ebook img

Kindly download the petition (38 pages, 85 kB) - Anil Chawla and PDF

38 Pages·2007·0.08 MB·English
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Kindly download the petition (38 pages, 85 kB) - Anil Chawla and

Before the Honourable Supreme Court of India No. …………….. 1. Anil Chawla Petitioners: s/o Mr. M. M. Chawla Aged about 48 years r/o 411-A, G3, Gulmohar, E-8, Arera Colony, Bhopal – 462 039 2. Vipin Dixit s/o Late Shri B.L. Dixit, Aged about 50 years r/o Sixth Floor, Panchanan, Roshanpura, Malviya Nagar, BHOPAL – 462 003 vs. Writ Petition / 1 Respondents: (1) Union of India, Through The Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, NEW DELHI (2) The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, NEW DELHI Petition under Article 32 of The Constitution of India filed in Public Interest The Petitioner begs to submit as under: 1. Particulars of the petitioners: The petitioners are citizens of India. Petitioner No. 1 works for his living in a group of companies, which is privately owned. He is an author and social activist concerned about the society and politics of the country. He is a law graduate (though not Writ Petition / 2 registered as an advocate) and is aware of the Constitution and laws of the country. Petitioner No. 2 is an agriculturist and is an active social activist. Both petitioners have no vested or personal interest (as distinct from that of other citizens) in the subject matter of this petition. They are filing the petition purely as a matter of bona fide public interest. 2. Particulars of the respondents: As given in the cause title 3. Particulars of the fundamental right infringed: Fundamental right of life and personal liberty, as enshrined under article 21 of the Constitution, is founded on the sovereignty of the country as mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution. Nuclear deal between India and USA, as is being negotiated in light of H.R. 5682 Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 duly enacted in United States of America, compromises the sovereignty of India and hence creates conditions that will infringe on fundamental right of life and personal liberty. 4. Whether petitioner has moved a High Court:- The petitioner has not moved any High Court for relief in the matter. 5. Facts of the case: The facts of the case are given below: Writ Petition / 3 5.01 India and United States of America issued a Joint Statement on 18 July 2005 (Annexure P1). 5.02 The Joint Statement of 18 July 2005 states, “The Prime Minister conveyed that for his part, India would reciprocally agree that it would be ready to assume the same responsibilities and practices and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology, such as the United States”. 5.03 The Joint Statement of 18 July 2005 further elaborates the “responsibilities and practices” to consist of the following: a) Identifying and separating civilian and military nuclear facilities and programs in a phased manner and filing a declaration regarding its civilians facilities with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); b) Taking a decision to place voluntarily its civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards; c) Signing and adhering to an Additional Protocol with respect to civilian nuclear facilities; d) Continuing India’s unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing; Writ Petition / 4 e) Working with the United States for the conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty; f) Refraining from transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not have them and supporting international efforts to limit their spread; g) And ensuring that the necessary steps have been taken to secure nuclear materials and technology through comprehensive export control legislation and through harmonization and adherence to Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines. 5.04 The commitments of United States of America as mentioned in the Joint Statement dated 18 July 2005 are as follows: a) President Bush conveyed his appreciation to the Prime Minister over India’s strong commitment to preventing WMD proliferation and stated that as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states. b) The President told the Prime Minister that he will work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India as it Writ Petition / 5 realizes its goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving energy security. c) The President would also seek agreement from Congress to adjust U.S. laws and policies, and the United States will work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India, including but not limited to expeditious consideration of fuel supplies for safeguarded nuclear reactors at Tarapur. d) In the meantime, the United States will encourage its partners to also consider this request expeditiously. e) India has expressed its interest in ITER and a willingness to contribute. The United States will consult with its partners considering India’s participation. The United States will consult with the other participants in the Generation IV International Forum with a view toward India’s inclusion. 