Clydestone (Ghana) Limited (CLYD.gh) listed on the Ghana Stock Exchange under the Technology sector has released it’s 2019 interim results for the third quarter.For more information about Clydestone (Ghana) Limited (CLYD.gh) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Clydestone (Ghana) Limited (CLYD.gh) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Clydestone (Ghana) Limited (CLYD.gh) 2019 interim results for the third quarter.Company ProfileClydestone (Ghana) Limited is a global information and communications technology company with offices in Ghana, Nigeria and Kenya. The company uses cutting-edge innovations to provide information technology solutions for financial institutions involved in financial document processing, remittance processing and transaction switching. Its product range encompasses: G-Switch, an electronic payment platform; G-Secure, a card authentication programme; Remita, modular system for e-payments; UnionPay Processor; automated check clearing; ATM and cash processing; multi-vendor ATM software solutions and multi-factor authentication. Clydestone is a Principle Acquiring Member of UnionPay International and offers acquiring services to 19 banks in Africa and provides check truncation systems to 12 leading banks in Ghana. Clydestone (Ghana) Limited is listed on the Ghana Stock Exchange
Scampering to a final: Knock-on aside, Kahn Fotuali’i punished Harlequins in the Amlin semi-final The Irish side didn’t give up and boldly tried to score tries instead of kicking for goal as the clock ticked into the final quarter, but with Wilkinson there to punish their every mistake, Munster could not bridge the gap.Barnes stormerI am a big fan of the use of video technology to help officials make decisions during matches. If the referee and touch judges are unsure of something, I think it is always correct for them to “go upstairs” to the television match official for help.But I also like to see officials back their own judgement and believe their own eyes, which is why I was pleased to see referee Wayne Barnes allow Simon Zebo’s try for Munster against Toulon, even though at first sight there was a possibility he had been held up. Barnes had a quick conversation with assistant referee Luke Pearce and once he was happy Zebo had not gone into touch, he was confident enough of the grounding to award the try. And why should’t he have been? Barnes and Pearce were both right on the spot, with as good a view as any TV camera.Plenty of players and experts took to social media to say they should have consulted the TMO, but at least one replay of the incident seemed to show Zebo had eventually rolled over to ground the ball, so to my mind Barnes and Pearce were spot on.Back with a bang: Rob Webber scored two triesRemember me?Bath were forced to fight hard for their 24-18 Amlin Challenge Cup semi-final win at London Wasps and no one put in more effort than the West Country side’s hooker Rob Webber, who ironically played for Wasps from 2006-12.The Yorkshireman caused plenty of trouble for his former team-mates on his old stamping ground. He matched his shirt number with two tries in this victory, carried the ball eight times – which was bettered only by three other players from either team – and contributed to a 94% lineout success rate for Bath. It all added up to a Man of the Match award for Webber and a European final to look forward to.The SinnersCalamity ClermontThey had 68% of possession and 64% of territory, carried the ball 168 times (99 more than Saracens!) and won 130 rucks and mauls to their opponents’ 44, but Clermont Auvergne somehow ended up on the wrong end of a humiliating 46-6 scoreline in their Heineken Cup semi-final.Last year’s runners-up and semi-finalists the year before, Clermont failed to make a match of it this time. Yes, Saracens were utterly, utterly superb, but the French giants will be hugely disappointed with the way they failed to front up at Twickenham.Shocked: Clermont’s Julien BonnaireTheir defence was all at sea without the influence of the injured Aurelien Rougerie and they leaked six tries, missing 19% of their tackles. Saracens really didn’t need that much help.Clermont have never managed to do themselves justice on the European stage and they fell short spectacularly this time. Sky Sports commentator Miles Harrison summed it up beautifully, saying: “Once more Clermont Auvergne are destined to be the bridesmaid and they have not looked particularly good in the dress today either.”Mad momentHarlequins hooker Dave Ward did a magnificent job to strip the ball from Calum Clark after a tackle and gain a turnover for his team early in the second half of their Amlin Challenge Cup semi-final against Northampton. Quins were trailing 11-3 and Ben Botica had just missed a penalty, but with Ward’s terrific turnover, they were poised to attack.However, instead of laying the ball back safely, Ward had a rush of blood to the head and flung it high into the air. The hands which grabbed it were those of the Northampton scrum-half Kahn Fotuali’i, not one of Ward’s Harlequins team-mates. There was a suspicion of a knock-on as the Saints No 9 gathered the ball, but after he had hared in for a try the match officials could not see any clear reason to disallow it, so