State Government, the Supreme Court had ordered on May 12, 2016 that status quo be maintained in this matter. Hence all promotions are held up in Madhya Pradesh.
The Madhya Pradesh government has informed the Legislative Assembly that a number of advocates have been “appointed” to present the state Government’s case in the Apex Court.
The advocates “appointed” by the Government in this case are as follows:
Name of advocate
Date of appointment
Fees paid for hearing and date
Attorney General of India
Rs. 11, 00, 000
Rs. 10, 00, 000
Sanjay R. Hegde
Rs 22, 20, 000
Rs. 9, 70, 000
Ms. Indira Jaising
Rs. 7, 55, 000
Rs. 2, 75, 000
Additional Advocate General
Additional Solicitor General
Fees is being paid separately to advocates representing the government employees from the reserved SC and ST categories. Their case has been taken up by their association known as AJJAKS.
Dates fixed for hearing and number of advocates appearing for the Government