How to become a Notary ?

Notary also known as a Notary public in common parlance is a qualified and experienced lawyer appointed by the state or central government on the recommendation of courts under the provisions of the Notaries Act LII of 1952.  who can give an oath to a person and declare the legal document like affidavits and contracts produced before him as authentic, by affixing his seal and stamp on it of course by charging some officially prescribed fee under provisions of notaries act, 1952.

Although an important requirement for all times, the requirement of services of a notary are increasing due to large scale immigration of the persons from one place to another and change in pattern of life style of the society. Their services are required by the persons who do not have any proof of residence, but want to apply for a ration card, domestic gas cylinder or power connection, or wants to include his name in the list of voters as they may do so by filing an affidavit authenticated by a notary. Also, if there has been a gap period in education, the students have to sign an affidavit for readmission to the course. Besides any person intending to change his/her name, want to authenticate a copy of a financial or academic document, or a property sale deed, is required to get the signature and stamp from a notary. Increase in all such requirement in recent few years has increased the demand of Notary public services thereby making the becoming of notary a lucrative career option. 

To become a notary one requires lots of dedication and hard work. The job of a notary public demands intensive training as he is the one on which many legal matter depends. For this one should have discipline, sense of responsibility, commitment and self-confidence. The job requires a lot of hard work, stamina, alertness of mind, and above all honesty towards the society. 

To discharge his duties with commitment he requires a lot of knowledge of the law of the land and plenty of experience.

Eligibility for becoming a Notary

• Ten (seven years in case of reserved categories and women candidates) years of practice as an advocate or 
• A member of the Indian Legal Service or 
• Officer under the Central or State Government, requiring special knowledge of law, after enrolment as an advocate or
• An officer in the department of Judge, Advocate - General or in the armed forces. 

How to become a Notary Public?

To become a Notary Public one has to follow the below given steps:

Step 1

To become a Notary, one has to first possess a degree in LLB. To get the L.LB degree the eligible candidate has to undertake an entrance test conducted by Law departments of various universities of the India or the independent law schools/ Institutions. CLAT (Common Law Admission Test) being one of the most sort after ways to get into law career.

CLAT is conducted every year to admit students into 5 year integrated B.A L.LB Degree Course in top ten of the national law schools.

CLAT consists of questions from the topics such as:-

1. Legal Aptitude

2. Logical Reasoning

3. English including Comprehension

4. General Knowledge/Current Affairs

5. Elementary Mathematics

Step 2

Once degree in hand and after the successful completion of the course every graduate has to complete the mandatory internship as per the norms of the institutions.

Step3

After completion of the internship one has to enroll himself/herself as an advocate in any of the State Bar Council regulated by the Advocates Act, 1961 to become a practicing advocate and get necessary experience to apply for the notary license.

Step 4

After practicing as an advocate for at least 10 years (seven years for Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe or other backward classes and women candidates as well) one becomes eligible to be appointed as a notary.  

The applicant, if not a legal practitioner, should be a member of the Indian Legal Service or have held an office under the Central or State Government, requiring special knowledge of law, after enrolment as an advocate or held an office in the department of Judge, Advocate-General or in the armed forces.

Step 5

The aspirant has to submit an application in the form of a memorial, as prescribed in the rules, to the competent authority of the appropriate government.  If approved the applicant becomes a notary and a certificate of practice will be issued to him and gazetted in the State or Central Gazette. His name will be entered in the Register of Notaries maintained by the Government 

Fees for the Certification:

The fee for issue of first certificate of practice for 5 years (first appointment as notary) is Rs.1,000 as per the amended rules and for renewal it is Rs.500. A notary public in possession of certificate of practice in a particular area may apply for extension of his area of practice. The fees for extension of area of practice are Rs.750.