Northampton were 18-3 up and the gap was too large for Quins to bridge.Butter fingersTrying to avoid a fourth consecutive Heineken Cup semi-final loss, and trailing 21-16 to Toulon with three minutes to go, Munster couldn’t afford any mistakes as they went in search of a winning try. The SaintsStunning SarriesThere were so many outstanding performers in the Saracens ranks on Saturday, when they shocked the rugby world with an extraordinary 46-6 win over Clermont Auvergne, this entire list of Saints could be a Saracens-only zone this week.So, to give other clubs and players a look-in (which Saracens don’t seem particularly keen to do!), the star performers from the north of London are being lumped together here in one section.Big plaudits go to the whole team for setting a new record for a score in a Heineken Cup semi-final and for producing such an outstanding, all-round display that they made Clermont – giants of European rugby – look nothing but ordinary.The coaches need to take a bow, for getting the game plan spot on and Paul Gustard deserves extra praise for drilling his side so well in defence that they made 156 tackles and didn’t let the French fliers breach their lines.Chris Ashton grabbed his own headlines with two tries which took his tally in this season’s Heineken Cup to 11 – an individual record for one year.Burger king: Jacques Burger makes a hitAmong all the outstanding individual performers and the wonderful team ethic, there had to be a Man of the Match and that was Jacques Burger, the Saracens openside, who made an astonishing 27 tackles in the 69 minutes before he hauled his battered body to the replacements bench. Some of his tackles are right on the edge of legality, but he terrifies opponents with the power and frequency of his hits. Burger admitted afterwards that he had probably only touched the ball twice, but said his role was to “throw my body about and be really physical. It’s borderline stupid really.”His career was almost ended by a knee injury last year and he has to ice the joint about eight times a day to keep himself fit for action. Burger will continue to give it everything as Saracens go in search of a Heineken Cup and Aviva Premiership double and who would bet against them after this weekend’s demolition of Clermont?Yes he KahnThere may have been a tiny fragment of doubt about his second-half try for Northampton, as the match officials looked long and hard at the TV replays for a knock-on before allowing the score, but there was no doubt at all that Kahn Fotuali’i produced a top class performance for Northampton in their 18-10 win over Harlequins in Friday’s Amlin Challenge Cup semi-final.The Samoan was superb in attack and defence and was deservedly named Man of the Match on a day his performance out-shone that of England’s sparky No 9, Danny Care.Fotuali’i set up the Saints first try for Tom Collins with the most delicate and accurate of chips through the defence, off his “wrong” foot. His decision to kick caught Harlequins by surprise as Northampton had been battering away with pick-and-go moves close to the line and the referee was playing a penalty advantage, so they might have been expecting a drop-goal attempt.The scrum-half’s own try, scored in the first five minutes of the second half, required pace and strength as he grasped a loose pass from Harlequins, charged half the length of the pitch and saw off the attention of three defenders to muscle over the line and give his team an 18-3 lead.Fotuali’i gave much of the credit for his own brilliance to the Northampton pack, saying: “They gave me so much clean ball and we got on the front foot a few times.”On target: Jonny WilkinsonTarget menDefending Heineken Cup champions Toulon reached this year’s final with a 24-16 win over Munster, thanks in no small part to their two English place-kickers, who scored all their points.Jonny Wilkinson set himself up for a great swansong at the Millennium Stadium on 24 May as he landed six penalties and a drop-goal, and Delon Armitage sent a howitzer of a penalty between the uprights from his own half on the stroke of half-time to give the French side an 18-9 lead at the break.Wilkinson’s drop-goal illustrated not only his skill but his understanding of the psychology of the game as Munster had just narrowed the gap to 9-6 and he hit back with three points at the first opportunity – simultaneously steadying the Toulon ship and denting Munster’s confidence. The Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup took centre stage this weekend and there were star turns and spectacular flops aplenty. LATEST RUGBY WORLD MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION DEALS TAGS: Bath RugbyHarlequinsMunsterNorthampton SaintsSaracens As they attacked frantically, JJ Hanrahan sent a fast pass towards Keith Earls and he dropped it. From that turnover, Toulon won a penalty which Jonny Wilkinson kicked to take the game out of Munster’s reach.Yes, the pass from Hanrahan was pacey and came straight at Earls, who was facing him, but the 39-cap Ireland back would have expected to hold it. Big games can be won and lost by individual errors and while Earls was by no means the only Munster man at fault on Sunday, he was unfortunate enough to slip up at a critical time.
