Will it happen for us, asks JNU VC on SC granting relief to Setalvad on a Saturday night
Mumbai (PTI): Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Vice-Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit on Sunday wondered whether the Supreme Court would treat "us" equally the way it did to grant relief to activist Teesta Setalvad on a Saturday night.
The JNU VC was referring to the SC granting interim protection on July 1 to Setalvad from arrest in connection with a case of alleged fabrication of evidence to frame innocent people in 2002 post-Godhra riot cases.
"The Leftist ecosystem still exists. You know, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court opened the court on a Saturday night to give Teesta Setalvad bail. Will it happen for us," she asked while speaking at the launch of Marathi book Jagala Pokharnari Davi Walvi' (World-weakening Leftist Termites) in Pune.
Pandit had served as a professor in the Political Science department at the Savitribai Phule Pune University in Maharashtra.
"To retain political power, you need (to have) narrative power. We need to have it. Unless we attain it, we will be like a directionless ship," she said.
She recalled her childhood association with RSS-affiliated organisations. She said, "I was a Bal Sevika' in my childhood. I got my sanskars (values) from the RSS only. I am proud to say that I belong to the Sangh (RSS) and I am proud to say that I am a Hindu. I do not hesitate at all."
"Garv se kehti hu main Hindu hoon," she repeated, with the audience shouting Jai Shri Ram'.
"Left and RSS are individual ideologies. There has been a major paradigm shift post-2014 in the conflict between these two ideologies," she said.
Pandit, who was appointed as the JNU VC in February last year, said some people opposed her decision to put the national flag and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's photo on the varsity premises.
Pandit said she told them that they were enjoying free meals on the campus with taxpayers' money and they should bow before the national flag and PM Modi's photo.
"Until I went to JNU, there was no photo of PM Modi, the President of India or the national flag. Many people told me not to bring (them) on the campus. I told them you enjoy free meals here with taxpayers' money, bow before them."
She said, "He is the prime minister of the country. He does not belong to any party. More than a year has passed and nobody has protested against it," she said.
Referring to the upcoming Nalanda University in Bihar, she said, "I recently visited the Nalanda University at Bakhtiyarpur. We should change that Bakhtiyarpur name. What kind of name is that."
On the country's ancient civilisation, she said, "Our Bharatiya civilisation is superior, feminist and greatest in the world. Draupadi is the first feminist and not one Simone De Beauvoir (French philosopher). Our civilisation is nature-centric."
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.
Banks can charge over 30% interest on credit card dues: SC
New Delhi (PTI): Banks can charge over 30 per cent on credit card dues from customers after the Supreme Court set aside a sixteen-year-old National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission verdict, which held charging excessive interest rates amounted to an unfair trade practice.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma said NCDRC's observations that the rate of interest in excess of 30 per cent per annum was an unfair trade practice was "illegal" and an interference with the clear, unambiguous delegation of Reserve Bank of India's powers.
The court said the ruling was contrary to the legislative intent of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
In the opinion of the apex court, banks had in no manner made any misrepresentation to deceive the credit card holders and the pre-conditions of "deceptive practice" and unfair method were manifestly absent.
The court said NCDRC had no jurisdiction to rewrite the terms of the contract entered between the banks and the credit card holders, which the parties had mutually agreed upon.
"We agree with the submissions made by the Reserve Bank of India, that the question of directing the RBI to act against any bank does not arise, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and that there is no question of the RBI being directed to impose any cap on the rate of interest, either on the banking sector as a whole, or in respect of any one particular bank, contrary to the provisions contained in the Banking Regulation Act, and the circulars/directions issued thereunder," the bench said in its December 20 judgement.
The top court said while the national consumer commission was duly empowered to set aside unfair contracts that were unilaterally dominant or incorporated unfair and unconscionable terms, the rate of interest charged by the banks, determined by the financial wisdom and RBI directives that were duly communicated to the credit card holders from time to time, couldn't be unconscionable or unilateral.
"The credit card holders are duly educated and made aware of their privileges and obligations, including timely payment and levying of penalty on delay," the bench said.
The apex court said at the time of availing the credit card facility, customers were made aware of the most important terms and conditions, including the rate of interest and they agreed to be bound by the express stipulation by the terms issued by the respective banks.
The verdict said once the terms of the credit card operations were known to the complainants and disclosed by the banking institutions before the issuance of the credit cards, the national commission could not have scrutinised the terms or conditions, including the rate of interest.
"Even on merits, the Reserve Bank of India, has made it clear that there exists no material on record, to establish that any bank has acted contrary to the policy directives issued by the RBI," it said.
It came on record that the aggrieved party in the case did not approach the statutory authority, the Reserve Bank of India, for any objection against the rate of interest, or the high benchmark prime lending rate.
The matter pertained to the appeals filed by Citibank, American Express, HSBC and Standard Chartered Bank against the NDCRC's July 7, 2008 order, which held interest rates ranging between 36 per cent and 49 per cent per annum were exorbitant and amounted to the exploitation of borrowers.