Basic Points to be considered before appointing a Notory Public by the competent authority are:- 

• Whether the applicant ordinarily resides in the area in which he proposes to practice as a notary; 
• Considering the commercial importance of the area in which the applicant proposes to practice, the authority should take into consideration the existing number of notaries in the area in question and whether additional notaries will be required; 
• Should consider the fitness of the applicant as to his knowledge and experience of commercial law and, in case of a legal practitioner, his extent of practice, and so on; 
• Whether the applicant belongs to a firm of legal practitioners and, having regard to the number of existing notaries in that firm, whether it is proper and necessary to appoint any additional notary from that firm; 
• Where applications from other applicants in respect of the area are pending, whether they are more suitable than the applicant in question. On receipt of the report from the competent authority, the Government shall consider the report and allow the application in respect of the whole or part of the area, or reject the same. 

Main services provided by a Notary Public are: 

• Verify, authenticate, certify or attest the execution of any instrument; 
• Present any promissory note, hundi or bill of exchange for acceptance/payment, or demand better security; 
• Note/protest the dishonour by non-acceptance or non-payment of any promissory note, hundi or bill of exchange, protest for better security, prepare acts of honour under the Negotiable Instruments Act or serve notice or such protest; 
• Note and draw up ship's protest, boat's protest or protest relating to demurrage and other commercial matters; 
• Administer oath to, or take affidavit from, any person; 
• Prepare bottomry and respondentia bonds, charted parties and other mercantile documents; 
• Prepare, attest or authenticate any instrument intended to take effect in any country or place outside India in such form and language as may conform to the law of the place where such deed is intended to operate; 
• Translate and verify the translation of any documents from one language into another; 
• Act as a Commissioner to record evidence in any civil or criminal trial if so directed by any court or authority; 
• Act as an arbitrator, mediator or conciliator if so required; and 
• Any other act which may be described; 

Notary Public Income/Salary

Financial success of a Notary depends entirely upon his experience and knowledge complemented by his public relation. On an average a  Notary can earn as good as Rs.1000 per day or more for his services.  

Why Haj subsidy should be allowed?

Subsidy for pilgrimages stayed

HYDERABAD, INDIA: A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Anil Ramesh Dave and Justice Ramesh Ranganathan on Wednesday directed the State government not to allot and spend money on religious pilgrimages. These interim orders were passed while hearing cases pertaining to the subsidised pilgrimage for Christians to Jerusalem, Bethlehem and proposed subsidies for Manasarovar Yatra in China.

The Bench was passing these interim orders in two writ petitions filed way back in November 2008. One case was filed by Satish Agarwal, a businessman from Bowenpally along with Raghava Reddy, president of the Devalaya Parirakshana Samithi. These two challenged the constitutional validity of G.O. 29 issued in July 2008 wherein the subsidised pilgrimage for Christians to Bethlehem and Jerusalem was ordered. The second case was filed by Gandra Mohana Rao, practising advocate, seeking subsidy for Hindu pilgrimages to various places.

The Bench prima facie felt that the Constitution does not permit this kind of subsidy for religious pilgrimages. It heard at length counsel for the petitioners as well as Additional Advocate-General A. Satya Prasad. The petitioners contended that the Article 27 of the Constitution prohibits collection of taxes for religious purposes.

They relied upon the judgment of a seven-judge Bench of Supreme Court delivered in 1954 wherein it was declared “what is forbidden by the Article 27 is specific appropriation of the proceeds of any tax in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination”.

The petitioners further averred that the subject of foreign pilgrimages is within the realm of the Union government and the State government could not have issued any G.O. or subsidised the pilgrimages. The Additional Advocate-General stated that this is a policy of elected government with a popular mandate. He reminded that the Haj pilgrimage for Muslims is being subsidised by the governments for several decades.

Interim orders

He said that the government was ready to subsidise pilgrimage to Manasarovar. The Bench did not appreciate the stand of the government. It felt that the balance of convenience is in favour of giving interim orders staying further expenditure by the government.

NDA's future strategy on getting black money from swiss..

On 29 March 2009, I had addressed a press conference in New Delhi and raised the important issue of vast amounts of Indian wealth stashed away in secret Swiss bank accounts and other tax havens around the world. The press conference was held against the backdrop of the G-20 Summit in London on 2 April, where the issue of illicit funds parked in tax havens was scheduled to be discussed. The country expected Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, who represented India at the G-20 Summit, to put across India’s concerns and expectation forcefully at this global forum. Disappointingly, he only paid lip service to the issue. In contrast, it was the OECD (Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development) group of rich nations that were most vociferous in demanding an end to banking secrecy in countries like Switzerland.

