B.P. Legal Associates

07/04/2014

04/04/2014

Shakti Mills gang rapes: Verdict on Thursday
MUMBAI: Seven months after two women-a telephone operator and a photojournalist-were subjected to sexual brutality in separate incidents at the abandoned Shakti Mills compound, a sessions court is all set to pronounce the verdict on both cases on Thursday. Principal judge Shalini Phansalkar Joshi announced the date on Saturday after the last defense advocate completed the final arguments in the case involving the photojournalist.

The trial in both cases began in October last year. Three of the accused, Vijay Jadhav, Salim Ansari, Qasim Shaikh, had allegedly assaulted both the women. Besides the three, their accomplice Siraj Khan was involved in the sexual attack on the photojournalist that took place on August 23 and Ashfaque Shaikh was one of the accused in the call operator case on July 31. Each incident has a minor as an accused who are being tried under the juvenile law.

While 31 witnesses were examined in the telephone operator's case, 45 testified in the photojournalist's incident.

Among the two cases, the assault on photojournalist on August 22 came to light first. The survivor, along with a male colleague, had gone to the abandoned mill compound on an assignment when the two were accosted by the group. While the accused tied up the colleague with belts, they dragged the photojournalist to a secluded spot and allegedly took turns to sexually assault her.

Earlier on July 31, a telephone operator and her boyfriend, now her husband, was passing through the same deserted mill, taking a shorter route to the Mahalaxmi station. The couple was attacked by the accused and beaten up. The woman was then allegedly r***d repeatedly. Fearing her mother would commit su***de by the news, the couple left for Chattisgarh the next day and the mother lodged a missing person's complaint. The couple returned a month later and when she went to the Bhandup police station to cancel the missing person's complaint, she broked down and told them about her ordeal.
The three repeat offenders in the Shakti Mills gang-rape cases have been awarded death sentence by sessions court.

Awarding death penalty to the three, the court said, "Mumbai gang-rape accused have least respect for law. They don't have potential for reformation as per facts of case."

"The suffering that gang-rape survivor and her family has undergone is unparalleled," the court said.

"Mumbai gang-rape accused were emboldened since law enforcing agencies hadn't caught them. If this is not the case where death sentence prescribed by law is not valid, which is?" the judge asked.

"Exemplary and rarest of rare punishment is required in the case," the judge said, adding, crime violates all rights of survivor.

Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam had demanded the maximum punishment for the three repeat offenders.

Kasim Bengali, Vijay Jadhav and Mohammed Salim Ansari are the common accused who are also convicted in the telephone operator gang-rape case. The 18-year-old telephone operator was gang r***d on the premises of Shakti Mills in July last year a month before the photojournalist was brutalised on August 22.

The 22-year-old photo journalist of a magazine was gang r***d by Vijay Jadhav, Kasim Bengali, Salim Ansari, Siraj Rehman and a minor boy when she had gone to the Shakti Mills compound in the Central Mumbai with a male colleague on an assignment.

04/04/2014

Corporate Identification Number (CIN) to be mandatorily mentioned on letterheads etc. from 1st April, 2014

In the latest from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 183 new Sections of the Companies Act 2013 have been notified to take effect from April 1, 2014.

As per Section 12 of the Act notified from 1st April, 2014, every company is mandatorily required to mention its Corporate Identification Number (CIN) along with the name and address of registered office on letterheads, invoices, notices and on all official correspondence and publications. Additionally, contact details, email and website address, if any, must be incorporated in such documents mentioned from April 1, 2014.

In case of any failure to quote the CIN number, penalty of Rs 1,000 per day shall be imposed on the defaulting company and on every officer in default for every day during which the default continues. However, maximum penalty imposable shall not exceed Rs 100,000.

02/04/2014

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court has original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction. Its exclusive original jurisdiction extends to any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States or between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more States on the other or between two or more States, if and insofar as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or of fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. In addition, Article 32 of the Constitution gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in regard to enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari to enforce them. The Supreme Court has been conferred with power to direct transfer of any civil or criminal case from one State High Court to another State High Court or from a Court subordinate to another State High Court. The Supreme Court, if satisfied that cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are pending before it and one or more High Courts or before two or more High Courts and that such questions are substantial questions of general importance, may withdraw a case or cases pending before the High Court or High Courts and dispose of all such cases itself. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, International Commercial Arbitration can also be initiated in the Supreme Court.

