The apex court said Medical Council is not empowered to prescribe all India medical entrance tests. However, the SC made it clear that its verdict will not affect admissions, which have already taken place
The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the Medical Council of India’s (MCI) notification for holding common entrance tests for Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS), Bachelor of dental surgery (BDS) and post-graduate medical courses.
The majority, 2:1 verdict by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice Vikramajit Sen said that MCI is not empowered to prescribe all India medical entrance tests. Justice AR Dave said he did not share the view of Chief Justice Kabir and Justice Sen. A three-judge bench held that the MCI notification was ultra vires of the Constitution.
The apex court, however, made it clear that its verdict will not affect the admissions which have already taken place.
The court’s decision came on 115 petitions challenging the MCI notification on National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to MBBS and post-graduate medical courses conducted in colleges across the country.
Earlier in May this year, the apex court had lifted the bar on declaration of results of examinations that had already been conducted and said the admission process could go ahead.
About 11 officers representing various officers appeared before the CIC, but nobody had any clue whether those accused of violating the Bonded Labour Act were prosecuted or not. This is the 136th in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application
The Central Information Commission (CIC), while allowing an appeal, directed the divisional commissioner of revenue department in Delhi to check and provide the information about the status of prosecution and violations of Bonded Labour System Act 1976 to the appellant.
While giving this judgement on 16 May 2011, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “This appears to be a very serious matter and appears to indicate that though people are charged with having bonded labour, no prosecutions may be taking place. Alternately it means the prosecution is taking place by an agency, which none of the officers appears to be aware of.”
Delhi resident Priyanka Sinha, on 24 July 2010, sought information about statement of pending trial cases and decided cases under section 16 of the Bonded Labour System Act 1976 from the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Directorate of Prosecution at Tis Hazari Court. Here is the information she sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act...
The PIO transferred the RTI application to the Labour department and from there on to various other departments.
After not receiving any reply from the PIO for over 50 days, Sinha filed her first appeal.
During the hearing before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO stated that the Directorate had not come across to any first information report (FIR) registered under the relevant provisions of 'the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976' exclusively. While disposing the appeal, the FAA said, the PIO had done his duty in transferring the application to the concerned PIO of the Labour department. He also said the first appeal was found lacking substance.
After the hearing before the FAA, the RTI application was transferred to numerous additional district magistrate (ADM) and sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) as well as to additional police commissioners (ACP) of various divisions of Delhi.
The SDM's stated that according to their records, no cases were registered and therefore the reply may be treated as nil. The ACP (north) responded that seven such cases were pending before the court, and the ACP (South) responded that two cases were pending before the Court. The applicant felt that the responses were contradictory and misleading.
Sinha then approached the CIC with her second appeal. She stated that she found it strange that the Department does not have the data regarding cases when it was clear from the responses of the ACPs that there have been FIRs filed. She stated that the original respondent 'the Directorate of Prosecution' should possess the consolidated data that was requested as it pertains to the prosecution of offenders for which the Directorate is responsible.
During the hearing, Mr Gandhi, the then CIC, noted that PIO and SDM(SV) has gave eight instances of having discovered bonded labours since 2008. BS Kain, PIO, of Directorate of Prosecution stated that no case had been referred to his department for prosecuting anybody under the Bonded Labour (Abolition) System Act 1976.
The CIC said, "About 11 officers representing various officers have come to the Commission but no one seems to have any clue whether those accused of violating the Bonded Labour Act are prosecuted or not. This appears to be a very serious matter and appears to indicate that though people are charged with having bonded labour no prosecutions may be taking place. Alternately it means the prosecution is taking place by an agency which none of the officers appears to be aware of."