At my New Delhi press conference, I had stated that a future BJP-led government at the Centre, if elected, would bring India’s sovereign wealth back from foreign shores and use it for various ambitious developmental projects. I had also announced the formation of a Task Force to recommend specific steps that a future government may take to translate our promise into reality.

I am pleased to announce that the Task Force has submitted its recommendations in the enclosed interim report. I sincerely thank members of the Task Force — Shri S. Gurumurthy (Chartered Accountant and investigative writer, Chennai); Shri Ajit Doval (Security expert, New Delhi); Dr. R. Vaidyanathan (Professor of Finance, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore); and Shri Mahesh Jethmalani (Senior lawyer, Mumbai) — for the outstanding work they have done.

The interim report of the Task Force is useful for four important reasons. Firstly, it has placed the problem of India’s wealth hoarded in secret bank accounts abroad in the context of a larger global menace, which western nations have now resolved to fight due to their own internal compulsions. Hence, it has rightly pointed out that India should become an active player in the global crusade against banking secrecy and tax havens.

Secondly, the Task Force has correctly asserted that the “fact of the loot” cannot be questioned although there may be debate on the “maths of the loot”. Based on studies conducted abroad, the Task Force has mentioned that the Indian wealth in Swiss bank accounts and other tax haven may be in the range of $500 billions [Rs 25 lakh crores] and $1.4 trillions [Rs 70 lakh crores]. The credibility of these estimates is reinforced by the figure of $11.5 trillions (Rs. 575 lakh crore) officially given by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), a group of rich countries, at the G-20 Summit in London early this month as the amount of global wealth parked in various tax havens.

Thirdly, the Task Force has highlighted the casual approach of the Congress-led UPA government in taking up this important issue at appropriate international fora. Spokesmen of the Congress party have even mocked at the BJP’s effort in this regard. My appeal to voters is simple: Punish the Congress that has no political will to fight corruption and crime money. The word “corruption” does not even figure in the Congress party’s manifesto!

Fourthly, the Task Force has recommended specific measures as part of the Global and National Strategies to bring back Indian money from tax havens abroad.

The important recommendations made by the Task Force are:

Global Strategy

Step I: Creating a powerful public opinion in India is a pre-requisite for global response to India's requirements in regard to unveiling banking secrecy. The world respects powerful domestic opinion on global issues. India must first realize that this is the ideal time to act and join the global crusade against secret banks and tax havens. In the absence of a broad national consensus on the issue, only a determined leader with a committed team can create the strong national will needed for undertaking this serious agenda overcoming all attempts to impede the effort. Those who do not support the move should be seen as supporters of black economy.

Step II: India should stop being a silent spectator to the G-20 efforts against secret banking and tax havens. It must become an active player and forthwith change the perception that it is not against secret banking and tax havens.

Step III: India must immediately and effectively urge the German government to provide the details of the Indian names from the LGT bank’s secret records. The BJP, if voted to power, must send a special emissary to Germany, which is willing to give the details of Indian names in the LGT bank’s secret records.

Step IV: India must strive for a coordinated global and multilateral effort, which is the only solution to undo the regime of banking secrecy.

Step V: India has special needs beyond what the West is seeking to break banking secrecy. India should work with the West to get the OECD rules on internationally agreed tax standards. That global coercive action is working is seen from that fact that the G-20 threat to blacklist Switzerland and other tax havens is already beginning to yield results.

Step VI: We recommend that India appoint a special ambassador with adequate knowledge of tax havens and secret banking issues to work with the G-20 specifically for framing India-friendly rules.

National Strategy

Collection of travel information about persons visiting Switzerland and other tax havens. This should start with cabinet ministers and other high-profile political personalities.

Monitoring tax havens that have high transaction frequency with India.

India to become a full-fledged member of the Financial Action Task Force.

Use of financial intelligence sharing for security purposes. Illegal money is a potential source of undermining national security. Therefore, we recommend that Indian intelligence agencies should be specifically tasked to collect intelligence on this count.