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the High Court concerned under Article 132(1), 133(1) or 134 of the Constitution in respect of any judgement, decree or final order of a High Court in both civil and criminal cases, involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Appeals also lie to the Supreme Court in civil matters if the High Court concerned certifies : (a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance, and (b) that, in the opinion of the High Court, the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. In criminal cases, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court (a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any Court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (c) certified that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. Parliament is authorised to confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgement, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court.

The Supreme Court has also a very wide appellate jurisdiction over all Courts and Tribunals in India in as much as it may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or Tribunal in the territory of India.

The Supreme Court has special advisory jurisdiction in matters which may specifically be referred to it by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution. There are provisions for reference or appeal to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution, Section 257 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 7(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, Section 130-A of the Customs Act, 1962, Section 35-H of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Section 82C of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Appeals also lie to the Supreme Court under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, Advocates Act, 1961, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Customs Act, 1962, Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970, Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Election Petitions under Part III of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections Act, 1952 are also filed directly in the Supreme Court.

Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution the Supreme Court has been vested with power to punish for contempt of Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. In case of contempt other than the contempt referred to in Rule 2, Part-I of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, the Court may take action (a) Suo motu, or (b) on a petition made by Attorney General, or Solicitor General, or (c) on a petition made by any person, and in the case of a criminal contempt with the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.

Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules the Supreme Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review is to be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Although the proceedings in the Supreme Court arise out of the judgments or orders made by the Subordinate Courts including the High Courts, but of late the Supreme Court has started entertaining matters in which interest of the public at large is involved and the Court can be moved by any individual or group of persons either by filing a Writ Petition at the Filing Counter of the Court or by addressing a letter to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India highlighting the question of public importance for invoking this jurisdiction. Such concept is popularly known as 'Public Interest Litigation' and several matters of public importance have become landmark cases. This concept is unique to the Supreme Court of India only and perhaps no other Court in the world has been exercising this extraordinary jurisdiction. A Writ Petition filed at the Filing Counter is dealt with like any other Writ Petition and processed as such. In case of a letter addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India the same is dealt with in accordance with the guidelines framed for the purpose.

PROVISION OF LEGAL AID

If a person belongs to the poor section of the society having annual income of less than Rs. 18,000/- or belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, a victim of natural calamity, is a woman or a child or a mentally ill or otherwise disabled person or an industrial workman, or is in custody including custody in protective home, he/she is entitled to get free legal aid from the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The aid so granted by the Committee includes cost of preparation of the matter and all applications connected therewith, in addition to providing an Advocate for preparing and arguing the case. Any person desirous of availing legal service through the Committee has to make an application to the Secretary and hand over all necessary documents concerning his case to it. The Committee after ascertaining the eligibility of the person provides necessary legal aid to him/her.

Persons belonging to middle income group i.e. with income above Rs. 18,000/- but under Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum are eligible to get legal aid from the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Society, on nominal payments.

AMICUS CURIAE

If a petition is received from the jail or in any other criminal matter if the accused is unrepresented then an Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae by the Court to defend and argue the case of the accused. In civil matters also the Court can appoint an Advocate as amicus curiae if it thinks it necessary in case of an unrepresented party; the Court can also appoint amicus curiae in any matter of general public importance or in which the interest of the public at large is involved.

HIGH COURTS

The High Court stands at the head of a State's judicial administration. There are 18 High Courts in the country, three having jurisdiction over more than one State. Among the Union Territories Delhi alone has a High Court of its own. Other six Union Territories come under the jurisdiction of different State High Courts. Each High Court comprises of a Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may, from time to time, appoint. The Chief Justice of a High Court is appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the State. The procedure for appointing puisne Judges is the same except that the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned is also consulted. They hold office until the age of 62 years and are removable in the same manner as a Judge of the Supreme Court. To be eligible for appointment as a Judge one must be a citizen of India and have held a judicial office in India for ten years or must have practised as an Adovcate of a High Court or two or more such Courts in succession for a similar period.

Each High Court has power to issue to any person within its jurisdiction directions, orders, or writs including writs which are in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose. This power may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or residence of such person is not within those territories.

Each High Court has powers of superintendence over all Courts within its jurisdiction. It can call for returns from such Courts, make and issue general rules and prescribe forms to regulate their practice and proceedings and determine the manner and form in which book entries and accounts shall be kept. The following Table (*Ann.A) gives the seat and territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts.

ADVOCATE GENERAL

There is an Advocate General for each State, appointed by the Governor, who holds office during the pleasure of the Governor. He must be a person qualified to be appointed as a Judge of High Court. His duty is to give advice to State Governments upon such legal matters and to perform such other duties of legal character, as may be referred or assigned to him by the Governor. The Advocate General has the right to speak and take part in the proceedings of the State Legislature without the right to vote.