5.05 It is clear that commitments of Prime Minister of India are unilateral and categorical under the Joint Statement of 18 July 2005, while US President has only offered vague commitments, if at all whatever the US President has promised can be called commitments. Writ Petition / 6 5.06 Indian Prime Minister’s commitments are not incumbent on the President of USA fulfilling his promises. In other words, India will be bound to do all that it has declared even if the President of USA is unable or unwilling to deliver on any of his promises. 5.07 On 18 July 2005, Indian Prime Minister has effectively declared an end to further growth of Indian strategic nuclear programme by declaring unilaterally and without any conditions, timeframe or strings, “Continuing India’s unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing”. 5.08 An indefinite continuing moratorium on nuclear testing will adversely impact the nuclear deterrence that was built with great efforts over the years by Indian nuclear establishment. 5.09 In Unstarred Question No. 428, Mr. Dara Singh, Member of Rajya Sabha asked, “whether Government propose to obtain consensus on this issue by full discussion in Parliament during current session?”. Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs stated in reply on 23 February 2006, “The Government is committed to take the Parliament in confidence, as was reflected in Prime Minister's suo moto statement in Parliament on 29 July 2005. The debate that followed in both the Houses of Parliament provided an occasion to discuss and clarify the issues involved in Writ Petition / 7 the civil nuclear understanding. The Government remains committed to keep the Parliament informed. Prime Minister in his Press Conference on 1 February 2006 has stressed on the need for national consensus on this issue”. (Annexure P2) 5.10 On 27 February 2006, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh made a Suo Motu Statement in Parliament on Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation with the United States (Annexure P3). Some relevant extracts from the Suo Motu Statement are as follows: a) In the Joint Statement, the United States implicitly acknowledged the existence of our nuclear weapons programme. There was also public recognition that as a responsible State with advanced nuclear technologies, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other States which have advanced nuclear technology, such as the United States. The Joint Statement offered the possibility of decades-old restrictions being set aside to create space for India’s emergence as a full member of a new nuclear world order. b) Our doctrine envisions a credible minimum nuclear deterrent to inflict unacceptable damage on an adversary indulging in a nuclear first strike. The facilities for this, and the required Writ Petition / 8 level of comfort in terms of our strategic resilience have thus been our criterion in drawing up a separation plan. Ours is a sacred trust to protect succeeding generations from a nuclear threat and we shall uphold this trust. c) The Separation Plan that is being outlined is not only consistent with the imperatives of national security, it also protects our vital research and development interests. We have ensured that our three-stage nuclear programme will not be undermined or hindered by external interference. We will offer to place under safeguards only those facilities that can be identified as civilian without damaging our deterrence potential or restricting our R&D effort, or in any way compromising our autonomy of developing our three stage nuclear programme. d) The nation will be kept informed, through this august House. 5.11 On 2 March 2006, India and USA issued another Joint Statement (Annexure P4). With reference to the nuclear deal, Indo-US Joint Statement of 2 March 2006 stated, “Consistent with this objective, the two leaders wish to highlight efforts the United States and India are making together in the following areas, where they have: Welcomed the successful completion of discussions on Writ Petition / 9 India’s separation plan and looked forward to the full implementation of the commitments in the July 18, 2005 Joint Statement on nuclear cooperation. This historic accomplishment will permit our countries to move forward towards our common objective of full civil nuclear energy cooperation between India and the United States and between India and the international community as a whole”. It is notable that in this Joint Statement, there was no mention of any of the promises that the US President had made in Joint Statement dated 18 July 2005. The focus was only on Separation Plan and the so-called “implicit acknowledgment of India’s nuclear programme” (as mentioned by the Prime Minister in his Suo Motu Statement dated 27 February 2006 to the Parliament) was almost forgotten. 5.12 On 7 March 2006, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh made another “Suo-Motu Statement in Parliament on Discussions on Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation with the US: Implementation of India’s Separation Plan” (Annexure P5) Some relevant extracts from the statement are as flows: a) I have pleasure in informing the House that during President Bush’s visit, as part of the process of promoting cooperation in civilian nuclear energy, agreement was reached between India and the United States on a Separation Plan. Writ Petition / 10

Description:
Writ Petition / 1. Before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. No. …………….. Petitioners: 1. Anil Chawla s/o Mr. M. M. Chawla. Aged about 48 years r/o 411-A
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.