Legislative support: Just as the Obama Administration is planning specific anti-tax haven laws, India should also target tax havens and secret destinations like Switzerland operating in India.  

We recommend that stricter laws should place the onus of proving their innocence on the accused if a prima facie case is made out.

High Level Task Force: We recommend that the Government of India should constitute a high level Task Force with representatives from Finance Ministry, National Intelligence Agencies, Ministry of Law, RBI, SEBI, Economic Intelligence Units, Central Vigilance Commission, CBI and other experts to collect and process the information and start legal action wherever feasible. As large-scale kickbacks are reported from purchases made by some of the Ministries like Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Civil Aviation etc., their representatives could also be co-opted wherever necessary.

The history of the illicit wealth holders should be brought out: We recommend that when India is able to unveil the banking secrecy through information sharing arrangement, it should get the names and amounts not just as of today but for the entire economic history of the account-holders.

UPA and Terror - Zero Tolerance or Zero Will?

TERRORIST ATTACKS :

A. Legal Response

B. Prevention and 

C. Convictions

The five year rule of the UPA Government has witnessed an unprecedented proliferation in terrorist activity. This alarming increase is by itself indicative of the fact that the Indian state under the UPA has become a soft target for devastating attacks by terrorists both foreign and of the home grown variety. Not unpredictably, the UPA Government has been on the backfoot on the issue of terrorism throughout its five year reign.

In the face of a barrage of criticism in Parliament and the press, the stock response of Congress spokespersons in particular, has been to point fingers at the previous NDA regime in an attempt to demonstrate that the predecessor Government’s record on terror is no better than that of the present regime. In particular, the Congress defense has three planks at its core :

A. that the NDA regime witnessed three major terrorist activities on Indian soil in the Kandahar hijacking in December, 1999; the attack on Parliament in December, 2001 and the attack on Akshardham Temple Complex in Gujarat in September, 2002;

B. That draconian laws did not deter terrorist activities as is evident from the fact that the Akshardham attack took place within a few months of the promulgation of POTA; and

C. That the NDA’s response to these attacks and the Kandahar hijacking was pusillanimous in the extreme and that the UPA would have dealt with the situation with a far greater degree of efficacy.

PREVENTION : On the issue of frequency of terrorist attacks, there is virtually no contest in so far as the record of the two regimes are concerned. While the NDA era witnessed three major terrorist attacks, the following is the list of the major strikes that have become so conspicuous a feature of the UPA Government’s tenure:-

New Delhi , Oct 29, 2005 : 61 persons killed in three blasts on the eve of Diwali

Varanasi, March 7, 2006: 21 people killed and over 101 injured in two blasts that rocked Varanasi, the first at Sankat Mochan Temple and the second at Varanasi Railway station.

Mumbai, July 11, 2006: 7 explosions ripped through crowded suburban trains in Mumbai killing 209 persons and leaving 700 more bloodied and injured.

Malegaon, Maharashtra, Sep 8, 2006: 40 people killed in two blasts and about 200 injured in 4 explosions in the Hamidia Mosque and chowks.

Samjhauta Express, Feb 19, 2007: 66 people killed after two firebombs went off on the India-Pakistan friendship train, the Samjautha Express, at Panipat, North Delhi.

Hyderabad, Aug 25, 2007: 42 people killed in two blasts, at a popular eatery and a public park.

Jaipur, May 13, 2008: 68 people killed in serial bombings.

Bangalore, July 25, 2008: One person killed in a low-intensity bomb explosion.

Ahmedabad, July 26, 2008: 57 people killed after 20-odd synchronised bombs went off within less than two hours.

New Delhi, Sep 13, 2008: 26 people killed in six blasts across the

New Delhi, Sep 27, 2008: Three people killed after a crude bomb was thrown in a busy market in Mehrauli.

Malegaon, Maharashtra, Sep 29, 2008: 6 persons killed and about 101 injured after a bomb planted on a motorcycle exploded.

Modasa, Gujarat, Sep 29 2008: One killed and several injured after a low-intensity bomb kept on a motorcycle went off near a mosque.