Projects ArchDaily House + / Anne MenkeSave this projectSaveHouse + / Anne Menke CopyAbout this officeAnne MenkeOfficeFollowProject Architecture CompanyOfficeFollowProductsWoodConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesRefurbishmentRenovationDabasRefurbishmentHousesHameln3D ModelingGermanyPublished on August 16, 2009Cite: “House + / Anne Menke” 16 Aug 2009. ArchDaily. Accessed 12 Jun 2021.
Block West Pavilion / Automated Architecture (AUAR) Labs Year: Installations & Structures CopyInstallations & Structures, Pavilion, Social Housing•United Kingdom Photographs: NAARO, Ibolya Feher CopyAbout this officeAutomated Architecture (AUAR) LabsOfficeFollowProductWood#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsInstallations & StructuresLandscape ArchitectureCultural ArchitectureMuseums & ExhibitPavilionResidential ArchitectureSocial HousingOn FacebookUnited KingdomPublished on December 22, 2020Cite: “Block West Pavilion / Automated Architecture (AUAR) Labs” 22 Dec 2020. ArchDaily. Accessed 10 Jun 2021.
Howard Lake | 7 April 2013 | Books News About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. [amzn_product_post]Like baseball, fundraising has truisms. By telling it like it is, this little book is intended to set young fundraisers on the right path, remind us all of the basics, and maybe even recalibrate the compass for a few of us oldtimers. 23 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Tell It Like It Is: Truisms of Fundraising Advertisement
President Donald Trump announced May 30 the imposition of tariffs on all Mexican imports, effective June 10, if Mexico did not agree to take strong measures against refugees seeking asylum in the U.S. Then on June 7, he suspended the tariffs, but only after Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador — popularly known as AMLO — agreed to deploy 6,000 troops primarily along the Guatemalan border to suppress migration. Asylum seekers will be illegally held in Mexico while they wait for their cases to be heard in U.S. courts.This will create tremendous hardship for refugees fleeing violence and political repression in their home countries, primarily Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. The wait for a hearing can be six months to over a year.Thousands of refugees have already been deported or blocked from entry by Customs and Border Patrol under the Department of Homeland Security’s “Migrant Protection Protocols.” As the American Civil Liberties Union points out, “The policy illegally denies access to the asylum system and forces migrants to wait in untenable conditions, vulnerable to abuse like the Castro family, even before beginning any asylum procedure in U.S. courts.” The Castro family, on whose behalf the ACLU has filed suit, left El Salvador and were turned away at the U.S. border. The mother, father and three children were then “kidnapped, extorted by Mexican officials, separated in immigration detention and threatened in Mexico by their past persecutors.” The children suffered from lack of medical care. The Castros’ plight is by no means unique; over 200 refugees gave similar testimony to the ACLU.Now Trump has bludgeoned the Mexican government into cooperating with Washington’s inhumane policy. Unlike Trump, AMLO did commit the country to “respecting the human rights of migrants.” The practice of keeping out asylum seekers is completely illegal under U.S. and international law. The racist-in-chief does not care. When the protocols were instituted in January, then Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen called them “a methodical commonsense approach.” Nielsen, a Trump appointee, was the architect of the practice of separating migrant children from their parents and caging them. Trump removed her for being too soft.Washington is largely responsible for creating the conditions that drive people to leave their homelands in the first place. June 28 is the tenth anniversary of the bloody U.S.-orchestrated coup in Honduras against democratically elected President Mel Zelaya.Tariffs would hurt workers hereThe 45th president has been unable to fulfill his ugly campaign promise to build a “beautiful” wall along the full length of the U.S.-Mexico border to keep im/migrants out of the country. So he resorted to another tactic: economic warfare. The threatened tariffs, which would have begun as a 5 percent tax on all incoming Mexican goods, to increase monthly by 5 percent until hitting 25 percent, were also deemed “beautiful.”However, the latest volley in Trump’s trade war, which follows inflationary tariffs on Chinese imports, garnered little support. The import tax would have affected a wide range of products, including agricultural goods, autos, clothing, electronics and oil. Rather than compromise their profit margin, corporations would pass on the added cost to consumers. The tariffs could take an estimated 400,000 jobs out of the U.S. economy. (Vanity Fair, June 6)What the media are not saying is that, in addition to foisting higher prices on consumers, capital would put the squeeze on labor. The hit to Ford, General Motors and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles was projected to be in the billions, and their contracts with the United Auto Workers expire in September.Ruling-class oppositionThe trade war has drawn a negative response on Capitol Hill, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stating “we’re not fans of tariffs.” And on May 31, “[T]he drop in American stocks was sweeping,” reported the New York Times. “Investors dumped industrial and machinery stocks, shares of consumer