New exam pattern for Civil Services Exams from 2011

Civil services exam is one of the top services exams in India. Every year thousand of students took this exam and one few clear the preliminary exam. This is one of the toughest and respectable exams of the country. The aspiring candidates go through a rigorous procedure to clear the exam and get selected for the desired services. From thousands of candidates only hundreds could able to make for the final round and from these hundred only few could reach the final selection round.

The Civil Services Examination Board always tries to make a standard of the examination so that they can select the best officers who can justify their responsibilities very well. The Civil Services Examination Board implements new patterns and style of examination to upgrade the standard of the candidates. Aspiring candidates for the civil services exam will face a new pattern of examination from next year. The government has approved the proposal to introduce an aptitude test in place of existing preliminary examination to shortlist the candidates for the main exam.

In this new pattern, the candidates will have to appear in two objective-type papers having special emphasis on testing their aptitude level and ethical and moral dimensions of decision making under this Civil Services Aptitude Test (CSAT).

According to the new pattern- equal weightage will be given to all the candidates in place of one common paper and one optional paper as in previous pattern. This pattern emphasis more one aptitude and decision making thing as compared to previous paper which stress over more on subject knowledge and awareness.

For the time being, the changes will be only implementing on the first preliminary stage from the 2011 onwards. The second and third stage may remain same for some time till the committee will not submit its report on different pattern and various aspects of the entire exam and system.

Confirming the change for the first stage of CSE, minister of state for personnel Prithviraj Chavan said: "CSAT is expected to come into effect from CSE, 2011." The proposal to this effect was sent to the PMO last year by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) which conducts CSE every year to select candidates for elite all-India services, including IAS, IPS, IFS, IRS and others Group 'A' and Group 'B' central jobs.

Giving more stress over the exam pattern an official said: "The new system will also provide a level-playing field and equity, since all candidates will have to attempt common papers unlike the current format which provides for only one common paper."

Civil Services (Prelim) Exam.-2011 Syallabus available at ANSWERINGLAW 

Link:http://answeringlaw.com/php/displayContent.php?linkId=1255

LEXAMINATION 201

CIVIL SERVICES (PRELIMS) EXAMINATION 2011...NEW PATTERN AND SYLLABUS

Priyadarshini Mattoor Case Verdict- Some Random Thoughts on the Apex Court’s Verdict - By Saritha Thonoor

Deterrent Theory or Retributive Theory - Which should be choosen for a rapist?

Recently the Apex Court in the controversial “Priyadarshini Mattoo Murder Case” has commuted the death sentence of Priyadarshini’s murderer, to life sentence.

The Court said “The appellant was a young man of 24 at the time of the incident and, after acquittal, had got married and was the father of a girl child. Undoubtedly, also the appellant would have had time for reflection over the events of the last fifteen years, and to ponder over the predicament that he now faces, the reality that his father died a year after his conviction and the prospect of a dismal future for his young family. On the contrary, there is nothing to suggest that he would not be capable of reform. There are extremely aggravating circumstances as well. In particular we notice the tendency of parents to be over indulgent to their progeny often resulting in the most horrendous of situations. These situations are exacerbated when an accused belongs to a category with unlimited power or pelf or even more dangerously, a volatile and heady cocktail of the two. The reality that such a class does exist is for all to see and is evidenced by regular and alarming incidents such as the present one. Nevertheless, to our mind, the balance sheet tilts marginally in favour of the appellant, and the ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to him is commuted from death to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.”

Criminal law has traditionally been taught and analysed as if the gender of criminals and their victims is irrelevant. The fact that appellant has married after committing the crime and has got a child under that marriage, is it a reason for commuting the death sentence; especially in this case as the appellant had tortured the victim many times despite of various warnings and the victim was even under police protection fearing an attack from the appellant. The appellant has brutally raped and murdered a lady legal luminary in the making, will the commutation of his death sentence encourage other rapists in this nation? Proponents of the reformative theory itself accepts that the theory doesn’t work in case of hard-core criminals, isn’t Priyadarshini’s murderer a hard core criminal? Does not parents of Priydarshini have a right to see to it that the murderer of their child gets appropriate punishment or does that fade away on the appellant’s marriage and subsequent birth of a child under that marriage?

Is our Apex Court going to a point from where it cannot be saved ???

From The Hindu:Not death but life behind bars for Priyadarshini killer

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reduced to life imprisonment the death sentence awarded by the Delhi High Court to Santosh Kumar Singh, lawyer and son of a senior police officer, for the rape and murder of a college girl in 1996. The apex court held that it was not a rarest of rare cases warranting capital punishment.