Kanpur, Oct 14, 2008: 8 people injured after bomb planted on a rented bicycle went off Colonelganj market.

Imphal, Oct 21, 2008: 17 killed in a powerful blast near Manipur Police Commando complex.

Assam, Oct 30, 2008: At least 45 killed (figure can change) and over 100 injured in 18 terror bombings across Assam.

Mumbai, Nov 26, 2008: 180 killed and many more injured in seven terror attacks targeting mostly foreigners' in the Taj Mahal Hotel, the Oberoi Trident Hotel, Leopold Cafe, CST, Chabad House and in random firing elsewhere by ten individuals armed with weapons, ammunition and grenades.

LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE : On the issue of strong laws to deal with the detection and prevention of terrorist activity and the trial and punishment of terrorists, the Congress stand discloses an unconscionable mix of both double standards and vote bank politics . Confronted with Sikh terrorism in Punjab and the assassination of its own Prime Minister by her Sikh body guards-both outcomes of Congress’s dangerously misconceived policies in Punjab-the Congress’s visceral reaction was the enactment of TADA, first by ordinance in 1985 and then by legislation in 1987. The Congress party’s civil libertarian pretensions found no public expression as TADA remained in force for well nigh 10 years. Meanwhile, convictions under the act were rare and when they did take place the ordinary law would have been adequate. On the other hand, thousands of innocent Sikh youth suffered the rigors of the statute through unwarranted arrests, illegal and protracted incarceration and custodial violence. Through all this, there was no whimper of protest from any Congress quarter.

In fact, Congressmen first discovered their revulsion for draconian laws in the wake of the Bombay serial blasts in 1993 as a consequence of which large number of Muslims, particularly from Mumbai, were arrested and sought to be tried under the TADA.

Congress M.Ps like Sunil Dutt commenced an indefatigable campaign for the repeal of TADA. On the eve of the 1995 parliamentary elections, Narsimha Rao’s Government allowed TADA to lapse.

In the wake of the Kandahar hijacking, and particularly the attack on Parliament in December, 2001, the NDA Government in 2002 enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). While it is true that a few months later in September, 2002 there was a terrorist attack by Lakshar-e-Toiba militants at the Akshardam Temple in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, this was the only terrorist incident for the rest of the NDA regime after the enactment of POTA. The failure to check the Akshardam attack in spite of POTA is explained by the fact that the Akshardham conspiracy was well under way by the time the police could invoke the extraordinary powers that POTA gave them for the early detection of terrorist crimes through wire tapping and the interception of letters, e-mails, etc.

Ominously the only exception to the otherwise terrorism free reign of the NDA Government’s post POTA was the city of Mumbai in Maharashtra where the Congress-NCP Government was in power. Between Dec. 2002 to August, 2003, Mumbai was convulsed by as many as six terrorist bombing episodes in a span of eight months that left several persons dead and many more seriously injured. .

From December 2002 to August 2003, as the following terrorist incidents occurred:-

Dec. 2 2002: Two persons were killed and 31 injured in a powerful explosion in a bus outside the crowded Ghatkopar railway station in Mumbai. The Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) was suspected to be behind the blasts.

Dec. 6, 2002: Twenty five people were injured in a bomb blast by members of the SIMI at McDonalds fast food restaurant at Mumbai Central railway station. The bomb was planted in the air conditioner duct. It was suspected to be a crude bomb.

Jan 27, 2003: Thirty persons were injured when a bomb planted on a bicycle went off throwing splinters of sharp nails outside Vile Parle railway station in Mumbai. Members of SIMI were found to be behind the attack.

March 13, 2003 : A powerful bomb blast shattered a bogie of a local train at Mulund railway station in Mumbai during peak hours killing 11 people and injuring more than 65 .

July 28 , 2003 : Bus blast kills 3 and injures 31 others in Mumbai. Pakistani intelligence agency : ISI and members of SIMI were found to be behind the blast.

August 23, 2003: Two bombings at the Gateway of India and the Mumbadevi temple in Mumbai killed 52, injured 167. Terrorists from Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Students Islamic Movement of India were found to be behind the attacks.