products companies and those of giant tech companies.”The stock market declined 6.6 percent in May. Mexican firms voiced real fears around a loss of business as a result of the tariffs being imposed by their largest trading partner. Faced with a scenario of economic devastation and mass unemployment, Mexico agreed to some of Trump’s demands. As this newspaper explained: “Not every one of his actions has been progressive, as AMLO remains trapped in a capitalist system overshadowed by U.S. imperialism.” (“Mexico: Rising worker militancy at the border,” WW, April 4)Why all the posturing?What the president was not able to extort from Mexico at this time was a “safe third country” declaration. This would deny migrants the right to seek asylum in the U.S. once they set foot in Mexico. The situation for refugee families would be even more unbearable, and Mexico, not the U.S., would shoulder the cost of humanitarian assistance to them.Almost immediately after Trump proclaimed success, reports surfaced that the Mexican government had actually agreed to the terms of the “new” agreement months ago. So why employ the club of economic warfare and draw the ire of one’s own class peers? What was the purpose of all this bluster and bravado? Is it a ploy — with the November 2020 election less than a year and a half away — to whip up racism and xenophobia and energize Trump’s base of support?Whatever the motive and whatever the form — economic threats, racist walls, deportation, detention, family separation, hate propaganda, repressing solidarity or caging children and families — scapegoating migrants and the countries they come from is never “beautiful.” It is the ugly face of capitalist super-exploitation of oppressed nations and an insidious tool to divide the working class. Building solidarity with migrants is the most pressing task of the workers’ movement.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
Home / Featured / President Trump Nominates Jerome Powell as Fed Chair Print This Post Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Previous: A Look Inside Caliber Home Loans’ Portfolio Next: GOP Tax Reform to Impact the Housing Market Related Articles Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago in Featured, Government, Headlines, News Sign up for DS News Daily The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago November 2, 2017 1,594 Views The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Today, President Donald Trump announced the nomination of Jerome Powell, a Federal Reserve Board governor who previously worked as a private-equity executive, as Fed Chair to succeed Janet Yellen.The President said there are few positions more important than this in our government as he urged the Senate to confirm Powell.”He’s strong, he’s committed, and he’s smart,” President Trump said during the official announcement. “And if he is confirmed by the Senate he will put his considerable talents and experience to work, leading our nation’s central independent bank, which has the critical responsibility to set monetary policy and our banking system as a whole.”Taking the podium after the President, Powell said, “If I am confirmed by the Senate, I will do everything in my power to achieve congressionally assigned goals of stable prices and maximum employment.”Powell continued, “Inside the Federal Reserve, we understand that monetary policy decisions matter for American families and communities. I strongly share that sense of mission and I am committed to making decisions with objectivity based on the best available evidence in the longstanding tradition of monetary policy efforts.”The choice of Powell as new Fed Chair is a departure in a long tradition of reappointing Fed chairs to a second term since G. William Miller was the Fed Chair in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter. Powell has served as a governor of the nation’s central bank since he was nominated by President Obama in 2012, but much of his career has been in investment banking and private equity. If elected Powell is the first former investment banker to hold the position.A Princeton University graduate, Powell was a lawyer in New York before he joined the investment bank Dillon Reed & Co. in 1984. He stayed there until he joined the Treasury Department in 1990. After he left Treasury, Powell worked as a partner at Carlyle Group, the private equity, and asset management giant, from 1997 to 2005. Powell expressed his thoughts on the normalization of Monetary Policy during his most recent speech in June for the Economic Club of New York. Powell said:”The healthy state of our economy and favorable outlook suggest that the FOMC should continue the process of normalizing monetary policy. The Committee has been patient in raising rates, and that patience has paid dividends.”In addition, Powell largely supports Dodd-Frank, the sweeping set of reforms instituted after the financial crisis to make banks healthier, CNN reports.“The nomination of Jerome Powell is an encouraging signal that the monetary policy that has been successful in stabilizing and maintaining the economy will continue in the near term, said Five Star Institute President and CEO Ed Delgado. “Powell’s wealth of diversified experience and deep understanding of our economy will serve him and the nation well in the years to come.” Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Tagged with: fed chair HOUSING mortgage The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Nicole Casperson is the Associate Editor of DS News and MReport. She graduated from Texas Tech University where she received her M.A. in Mass Communications and her B.A. in Journalism. Casperson previously worked as a graduate teaching instructor at Texas Tech’s College of Media and Communications. Her thesis will be published by the International Communication Association this fall. To contact Casperson, e-mail: [email protected] Share Save Subscribe Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago About Author: Nicole Casperson fed chair HOUSING mortgage 2017-11-02 Nicole Casperson President Trump Nominates Jerome Powell as Fed Chair