While allowing the appeal, the Bench directed the divisional commissioner of revenue department to check if any prosecutions have been conducted for violation of this Act and provide the information to Sinha before 10 June 2011. In case no prosecutions are being conducted this should be stated, the CIC said in its order.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000649/12392
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000649
Appellant : Priyanka Sinha
Respondent : BS Kain
PIO & Additional PP,
Directorate of Prosecution,
Tis Hazari Court
A prominent Brooklyn prosecutor, forced to testify under oath about allegations that he had railroaded a possibly innocent man on a murder charge, consistently spoke some form of "I don't recall" -- a stunning 324 times -- for fairly simple details surrounding the case
For Jabbar Collins, the moment just after 9:35am on 21st June had been a long time coming. Collins had served 16 years in prison for a murder he says he didn’t commit. He’d won his freedom, and then sued the prosecutor responsible for what he insists was a wrongful conviction.
Now, inside the offices of the New York Bar Association, that prosecutor, Michael Vecchione, was going to be placed under oath and interrogated by Collins’ lawyer. Collins, who had become a paralegal since his release from prison, had a seat at the proceedings.
Everyone politely introduced themselves into the record.
And then Collins’ lawyer, who is seeking millions of dollars in damages, asked Vecchione if there was any medical or physical reason he could not testify to the best of his recollection.
“No,” Vecchione answered.
There was cause for Collins and his lawyer, Joel Rudin, to be eager about what might come next. Vecchione, in fighting Collins’ bid for freedom over the years, had asserted in a sworn affidavit that he had personally made every significant decision in the prosecution of Collins.
At 4:54 p.m., almost seven-and-a-half hours after Vecchione’s deposition began, a halt was called. A lot of ground had been covered. Rudin had won some concessions. But Collins and his lawyer were as exasperated as they were satisfied.
Vecchione, asked everything from the mundane to the momentous, had answered some version of “I don’t recall” scores of times. Rudin counted them up: 324.
“This is evasive contempt if it happened in front of a judge,” Rudin had asserted several hours into his interrogation.
This week, Rudin asked the federal judge overseeing Collins’ lawsuit to force Vecchione to do better. And he asked the judge to sanction Vecchione and the lawyers for New York City who are representing him if he fails to do so.
“Mr. Rudin appears to be unhappy with the answers Mr. Vecchione gave at his deposition, mainly because those answers undermine his client's claims in this case,” said Arthur Larkin, senior counsel for the New York City Law Department. “But Mr. Rudin's disappointment with the testimony does not warrant extending the deposition. We intend to oppose the application and will file our opposition papers today.”
The allegations against Vecchione are some of the most serious in the recent and troubling history of wrongful prosecutions. Vecchione is a senior official in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office, chief of the office’s rackets division and a featured character in CBS’s television series, “Brooklyn DA.” Collins and his lawyer have accused him of intimidating witnesses and suborning perjury in his prosecution of Collins, and of having then worked to thwart Collins’ effort to challenge that conviction during his years in state prison. More than that, Collins and his lawyer have accused Vecchione’s boss, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes, of having overseen for years an office in which similar misconduct was not only tolerated but rewarded.
Hynes, who is campaigning to win a seventh term, has both stood by Vecchione and denied the claims that his office condoned misconduct. Vecchione, at every turn, including during his sworn testimony last month, has insisted he did nothing wrong.
Certainly, witnesses invoking the “I don’t recall” response during depositions is a familiar phenomenon. And it can be anything from an honest statement to a prudent legal strategy to an outright lie. Bill Clinton, deposed in a sex harassment lawsuit years ago, offered his fair share of “I don’t recalls,” although conventional wisdom was that Clinton, ever the over-sharer, might have done well to have invoked the answer even more often. And the rapper Lil Wayne’s videotaped deposition in a legal dispute was so entertainingly full of “I don’t recalls” that it became a YouTube sensation.
Vecchione’s inability to recall things began early in his deposition and continued until its end. He could not recall some fairly basic things about how the Brooklyn district attorney’s office was run; he could not recall if Hynes, his boss, had ever discussed with him the allegations of misconduct made by Collins in his $150 million lawsuit; he couldn’t recall if he’d ever received formal training in the rules regarding what prosecutors were obligated to turn over to defense lawyers; he couldn’t recall how long the romance he’d had with his fellow prosecutor on the Collins case had lasted.