LOK ADALATS

Lok Adalats which are voluntary agencies are monitored by the State Legal Aid and Advice Boards. They have proved to be a successful alternative forum for resolving of disputes through the conciliatory method.

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provides statutory status to the legal aid movement and it also provides for setting up of Legal Services Authorities at the Central, State and District levels. These authorities will have their own funds. Further, Lok Adalats which are at present informal agencies will acquire statutory status. Every award of Lok Adalats shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or order of a Tribunal and shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute. It also provides that in respect of cases decided at a Lok Adalat, the court fee paid by the parties will be refunded.

02/04/2014

Supreme Court of India came into existence on 26th January, 1950 and is located on Tilak Marg, New Delhi. The Supreme Court of India functioned from the Parliament House till it moved to the present building. It has a 27.6 metre high dome and a spacious colonnaded verandah. For a peek inside, you’ll have to obtain a visitor’s pass from the front office.

On the 28th of January, 1950, two days after India became a Sovereign Democratic Republic, the Supreme Court came into being. The inauguration took place in the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building which also housed India's Parliament, consisting of the Council of States and the House of the People. It was here, in this Chamber of Princes, that the Federal Court of India had sat for 12 years between 1937 and 1950. This was to be the home of the Supreme Court for years that were to follow until the Supreme Court acquired its own present premises.

The inaugural proceedings were simple but impressive. They began at 9.45 a.m. when the Judges of the Federal Court - Chief Justice Harilal J.Kania and Justices Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, Bijan Kumar Mukherjea and S.R.Das - took their seats. In attendance were the Chief Justices of the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Madras, Orissa, Assam, Nagpur, Punjab, Saurashtra, Patiala and the East Punjab States Union, Mysore, Hyderabad, Madhya Bharat and Travancore-Cochin. Along with the Attorney General for India, M.C. Setalvad were present the Advocate Generals of Bombay, Madras, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, East Punjab, Orissa, Mysore, Hyderabad and Madhya Bharat. Present too, were Prime Minister, other Ministers, Ambassadors and diplomatic representatives of foreign States, a large number of Senior and other Advocates of the Court and other distinguished visitors.

Taking care to ensure that the Rules of the Supreme Court were published and the names of all the Advocates and agents of the Federal Court were brought on the rolls of the Supreme Court, the inaugural proceedings were over and put under part of the record of the Supreme Court.

After its inauguration on January 28, 1950, the Supreme Court commenced its sittings in a part of the Parliament House. The Court moved into the present building in 1958. The building is shaped to project the image of scales of justice. The Central Wing of the building is the Centre Beam of the Scales. In 1979, two New Wings - the East Wing and the West Wing - were added to the complex. In all there are 15 Court Rooms in the various wings of the building. The Chief Justice's Court is the largest of the Courts located in the Centre of the Central Wing.

The original Constitution of 1950 envisaged a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and 7 puisne Judges - leaving it to Parliament to increase this number. In the early years, all the Judges of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As the work of the Court increased and arrears of cases began to cumulate, Parliament increased the number of Judges from 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978 and 26 in 1986. As the number of the Judges has increased, they sit in smaller Benches of two and three - coming together in larger Benches of 5 and more only when required to do so or to settle a difference of opinion or controversy.

The Supreme Court of India comprises the Chief Justice and 30 other Judges appointed by the President of India. Supreme Court Judges retire upon attaining the age of 65 years. In order to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, a person must be a citizen of India and must have been, for atleast five years, a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession, or an Advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least 10 years or he must be, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist. Provisions exist for the appointment of a Judge of a High Court as an Ad-hoc Judge of the Supreme Court and for retired Judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts to sit and act as Judges of that Court.

The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court Judges in various ways. A Judge of the Supreme Court cannot be removed from office except by an order of the President passed after an address in each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting, and presented to the President in the same Session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. A person who has been a Judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practising in any court of law or before any other authority in India.

The proceedings of the Supreme Court are conducted in English only. Supreme Court Rules, 1966 are framed under Article 145 of the Constitution to regulate the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court.

02/04/2014

"The Calcutta High Court is the oldest High Court in India. It was established on 1st July, 1862 under the High Court’s Act, 1861. It has jurisdiction over the state of West Bengal and the Union Territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The High Court building was designed by Mr. Walter Granville, Government Architect, on the model of the ‘Stadt-Haus’ or Cloth Hall at Ypres in Belgium.

The seat of the High Court is Kolkata, capital of West Bengal. It also has a permanent Circuit Bench in Port Blair, the capital of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The court has a sanctioned judge strength of 58."