News UpdatesAfter Bombay HC’s Stern Warning, Daughter Submits Undertaking, Agrees To Vacate Mother’s Flat [Read Order] Nitish Kashyap22 Jun 2020 5:21 AMShare This – xThe Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a 70-year-old mother against her daughter seeking her eviction from the flat they reside in alleging that she tortured her both mentally and physically. After Court’s warning in the previous hearing, the daughter filed an undertaking stating that she will be evicting the said flat along with her son within eight weeks. Division…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a 70-year-old mother against her daughter seeking her eviction from the flat they reside in alleging that she tortured her both mentally and physically. After Court’s warning in the previous hearing, the daughter filed an undertaking stating that she will be evicting the said flat along with her son within eight weeks. Division bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Justice NR Borkar referred to the story of Shravan Kumar from the Ramayana- “Our country has always been proud of progeny like Shravan Kumar, who to fulfill the wish of his poor, blind and ageing parents, took them on a pilgrimage by carrying them on his shoulder in two baskets put on either side of the bamboo stick, and whilst trying to collect water on his way from a stream, to quench the thirst of his parents, became a target of King Dashrath’s arrow. It is unfortunate that in the last several years Courts are repeatedly witnessing, old parents knocking at its doors, in the twilight years of their lives seeking redressal of their grievances against their children.” Previously, the petitioner mother filed an application under Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before Sub Divisional Officer, Maintenance Tribunal for Parents and Senior Citizens, on March 16, 2020 seeking Sarita’s eviction from the said Flat. However due to the lockdown, the Tribunal was not available to decide her application, thus the present writ petition was filed. The petitioner Rajni Somkuwar alleged that her daughter Sarita, who is a divorcee and is forcefully residing in her flat with her 19-year-old son, tortures her and even took control of the petitioner’s accounts forcefully. On June 5, after concluding that the petitioner seriously apprehended mental and physical harassment at the hands of Sarita, Court issued a stern warning to Sarita and her son that if there are any further complaints from the petitioner about harassment, then both Sarita and her son will be restrained from entering the flat in question. If children cannot take care of their parent/s and allow them to live in peace, they at least ought not to make their life a living hell, Court had observed. The respondent argued that her mother was overreacting at the instance of her younger sibling Vaishali who has come to India temporarily from Singapore with her family. On Friday, Court noted that despite the June 5 order, the petitioner mother has not started residing in the said fat. However, whilst refuting the allegations of her daughter, petitioner made an offer to allow Sarita and her son to reside in one of her fats at Nalasopara, on and from July 15, 2020, if she agreed to vacate the said fat along with her son, so that she (the Petitioner) could start residing again in the said fat for the remainder of her life in peace. Thus, Sarita and her son filed an undertaking declaring that they will be vacating the said flat within eight weeks. Court accepted the said undertaking and said that if Sarita and her son are unable to find premises on leave and license basis within a period of 8 weeks from today, the petitioner shall allow them to reside in her flat at Nalasopara, until they find a premises of their choice on leave and license basis. Moreover, the bench concluded that none of the allegations made by the petitioner mother and her daughter against each other stand established and directed both parties not to publicise any allegations against each other in any manner whatsoever including but not limited to correspondence, social media, newspapers, etc.Click Here To Download Order[Read Order] Next Story
ColumnsWho Will Impeach The Judges Dr. Lokendra Malik27 July 2020 9:18 AMShare This – xJustice S. N. Shukla, a judge of Allahabad High Court retired on 17 July 2020. He was indicted in an alleged Medical college admissions scam highlighted in 2017. The alleged scam involved some Medical colleges that were not allowed to function by the Medical Council of India which is the regulating body for medical education in the country. It is said that a middleman allegedly assured…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginJustice S. N. Shukla, a judge of Allahabad High Court retired on 17 July 2020. He was indicted in an alleged Medical college admissions scam highlighted in 2017. The alleged scam involved some Medical colleges that were not allowed to function by the Medical Council of India which is the regulating body for medical education in the country. It is said that