Law college student Priyadarshini Mattoo, who was in her sixth and final semester, was raped and killed on January 23, 1996. The trial court acquitted Santosh Kumar Singh citing lack of evidence. On appeal, the High Court held him guilty of rape and murder and awarded him death sentence. The present appeal by Santosh Kumar Singh was directed against that judgment.

Dismissing the appeal, a Bench of Justice H. S. Bedi and Justice C. K. Prasad referred to the appellant's submissions that this was not a rarest of rare cases for award of death sentence and said: “We see that the mitigating circumstances need to be taken into account, more particularly that the High Court has reversed a judgment of acquittal based on circumstantial evidence.”

On the contention that the High Court should not have reversed the trial court's order of acquittal, the Bench said the High Court had expressed its shock and held the trial court findings as perverse and against the evidence. To desist from doing so would cause great injustice not only to the prosecution but also to the victim and her family, it added.

“Assuming that there was some uncertainty about the [charge of] rape, the culpability of the appellant for the murder is nevertheless writ large, and we are indeed surprised at the decision of the trial judge to order an outright acquittal,” the Bench said, agreeing with the High Court decision to convict the appellant.

On sentence, Justice Bedi, writing the judgment, said: “The appellant was a young man of 24 at the time of the incident, and after acquittal got married and was the father of a girl child.”

“Undoubtedly, the appellant would have had time for reflection on the events of the last 15 years, and to ponder over the predicament that he now faces, the reality that his father died a year after his conviction and the prospect of a dismal future for his young family. On the contrary, there is nothing to suggest that he would not be capable of reform. In particular, we notice the tendency of parents to be over-indulgent to their progeny, often resulting in the most horrendous of situations,” the Bench observed.

“These situations are exacerbated when an accused belongs to a category with unlimited power or pelf, or even more dangerously, a volatile and heady cocktail of the two. The reality that such a class does exist is for all to see and is evidenced by regular and alarming incidents such as the present one. Nevertheless, to our mind, the balance sheet tilts marginally in favour of the appellant, and the ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to him is commuted from death to life imprisonment.”

‘Half Of The Last 16 Chief Justices Were Corrupt’

Following is the text of an interview with Supreme Court advocate Prasanth Bhushan conducted by Tehelka:

It’s great judges have agreed to declare assets. But will it really help? Politicians do it too.
This decision is very welcome, even if it’s only happened under public pressure. It is proof of the power of public opinion. And even though declaring assets is a relatively minor aspect of judicial accountability, it will help. If a judge misdeclares his assets, there’s a chance someone might know he has particular properties he hasn’t declared, and may point it out. One could then examine if these can be explained within their legal income.

The debate around judicial accountability has got really hot. Are there watershed events that triggered this?
Not in my own perception, but I think for the public there were two watershed events – the Chief Justice Sabharwal case (where there was an allegation that Chief Justice YS Sabharwal’s orders to demolish commercial outlets in Delhi directly benefited his sons, who were partners with some mall developers) and the Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam. Both these cases got wide media attention. A 2006 Transparency International report said the judiciary in India is the second most corrupt institution after the police.

You’ve been at the forefront of the judicial accountability campaign. Why?
I have been witness to judicial corruption in the courts for a very long time. I know decisions are passed for extraneous considerations, but it’s difficult to get hard evidence of this. There have been highprofile impeachment attempts, for instance, on Justice Ramaswamy, Justice Punchi and Justice Anand. Yet, they all went on to become chief justices. In my view, out of the last 16 to 17 chief justices, half have been corrupt. I can’t prove this, though we had evidence against Punchi, Anand and Sabharwal on the basis of which we sought their impeachment.

What is the root cause of judicial corruption then, and what are your key demands?
Our key demand is an institutional mechanism for entertaining complaints and taking action against the judiciary. Nothing exists today. Everyone realises impeachment is impractical. To move an impeachment motion you need the signatures of 100 MPS, but you can’t get them because many MPs have pending individual or party cases in these judges’ courts. In the impeachment proceeding against Justice Bhalla, the BJP declined to sign because LK Advani had been acquitted by him in the Babri Masjid demolition case. Such political considerations prevail all the time. An in-house procedure was set up in 1999, post a chief justices’ conference in 1997, but that too is activated only selectively. For example, the complaint against Justice Bhalla was that he had purchased land worth Rs 4 crore at Rs 4 lakh — approximately — from land mafia in Noida. This was based on a report from the DM and SSP of Noida. This land mafia had several cases pending in courts subordinate to Justice Bhalla. Another complaint was that in the Reliance Power matter, though his son was the lawyer for Reliance Power, Justice Bhalla constituted a special bench while he was the presiding judge in Lucknow. He sat in the house of one the judges at 11pm at night to hear their case and pass an injunction in their favour. We asked Chief Justice Sabharwal to initiate proceedings against Bhalla, but he refused.