01/04/2014

No relief if litigant sleeps over his right

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.6609-6613 OF 2014

Brijesh Kumar & Ors. … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & Ors. …Respondents

O R D E R 1. These petitions have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 22.11.2013, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the Civil Misc. Applications in RFA No.5793 of 2012 for condonation of delay of more than10 years in filing the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2. The land of the petitioners alongwith the lands of others admeasuring 134 acres, 5 kanals and 10 marlas situate in revenue estate of village Manakpur, Hadbast No.386, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar stood notified under Section 4 of the Act on 8.9.1993. In respect of the same, the award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 8.10.1997 assessing the market value of the land of the petitioners @ Rs.1,75,000/- per acre.

3. Aggrieved, the petitioners and other persons interested filed references under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation and the Reference Court made the award on 7.9.2001 assessing the market value of the land @ Rs.1,85,000/- per acre and they were also given other statutory benefits.

4. Aggrieved, some of the persons interested filed appeals before the High Court, however, petitioners had chosen not to file appeal at the initial stage but filed the same in the year 2012 after a lapse of 10 years 2 months and 29 days. The High Court refused to condone the delay in spite of the fact that other persons who had preferred the appeals in time had been given a higher compensation. Hence, these petitions.

5. Shri Shish Pal Laler, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that it was a fit case where the delay ought to have been condoned and the High Court has committed an error in not entertaining the appeal on merit.

6. The High Court had given cogent and valid reasons and relied upon large number of judgments of this Court while rejecting the application for condonation of delay including Mewa Ram (Deceased by L.Rs) & Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2191; and D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 2007 SC 2624.

7. The issues of limitation, delay and laches as well as condonation of such delay are being examined and explained every day by the Courts. The law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim “Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium” (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of Limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

8. The Privy Council in General Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, AIR 1941 PC 6, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures 1932 wherein it has been said that “a law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on applicable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognised by law.”

9. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held as under:– “Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.”

10. While considering a similar issue, this court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 649 laid down various principles inter alia: “ x x x v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact vi) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play x x x ix) The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x x x xvii) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious mater and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.” (See also: Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81)

11. The courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However the court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. This Court has time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.

12. It is also a well settled principle of law that if some person has taken a relief approaching the Court just or immediately after the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit thereof approaching the court at a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person.

13. In State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267, this Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that he filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches.

14. Same view has been reiterated by this Court in Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366, observing as under:– “Suffice it to state that appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake-up when they had the impetus from Vir Pal Chauhan and Ajit Singh’s ratios…Therefore desperate attempts of the appellants to re-do the seniority, held by them in various cadre.... are not amenable to the judicial review at this belated stage. The High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as well.”

15. In M/s. Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 674, this Court considered a case where petitioner wanted to get the relief on the basis of the judgment of this Court wherein a particular law had been declared ultra vires. The Court rejected the petition on the ground of delay and laches observing as under:– “There is one more ground which basically sets the present case apart. Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they have not pursued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else’s case came to be decided.”

16. In the instant case, after considering the facts and circumstances and the reasons for inordinate delay of 10 years 2 months and 29 days, the High Court did not find sufficient grounds to condone the delay. 17. In view of the facts of the case and the above-cited judgments, we do not find any fault with the impugned judgment. The petitions lack merit and are accordingly dismissed.

31/03/2014

Ashoke Kumar Sen

Minister of Law and Justice

Minister of Communications
Minister of Steel and Mines
President of Supreme Court Bar Association of India
President of Indian Football Association
Personal details
Born 10 October 1913
Died 31 August 1996 (aged 82)
New Delhi, India

Political party Independent

Spouse(s) Anjana Das
Children 2 daughter
2 son
Alma mater
Presidency College, Kolkata
London School of Economics

