Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
NAME: Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
PROFESSION: Poltician, Jurist, Senior Advocate, Author, spokesperson of INC.
BORN: 24 February, 1959.
PLACE OF BIRTH: Jodhpur.
FATHER’S NAME: Dr. Laxmi Mall Singhvi.
MOTHER’S NAME: Kamla Singhvi.
SPOUSE: Anita Singhvi.
CHILDREN: 2 sons ( Anubhav Singhvi and Avishkar Singhvi ).
EDUCATION: B.A. ( Hons.) from St.Stephen’s College, Delhi; M.A. from Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland; PhD. from Cambridge University, England; and PIL from Harvard University.
POLITICAL PARTY: Indian National Congress (INC).
OFFICIAL WEBSITE: https://www.drabhisheksinghvi.com/
BACKGROUND: Abhishek Singhvi was born in a Marwari family. Mr. Laxmi Mall Singhvi, his father, was a scholor in Jain History and also a known lawyer and India’s former High Commissioner to the UK. His mother, Mrs. Kamla Singhvi, was a housewife. In 1982, He married to Anita Singhvi, who is a Ghazal and Sufi singer. He has two sons; Anubhav and Avishkar.
His interests include reading biographies, Hindi film music, watching action thrillers and travel.
UPBRINGING & EDUCATION: He completed his schooling from St. Columba’s School. Thereafter, he did his graduation in B.A.( Hons.) with economics at St. Sephen’s College of Delhi University.
He pursued his Master’s degree from Trinity College. He has done his PhD under Sir William Wade, a constitutional lawyer,of Cambridge University,U.K. The topic of his doctorate was” Emergency Powers”.
He also has done a summer program, PIL from Harvard University. He has lectured to student/faculty groups and general audiences at Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Boston MIT and George Washington Universities. Abhishek Manu Singhvi has visited Trumbull Lecturer at Yale University, USA in 2011.
LEGAL CAREER: Mr Singhvi has the unique distinction of being the youngest person to be appointed/elected as Senior Advocate, Deputy Solicitor General (ASG) of India and Vice-Chairman of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA); he has appeared in a variety of cases where the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions on constitutional law, commercial law and many other areas of civil law have been observed.
Singhvi’s long and influential career in telecommunications litigation began when he was 34 years old and became the youngest lawyer to be appointed Senior Counsel when he took up his first telecommunications case in 1993-94.
The Delhi Science Forum challenged the privatisation of mobile telephony, and Singhvi led what later became known as the GSM lobby. Things have improved since then, but for the worse. “How can business operate in such an environment,” Singhvi asks, referring to the current state of telecommunications regulations.
The new regulatory climate has also made the industry more fragmented, states Singhvi. Earlier, the GSM lobby was standing together via the COAI. But Bharti, Idea and Vodafone have each filed different ICR and licence renewal applications in the most recent cases.
“They say that the current argument is the same, but what if they want to take a stand separate from the competitors later in the trial,” he says. Despite being so deeply associated with the industry, Singhvi considers himself to be an outsider.
Singhvi also says that he forgave several cases that he found conflicting with his political position. But even within the Congress, Singhvi says that there are elements that are capable of undercutting anyone seen as good.
He attributes to such an act the infamous sex scandal that he was embroiled in during Feb-April 2012. Apparently, his former driver shot him having sex with a woman in exchange for supporting her professionally and sharing the video.
In an out-of-court settlement, the driver later admitted digitally manipulating the video and distributing it out of revenge. “In that, I’ve seen the simplest places people can slip to. But in the background, it was also a time when I identified my true friends and well-wishers,” says Singhvi.
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS AS AN ADVOCATE
TATA PRESS Vs MTNL
The case was won by Tata News. The Supreme Court has upheld its right to print the highly successful Tata Press Yellow Pages, the annual Bombay Buyers’ Guide. However, the same judgement handed down last fortnight prohibited the most sought-after feature of the yellow pages: lists of telephone subscribers categorised by trade or occupation.
From now on, all yellow pages will only carry paid ads. Single-line entries containing only the name, address and telephone number of the subscriber will continue to be the monopoly of directories provided by the government-run telephone authorities.