a middleman allegedly assured the college owners that the courts would allow them to run their colleges. The colleges then allegedly paid to the middleman to get a clearance. The scam was prominently highlighted by the media. A three-member committee, headed by Justice Indira Banerjee, the then Chief Justice of Madras High Court, was constituted by the then Chief Justice of India Mr. Dipak Misra to look into the allegations. Justice S. K. Agnihotri, the then Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court and Justice P. K. Jaiswal, the then judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court were also the members of the Committee which found sufficient substance in the allegations against the judge and recommended action of removal against him by concluding that “the aberrations complained of are serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for his removal”. Having considered the report of the Committee, the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra advised Justice Shukla either to resign or take voluntary retirement but the latter refused to accept the suggestions made by the Chief Justice of India. The Chief Justice of India advised the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to withdraw the judicial work from Justice Shukla in 2018. The judicial work was withdrawn from Justice Shukla in the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court. As the Chief Justice is master of the roster, he has power to allocate cases to the judges. Except this, he has no other disciplinary power against a judge. In addition to this, the then Chief Justice Misra also wrote to the President and the Prime Minister to initiate the removal proceedings against Justice Shukla. It is pertinent to mention that under our constitutional scheme a judge of the Supreme Court/High Court can be removed only on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity by the President if Parliament passes a resolution to that effect by the special majority. The complaint about misbehaviour or incapacity against a judge has to be proved under the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968. A removal motion may be brought in any House of Parliament, it should be signed by 100 members in case of the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the case of Rajya Sabha is to be given to the speaker or the chairperson who then constitutes a three-member committee to investigate the charges against the judge. The Committee should consist of the Chief Justice or judge of the Supreme Court, a Chief Justice of a High Court and a distinguished jurist. If the Committee finds the judge guilty of the charges of misbehaviour or incapacity, the House in which the motion was introduced, can take up the motion for consideration. Once the House in which the removal motion was introduced passes it with a special majority, it goes to the second House, which also has to pass it with the special majority. After the motion is passed by both the Houses of Parliament by the special majority, an address is presented to the President for removal of the judges and then the President passes an order removing the judge. This is how a judge of the Supreme Court/High Court can be removed from his office in our country. In this whole process the Chief Justice of India has no say. He can only bring the matter to the knowledge of the government which can take the matter to Parliament. But in Justice Shukla’s case, it seems that the government forgot this process and allowed him to retire peacefully with all retiral benefits. No judicial work was given to him for more than two years. Will it not harm our judicial system? I am asking this question to myself. Should the judges not be treated equally like other citizens? They should obviously be treated equally as per the mandate of the Rule of Law and our equality jurisprudence. Not only one Chief Justice of the Supreme Court but the two Chief Justices strongly recommended to the Central Government to consider Justice Shukla’s removal by Parliament. Chief Justice Gogoi also tried to persuade the Central Government to initiate the removal process against Justice Shukla but his recommendation was not taken seriously. In June 2019, Chief Justice Gogoi also allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a FIR against Justice Shukla under the Prevention of Corruption Act for his alleged involvement in the Medical College admission scam. A FIR was registered against Justice Shukla and others under sections 7, 8, 12, 13(1) and 13(2) of the PCA. The CBI raided his premises in December 2019. This was the first time that a sitting High Court judge was investigated by the CBI. As per the ruling of the Supreme Court delivered in the Veeraswamy case in 1991, a High Court/Supreme Court judge cannot be investigated by the CBI or any other agency without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India. Even a FIR cannot be registered without the prior assent of the Chief Justice of India. However, the Constitution does not provide any such immunity to the judges. This protection is rightly created by a judicial verdict to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judges need independence to discharge their judicial functions but nobody should be permitted to misuse this protection because of these safeguards. Chief Justice Gogoi also wrote to the Prime Minister to bring the removal proceedings against Justice Shukla in Parliament. But again, nothing happened and Justice Shukla enjoyed his high judicial office and left it without any punishment. Needless to