Profession Lawyer

Ashoke Kumar Sen (10 October 1913 – 31 August 1996) was an Indian barrister, a former Cabinet minister of India, and an Indian parliamentarian.
He also holds the record for winning a Lok Sabha seat the most times and also the record for being not only an MP for the most years, but also a cabinet minister - serving more than 7 prime ministers. For decades he was the inevitable Union Law Minister.
Background
Ashoke Kumar Sen was born in 1913. His father was a district magistrate. Both Ashoke Kumar Sen and Sukumar Sen were student of Sambalpur High School, Odisha wherein Late Mr. Suryamani Jena of village Kusupur was the Principal. His elder brother, Sukumar Sen ICS (b. 1899), who went on to become India, Sudan and Nepal's first Chief Election Commissioner,[1] funded his education in England, at the London school of Economics. Ashoke Sen went on to study for the Bar at Gray's Inn.
Upon his return, he started teaching law at the City College, Kolkata a constituent college of the University of Calcutta[2] He then began practicing in the Calcutta High Court. At the age of 26, he had already written a book about Commercial Law, which was endorsed by Mr. Sen's then senior Sudhi Ranjan Das, the future Chief Justice of India.
Some years later, in February 1943, Ashoke Kumar Sen married Anjana Das, his senior's only daughter. They had two sons and two daughters.[3]
Legal career
Within five years of practice, Sen became regarded as one of the top lawyers in the Calcutta High Court and gained wide acclaim. He published many books and articles, and was the Editor of Calcutta Law Journal.[4]
Sen was a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association several times.[5]
Parliamentary career


Ashoke Kumar Sen with President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Nehru and Bidhan Chandra Roy
Because of his legal acumen, Bidhan Chandra Roy, Chief Minister of West Bengal, recommended him to the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru wanted Sen in his cabinet, and asked him to contest elections for the Lok Sabha.
In 1957, the Calcutta North West seat for the Lok Sabha was a communist stronghold. Sen had tried in 1956 to win the election, but fell short by only a few votes. However in the following year, he triumphed and won by over 100,000 votes. He retained that seat from 1957 to 1977, and again held the Calcutta North West seat from 1980 to 1989, being defeated in 1989 by Debi Prosad Pal.[6]
Sen was a Member of the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Lok Sabhas.[7]
He was later made a Rajya Sabha member and remained in the Upper House until April 1996, a few months before his death.
Ministerial career
Ashoke Sen became the Union Law Minister under Nehru. It is this post for which he became famous worldwide. He was Union Minister of Law, but he also held other portfolios such as Communications, Steel, and Mines.[8]


Ashoke Kumar Sen with Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister of the U.K
Over the next years, Sen was India's representative to foreign countries and the United Nations. According to Deve Gowda (1996), Sen led the Indian delegations to the United Nations Conference on Law, the United Nations Conference on Human Rights and several other conferences.
He was Law Minister lastly under Rajiv Gandhi and resigned in 1989 after his party's debacle in state elections in his home state West Bengal.[9]
Other activities
During his lifetime, Sen started the Paschim Banga Seva Samiti - a charitable organisation. He also served as the president of the Indian Football Association. During his lifetime, Mr Sen also amassed a large law library with many rare collections. This library is considered to be among the largest private law libraries in the world.
Memorials
There is a block in the Supreme Court named after him. A portrait of him also hangs there.[citation needed] Several documentary films have also been produced on Mr Asoke Sen
Family
Ashoke Kumar Sen was survived by his widow, Anjana (whom he married in 1943), and by his four children, and seven grandchildren.
Besides his brother Sukumar Sen (Chief Election Commissioner, India), Ashoke Kumar Sen had another brother Amiya Kumar Sen, an associate of Rabindranath Tagore. Amiya, author of a book about the Tagore family newspaper, was formerly a lecturer at Calcutta University and Principal of the City College, Kolkata. Mr Sen is also uncle to Nobel Laureate Amartya Kumar Sen
References
1. Hindu article (2002)on India's first general election in 1952 has historian Ramachandra Guha's take on the first CEC
2. Memorial references by the Speaker Eleventh Lok Sabha Debates, Session II (Budget) Monday, September 2, 1996. Retrieved 13 January 2008.
3. Two volume autobiography/memoirs of Sudhi Ranjan Das in Bengali, with family photographs, published 1993 by his daughter Anjana Sen. S.R. Das mentions his worries that his Brahmo daughter would not be accepted by her in-laws, and his refusal to approve the marriage until Sen's parents also accepted the match, and the Brahmo rites as religiously acceptable.
4. Memorial references by H.D. Deve Gowda, then Prime Minister. Eleventh Lok Sabha Debates, Session II (Budget) Monday, September 2, 1996. Retrieved 13 January 2008.
5. Ibid.
6. Calcutta North West
7. Memorial references by H.D. Deve Gowda, then Prime Minister. Op.cit.
8. Ibid.
9. " Minister in India Quits In Election Aftermath" The New York Times 29 March 1987
Sources
• Profile from India's Rajya Sabha (Upper House) website
• Profile from Parliamentary website
Ramachandra Guha. *" The biggest gamble in history" The Hindu 27 January 2002, magazine section. Later reprinted as "Democracys biggest gamble: Indias first free elections in 1952. (Reconsiderations)." (partly available online) World Policy Journal 22 March 2002.