In sharp contrast to its response to terrorism in Punjab, the Congress vehemently opposed the enactment of POTA and made its repeal a part of their manifesto and campaign during the elections that ensued in 2004. Immediately on its assumption of power as a part of the UPA, the Congress introduced legislation for the repeal of POTA, although it retained some of its provisions through an amendment of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention), 1967.

Since that repeal, terrorism has been in spate through the length and breath of India. The UPA, however, remained undeterred about its stand on strong terrorist laws. It was only the stark horror and humiliation of 26/11/2008 that forced the UPA to grudgingly accept the utter folly of its previous ways. On 17.12.2008 the Home Minister, Mr. P.C. Chidambaram, introduced two bills to effectively deal with terror which subsequently became law. The first, an amendment to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, substantially reintroduced all the earlier repealed stringent provisions of POTA. After five bitter years of struggling with terrorism, the UPA Government effectively bowed to the NDA’s legislative wisdom on terror.

CONVICTIONS : Congress’s attempts to defend its own abject record on terrorism by pointing to the earlier NDA’s Government record is both specious and misconceived. Its most stringent criticism of the previous regime centers around the Kandahar hijacking episode. According to the Congress, the NDA’s response was effete; the Congress would have effected the policy of Zero Tolerance and never allowed the hostage exchange of Masood Azhar for the passengers. This stand of the Congress constitutes an astounding volte face : contemporary newspaper reports of December, 1999 indicate that an all party meeting was held to discuss the Kandahar hostage crisis. At the said meeting there was unanimity amongst all parties that the Government of the day should handle the crisis in a manner that ensured the safety of all the passengers aboard IC 184. In fact it was categorically resolved that the safe return of the passengers to Indian shores should be the prime objective of the Government. The Congress delegation at the all party meeting, which endorsed this action, was led by Manmohan Singh. Neither Sonia nor Rahul Gandhi nor any other functionary of the Congress party opposed this line of action. Indeed contemporary newspaper reports disclose that both Sonia and Rahul were conspicuously silent on the issue. In stark contrast, the statements issueed by both in more recent times are critical of the approach of that Government.

More significantly, Masood Azhar whose release from captivity was at the centre of the hijackers demand, had been in custody since 1994 when he was arrested in Kashmir for terrorist activities. For five years the Congress Government and the subsequent Government which depended on Congress support for its survival, failed to secure Masood Azhar’s conviction on any charges in any court of law. Instead of trying and executing him for sedition, two successive Governments allowed him to languish in captivity, thus almost facilitating the audacious attempt for securing his release in a hostage exchange. The hijacking of IC 184 in December, 1999 was essentially motivated by the objective of securing Masood Azhar’s release. Those who did not secure his conviction and execution for five years were largely to blame for the Kandahar hijacking and its consequences as also for the several terrorists crimes attributed to him since 1999, including the attack on Parliament in December, 2001. Congress spokesmen have conveniently concealed these material facts.

As regards the 2001 attack on Parliament, the record of the NDA Government is exemplary to say the least. The attack on Parliament was thwarted - albeit by the sacrifice of the lives of a few brave security personnel. While the five terrorists who tried to gain entry into Parliament were killed, the masterminds behind the plot were traced and arrested. The trial of these persons was completed within a year. The Appeals of the convicted persons as well as those of the state against those acquitted - both before the High Court and the Supreme Court were finally disposed off by 4.8.2005.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal filed by Mohamed Afzal Guru and confirmed the death sentence imposed upon him. For almost four years this sentence has not been carried out as a mercy petition filed by Mohamed Afzal Guru is pending disposal by the President of India. The exemplary method of dealing with terrorists demonstrated by the NDA Government, thus stands completely vitiated by delays attributable solely to the UPA Government.

The indecision of the Government is in stark contrast to the speed and alacrity on its part in hanging Kehar Singh one of the alleged conspirators in the assassination of Indira Gandhi.

The culprits in the Akshardham Temple complex attack have also been apprehended, tried and convicted; only their appeals are pending.