say, Justice Shukla’s continuance in high judicial office did not give a good message to the legal community and the public at large. It certainly sets a bad precedent which undermines the collective dignity and integrity of our judicial system. It is surprising to note that despite the recommendations of two Chief Justices of the country, the Prime Minister or the Law Minister did not find time to consider Justice Shukla’s removal from the high judicial office. This reflects the poor state of affairs of our constitutional system. It is well-known that the government does not take even a few hours to suspend a government officer if he/she commits any misconduct and if he is found guilty in the disciplinary proceedings, he loses his job and also faces criminal proceedings. But here is a strange case when a three-member committee of the judges found substance in allegations against a High Court judge and the head of the government did not think it appropriate to take the matter to Parliament. Is a High Court judge above the law? As mentioned earlier, a High Court judge can be removed by the President only when Parliament passes removal address against him by majority. The opposition parties do not have majority in Parliament. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to impeach a judge without the support of the government in power. It was obviously the ruling government which was required to initiate the process given its majority in the Houses of Parliament. But no action was taken against a tainted judge. I am unable to understand the reasons. Does the government want to give safe passage to tainted judges? This is how we would make India a great country. Is it our idea of justice? It would cause an irreparable damage to the judicial system in our country. This was not the dream of our great founding fathers who gave us a great Constitution. They had envisioned a free and fair judiciary that could deliver justice without any hesitation or obstruction. Unfortunately, the political custodians of the Constitution have badly failed to protect the judiciary. Someone has rightly said that the biggest strength of the judiciary is people’s trust and this kind of bad developments reduce the public trust in the institution of the judiciary. The people of the country hold the judiciary in high esteem. They knock the doors of the courts of justice when other branches of the state disappoint them. If they lose faith in the judiciary, our legal system cannot survive. The Supreme Court has said on many occasions that society’s demand of honesty in a judge is exacting and absolute. The standards of judicial behaviour and conduct, both on and off the bench, are normally extremely high and a judge who deviates from such standards betrays the trust reposed on him. It is rightly said that a single dishonest judge not only dishonours himself and disgraces his office but jeopardizes the integrity of the entire judicial system. Sadly, our judicial system is losing its credibility day by day. This is not good for our democracy. During the last few years, the confidence of people in the judiciary has certainly been reduced up to a large extent and this is a matter of great concern. It causes a big threat to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. The Constitution provides safeguards to the judges so that they could discharge their judicial functions without fear or favour. Nobody should be allowed to use these safeguards as shields. Once the Chief Justice of India wrote to the Prime Minister, it was his constitutional duty to refer the matter to Parliament for necessary action. There was no justification to ignore the advice of the Chief Justice of India. This matter was squarely covered under the jurisdiction of Parliament and Parliament was duty bound to discharge its great constitutional function. Under our constitutional scheme, the Chief Justice of India has limited options against erring judges. The High Courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court. However, their decisions are appealable to the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of India is not the master of the High Court judges. They are constitutional functionaries who hold certain constitutional protections. However, the Supreme Court collegium led by the Chief Justice of India can transfer a judge from one High Court to another but no High Court would like to receive a tainted judge. The second option is to withdraw the judicial work from him by the Chief Justice of the High Court. In this case, the judge drew full salary and benefits without doing any work for more than two years. There is no provision of suspension of services of a High Court judge under our Constitution. Had the government taken a timely action of removal against Justice Shukla, it would have been given a strong message to society about its commitment to the cause of corruption-free governance. Zero tolerance for corruption is need of the hour. Sadly, the government badly failed to give any such message. Who will impeach the judges? It is only the Parliament, not the judiciary. The Parliament should have been acted promptly in this matter. It goes without saying that by remaining silent about this matter, the government becomes complicit in the hurt caused to both the institution of the judiciary and its image. It lends itself to a perception of double standards in our constitutional system which cannot be appreciated. Judges are not above the law. Law is the king of kings.Views are personal only.(Author is a practising Lawyer at Supreme Court of India) Next Story