Similarly, Justice Vijender Jain decided the case of a person whose granddaughter had been married out of his own house. He was a close friend but he still heard and decided the case in this person’s favour. The point is, in these cases though very specific complaints were made to the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), he didn’t do anything to activate the in-house procedure. All these judges have gone on to become chief justices. Bhalla is still chief justice of Rajasthan; Virendra Jain became chief justice of Punjab and Haryana.

What’s the answer?
The first problem is that there is no independent institution for entertaining complaints and taking action against judges. There has to be a National Judicial Complaints Commission — independent of the government and judiciary. It should have five members and an investigating machinery under them. The second problem lies in the Veeraswamy judgment, which ordered no criminal investigation can be done against a judge without prior written permission of the CJI. That’s what happened in Karnataka. There was a complaint against several judges visiting a motel and misbehaving with women. When the police officer came, the judges threatened him and said no FIR could be filed against them because they were judges. This happened in the Ghaziabad Provident Fund case as well. The investigation is stumped because the CJI hasn’t given permission. We have to get rid of this injunction.

The third problem is the Contempt of Court Act. Today, even if you expose a judge with evidence, you run the risk of contempt. Judges are even seeking to insulate themselves from the RTI. We have to get rid of the Contempt of Court Act – not the whole Act. Disobeying the orders of the court is civil contempt – that should remain. Interfering with the administration of justice is criminal contempt – that too should remain. What needs to be deleted is the clause about scandalising or lowering the dignity of the court, for which Arundhati Roy was sent to jail. Finally, there is the problem of appointments. Earlier, judicial appointments were made by the government, which was bad enough. Now, by a sleight of hand, the Supreme Court has taken the power of appointments to itself. Earlier there were political considerations; now there are nepotistic ones.

Again, what’s the answer to that?
We need an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, which is independent and works full time, and follows some systems and procedures. Eligibility lists should be prepared and comparative merits debated and evaluated. You can’t just pick judges arbitrarily, and let people know about it only after the deed is done.

There is still no independent body to process complaints and action against judges

What are the best practices and conventions elsewhere?
We should at least have Public Confirmation hearings like in the US. In the Senate Judicial Committee, you have hearings where any public citizen can give evidence about the background of a judge that has bearing on their appointment. This is being fiercely resisted here.

Do any counter arguments hold?
None that I can see. The judges say all this will compromise their independence. Unfortunately, they are equating the independence of the judiciary with independence from accountability. Independence of the judiciary was meant to be independence from the political establishment, not from all accountability.

Are there other ways in which judicial corruption manifests itself?
There are so many. There is Justice Kapadia who decided on the Niyamgiri mining lease case in Orissa. He said Vedanta can’t be given the lease because it’s been blacklisted by the Norwegian government; but its subsidiary company Sterlite can get the lease because it is a publicly listed company. Justice Kapadia said it’s publicly listed because he had shares in it and yet he passed an order in favour of Sterlite! There is a law against judges hearing cases where there is a conflict of interest, but they just bypass it and you can’t complain because that would be contempt.

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 35, Dated September 05, 2009

All India Bar Exam- A Critique

The Bar Council of India (BCI) will hold the first All-India Bar Examination (AIBE) for fresh LLB graduates to get their certificate of practice (sanad) in December 2010, despite criticism from bar associations and the students. The first All India Bar Examination shall be mandatory for all law students graduating from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. Candidates may apply to appear for the All India Bar Examination only after enrolling as an advocate under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961

Its for the first time a bar exam is going to be conducted in India. I feel that most of the state bar councils are still not accustomed to conducting exams. The bar council may tie up with law colleges, universities like NALSAR, NLSUI, NUJS, etc. to conduct exams in respective states rather than joining hands with Rainmaker, a private firm for the conduct of the exam. This itself is highly questionable as they have not revealed the reasons for selection of rainmaker for the conduct of the exam.

Further Supreme court judgment in this regard (Sudeer's case) will be an impediment in introducing an exam without amendments to the advocates Act. The Advocates Act says that one has a right to practice as an advocate once one gets the law degree. In most law schools students have been recruited by law firms and there is problem for them joining these firms and some firms have taken a step back after the announcement of the bar exam. It is in a very short notice the BCI is conducting this.

The bar council says, All India Bar Examination, is intended to test an advocate’s ability to practice the profession of law in India. Are they admitting a failure of the present legal education system in India?. I strongly feel, by all means, it is best that the BCI plans the syllabus after consultation with various quarters so that the exam syllabus and exam pattern will very well test the competence of young lawyers. I also need to tell that many of the advocates already in practice do not know the basics of law. And such advocates are causing problem to clients, especially rural people. It would be better if the BCI considers conducting exams for all the existing advocates too and ask them to pass the exams within next few years.