On the other hand, there is a marked reluctance on the part of the Congress/UPA Governments to detect and punish the perpetrators of terrorist crimes. It took 14 years for a Special TADA Court dealing exclusively with 1993 serial bomb blast case to convict the guilty. The judgment in that case was delivered only in 2007. Almost all those found guilty have filed appeals and doubtless, a few more years will elapse before they get their just desserts.

In the six blast explosions that shook various parts of Bombay between December 2002 and August 2003, the accused in one case have all been acquitted (though an appeal against their acquittal is pending in the High Court). In the case of three other explosions, the trial is still to commence and in the remaining two, although the trial has begun, they are some way from completion. In all these cases, the accused persons are members of SIMI, the Lashkar-e-Toiba and Pakistani Nationals. In short six years after these blasts, no one has been convicted by a court of law.

Finally, as regards the epidemic of terrorists attacks that have been the hallmark of the last five years of the UPA Government, in some cases the perpetrators have not even been apprehended. Where there have been arrests, the trials have not yet commenced. Even the case of Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani terrorist caught red handed with volumes of evidence disclosing his role in the several terrorist acts perpetrated by him on 26.11.2008, the charge sheet filed by the Crime Branch consisting of 2000 witnesses and several documents, threatens to undermine a speedy and efficacious trial. A trial that at most should take a couple of months, seems inexorably destined for needless protraction.

While a plethora of Congress spokesmen belligerently proclaim their commitment to Zero Toleration for terrorism on the several platforms afforded to them to air their views, the empirical evidence discloses that Congress deeds do not match their words. The truth is that Congress electoral compulsions have rendered the Congress inefficacious in the fight against terrorism. In fact, Congress has no stomach to fight the new 21st Century manifestation of terrorism that threatens the Indian subcontinent : Jehadi Terrorism .

India Elections 2009 - EC out of bounds on Varun Gandhi

The Election Commission last night issued an advisory to the BJP not to nominate Varun Gandhi as its candidate for Pilibhit while holding him guilty on charges of making hateful and communal remarks in his speeches.

At the outset let it be clear that Offstumped is holding no brief for Varun Gandhi and comments attributed to him from multiple speeches are despicable and un-Hindu.

However it must also be said that:

#1 Varun Gandhi has the freedom to practice his his bigotry howsoever disagreeable it may be to our sensibilities, as long as he has not broken a law of the land

#2 If Varun Gandhi’s bigotry is in violation of the Law, exemplary punishment is in order so a message goes out to every bigoted Politician that they cannot court controversy to make headlines and conduct whisper campaigns.

#3 If Varun Gandhi’s bigotry is not in violation of the Law, then the matter must be judged in the Court of Public Opinion.

The Election Commission is neither a court of law nor does it represent the court of public opinion.

There in lies the problem with the Election Commission’s “holding Varun Gandhi” guilty and issuing an advisory especially in a scenario where the electoral process has not even been notified and the Election Commission has no role to play.

The matter of whether Varun Gandhi’s bigotry is acceptable or not and whether he should be the BJP’s candidate or not should have been left to the BJP and the court of public opinion by the Election Commission till until a legal case was made.

Former Election Commissioner GVG Krishnamurthy explains why

The Election Commission has no jurisdiction to take action against Gandhi” for his alleged inflammatory speeches

The model code of conduct comes into effect only after President Pratibha Patil notifies the elections in the official gazette. Till then Gandhi cannot be considered an Election Commission recognized candidate

the commission has acted in haste in moving against Gandhi for violation of the model code of conduct under the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951.

Only the police can move against him under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for inciting communal passions

As of now Varun is only a probable candidate and an ordinary citizen against whom action can be taken only under the IPC if he makes inflammatory statements.

The Election Commission has no role to play till the notification of elections by the president

In fact to allow a bunch of unelected Bureaucrats who enjoy their office at the pleasure of the Political Party in Government to sit in judgement even over probable candidates is highly debatable and there ought to be a rethink on the Model Code of Conduct.

While Offstumped has serious reservations on Varun Gandhi’s candidacy, finds his bigotry unacceptable and the BJP’s indulgence of him unfathomable, the Election Commission in this case stands guilty of the same sensationalism it accuses Varun Gandhi of, for he is yet to be convicted in a Court of Law.