United Nations says no to Pakistan's appeal for intervention on J&K issue
United Nations: UN chief Antonio Guterres has recalled the Simla Agreement of 1972, a bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan that rejects third-party mediation in Kashmir after Islamabad asked him to play his "due role" following New Delhi's decision to revoke Jammu and Kashmir's special status.
Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric said at the daily press briefing that the Secretary General has been following the situation in Jammu and Kashmir "with concern and makes an appeal for maximum restraint".
The Secretary-General also "recalls the 1972 Agreement on bilateral relations between India and Pakistan, also known as the Simla Agreement, which states that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir is to be settled by peaceful means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
The emphasis by the UN Chief on the Simla Agreement, that states that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan and does away with any third-party mediation, comes just a day after Pakistan's envoy to the UN Maleeha Lodhi met Guterres' Chef de Cabinet Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti asking the Secretary General to "play his due role" following India's decision on Monday to revoke Article 370.
Lodhi also met President of UN Security Council for the month of August Polish Ambassador Joanna Wronecka over Kashmir.
"No comments," Wronecka said at the Security Council stakeout at the UN headquarters Thursday, walking away as she was asked about the letter from Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi to the Security Council on Kashmir.
It needs to be noted here that the Secretary General did not offer his good offices nor did he make any offer to mediate between India and Pakistan on Kashmir. Instead he referred to the Simla Agreement, which is a bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan and rejects any third-party mediation in the issue.
Guterres also called "on all parties to refrain from taking steps" that could affect the status of Jammu and Kashmir, comments that come in the wake of Pakistan's decision to downgrade diplomatic relations with India and suspend bilateral trade.
Pakistan also announced that it will not be sending its High Commissioner-designate to India. Pakistan's new High Commissioner Moin-ul-Haq was expected to leave for India this month to take up his responsibilities.
Dujarric said the "position of the United Nations on this region is governed by the Charter of the United Nations and applicable Security Council resolutions."
When asked if the Secretary General plans to bring the Kashmir issue to the Security Council, Dujarric replied, "I'm not aware of any plans to brief", adding that the letter from the Pakistani Foreign Minister was circulated to the Security Council at their request.
"There've been contacts from the Secretariat both with Indian authorities and the Pakistani authorities," he said, adding that contacts have been made between the UN Secretariat and the Permanent Missions of India and Pakistan.
When asked to be more specific on the position of the United Nations, Dujarric said "I'm not going to go into any more specifics."
On whether the Secretary General thinks that there is a need to monitor the situation in Kashmir closely through a Special Envoy, Dujarric said: "The Secretary-General is following the situation very closely. The Secretariat is following the situation very closely, but I have nothing to announce or to hint at towards the issue of a Special Envoy.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC delivers split verdict on Section 17A of PC Act mandating sanction to probe govt servants
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of a 2018 provision of the anti-graft law which mandates prior sanction for initiating a probe against a government servant in a corruption case.
While Justice BV Nagarathna said Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is unconstitutional and needs to be struck down, Justice KV Viswanathan held the provision as constitutional while stressing on the need to protect honest officers.
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, introduced in July 2018, bars any “enquiry or inquiry or investigation” against a public servant for recommendations made in discharge of official duties without prior approval from the competent authority.
The top court's judgement came on a PIL filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation' (CPIL) against the validity of amended section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Requirement of prior sanction is contrary to the Prevention of Corruption Act, forecloses inquiry and protects corrupt, Justice Nagarathna said.
ALSO READ: Snag hits Akasa Air Pune-Bengaluru flight ahead of departure; airline deplanes passengers
"Section 17A is unconstitutional and it ought to be struck down. No prior approval is required to be taken... The requirement of prior sanction is contrary to the object of the Act, and it forecloses inquiry and protects the corrupt rather than seeking to protect the honest and those with integrity who really do not require any protection," Justice Nagarathna said.
Justice Viswanathan said striking down section 17A will be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water and the “cure will be worse than the disease”.
"Section 17A is constitutionally valid subject to the condition that the sanction must be decided by the Lok Pal or the Lokayukta of the State...
"The safeguard of this provision will strengthen the hands of honest officers but also ensure that the corrupt are brought to book. It will guarantee that the administrative machinery attracts the best talent for the service of the nation,"Justice Viswanathan said.
The case will now be placed before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for forming a larger bench to hear the matter for a final decision.
"Having regard to the divergent opinions expressed by us, we direct the Registry to place this matter before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate bench to consider the issues which arise in this matter afresh," the bench said.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, had argued that the provisions crippled the anti-corruption law as sanctions were not usually forthcoming from the government, which was the ‘competent authority’.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had appeared for the Union government.