Nor could he recall the details of perhaps his most famous prosecutorial victory – the conviction of Clarence Norman, the Brooklyn political kingpin.
Rudin did not ask Vecchione about Norman by accident.
One of the allegations made in the Collins lawsuit involves what Rudin asserts was Vecchione’s practice of having someone else sign his sworn affidavits – for subpoenas or other kinds of orders or legal work. Doing so could be considered a crime. Vecchione has denied he authorized people to do so, but during Rudin’s examination, he could not account for repeated examples in which he acknowledged sworn affidavits bearing his name were signed by someone else.
To wit, Clarence Norman.
“Who is Clarence Norman?” Rudin asked Vecchione.
“He is a former assemblyman and former head of the democratic party in Brooklyn,” Vecchione answered.
“And did you handle his prosecution?” Rudin asked.
“I did,” Vecchione said. “Prosecutions. There were four.”
“And was he charged with, among other things, the filing of a false public document?” Rudin asked.
“I don’t recall,” Vecchione answered.
“You don’t recall what he was charged with?” Rudin asked.
“I recall some of the things he was charged with in general, but I don’t,” Vecchione started to answer.
“Do you recall whether or not he was charged with the crime of filing a false public document?” Rudin persisted.
“I don’t recall,” Vecchione maintained.
Rudin then produced one of a number of documents that Vecchione, during his time in the district attorney’s office, had sworn out under penalty of perjury. Vecchione agreed that the signature on the document was not his.
“During 1995 were you aware whether or not anyone employed by the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office had ever signed your name to either an affirmation or an affidavit that was submitted to court?” Rudin then asked.
“I don’t recall,” Vecchione said.
For Rudin, Vecchione’s most frustrating inability to recall things involved his sworn claim made years ago about his handling of the Collins case. In 2006, Collins, in large part as a result of his own intrepid work from prison, had mounted an appeal of his murder conviction. The Brooklyn District Attorney’s office had to respond, and as part of that response, Vecchione, as the senior prosecutor on the Collins case, swore out an affidavit.
The affidavit ran to seven pages. It was a point-by-point rebuttal of Collins’ claims of misconduct.
“As the lead prosecutor, I and I alone determined the course of our investigation and the manner in which the trial was conducted,” Vecchione said.
And his memory, he said, was sharp.
“Although I tried this case in March 1995, more than 11 years ago, I still have a clear recollection of it,” he said.
Seven years later, and despite 17 hours of prep work with city lawyers, Vecchione seemed to say his memory had suffered.
He couldn’t remember if he’d ever interviewed any other possible suspects in the case. He couldn’t remember if he’d ever interviewed an alleged key member of the group that plotted the robbery that led to the murder. He couldn’t remember if he’d ever interviewed any of Collins’ alibi witnesses.
Indeed, Vecchione said he couldn’t recall whether he’d actually prepared the affidavit refuting Collins’ allegations or someone else had. And he said he couldn’t recall if he had ever meaningfully reviewed critical aspects of the case with the person in his office responding to Collins’ legal challenges.
In the end, the record of Vecchione’s testimony ran to 354 pages. The final exchange with him involved potentially sensitive office emails concerning the Collins case. Vecchione could not remember much about them. Indeed, his final answer, after more than seven hours of questioning was, “I don’t recall it.”
Eleven days later, Rudin filed papers in federal court. He asked for more time to question Vecchione. And he asked that Vecchione be punished if the additional questioning went much as the initial seven hours had. Of Vecchione’s failure to recollect, Rudin wrote:
“He has the right to claim that if it’s true, but his testimony went further in its deliberate evasiveness, and should not be tolerated.”
Update (7/10): At a hearing on Tuesday, Brooklyn Federal Magistrate Judge Robert Levy granted Rudin’s request to question Vecchione for three additional hours in the second round of his deposition.