All speech is speech and is entitled to the protection under Article 19(1)(a). Some boundaries exist for what is protected and what is not. For example, defamation is an exception to the freedom of speech, as is harming public order, such as by shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theatre. Therefore, there are laws against those categories of speech, and those laws are not struck down as violative of the Constitution. But within those limits, it is all still free speech in the same sense and to the same extent. Merely because I am using it to sell something, my speech does not lose the protection.
More than its effect on the company of the litigants, the decision has important implications for the general public. The Court has confirmed that the right to “commercial speech” or ads is part of the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution. A private agency like Tata Press is, therefore, entitled to bring out yellow pages comprising advertisements.
D.K. BASU VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL
The case gave a landmark decision where, otherwise, further offences were committed in the name of doing justice were prescribed rules for the arrest of a person. It prohibits any violation of the rights of a person during detention and thereby protects all people by means of certain legal procedures.
Although the correct procedure has now been defined by legislation and anyone who fails to do so is liable to be prosecuted, there are still offences similar to those in the above-mentioned case, such as the reluctance of police officers to file a FIR, or the inability of many innocent people to suffer injustice and violation of the constitutional rights of citizens. Therefore, tougher rules should be enforced so that innocent people do not have to suffer.
SABRIMALA TEMPLE ENTRY CASE (INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION VS STATE OF KERALA)
The Sabarimala Temple, considered the abode of Lord Ayyappa, is situated in the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the western Ghat mountain range of the Pathanamthitta district of Kerala. It prevented women from entering their ‘menstrual years’ (between the ages of 10 and 50) on the grounds that it was a place of worship.
In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a complaint of public interest before the Supreme Court challenging the Sabrimala Temple’s tradition of excluding women. The Association claimed that the right to equality under Article 14 and the freedom of faith under Article 25 of female worshippers were violated by the tradition.
The State claimed that the priests of the Temple had ultimate authority in this matter. The Travancore Devaswom Board has the legal authority to oversee the administration of the Sabarimala Temple. Article 26 of the Constitution reserves the freedom of a religious denomination to administer its own internal religious affairs.
In addition, Sabarimala was covered by Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Law, 1965 (“Public Worship Rules”). The rule allowed women to be excluded from public places of worship if the exclusion was based on ‘customs.
In 1991, the exclusion was placed before the High Court of Kerala in S. Mahendran v. Secretary of State, Travancore. The Court held that the exclusion was lawful and justified, as it has been a long-standing tradition that has existed since time immemorial.
The Supreme Court issued notices to the parties on 18 August 2006. The matter was referred to Bench on 7 March 2008. It was heard seven years later, on 11 January 2016.
On 20 February 2017, the Court expressed its intention to refer the case to the Constitutional Bench. Finally, on 13 October 2017, the Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Ashok Bhushan, asked the Constitutional Bench to pass judgement on the issue.
On 28 September 2018, the Bench of the Constitution delivered its judgement.
The Court held, by a majority of 4:1, that Sabarimala’s exclusion of women violated the fundamental rights of women between the ages of 10 and 50 and that Rule 3(b) of the Rules of Public Worship was unconstitutional.
Justice Indu Malhotra issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that in secular politics, it was not for the Courts to intervene in matters of faith, and the same must be left to those who practise religion.
NAVEEN JINDAL VS UNION OF INDIA
The Supreme Court of India upheld a judgement affirming that the Indian Constitution, in particular the fundamental right to freedom of speech, protected the right to fly a national flag. Naveen Jindal, director of the factory, filed a petition after he had been informed that he was not allowed to fly a national flag under the Indian Flag Code.
The Court held that the right to fly the flag could be seen as an expression of the individual’s allegiance and pride to his country. The Court observed, however, that this right could be subject to a range of fair statutory restrictions.
NIKHIL SONI VS UNION OF INDIA
In this writ petition filed pursuant to Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the public interest, the applicant, a practising lawyer at Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan, prayed for directions to the Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Home, New Delhi-Respondent No.1 and the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur-Respondents “Santhara,” which means “fast to death,” is a tradition prevalent in the Jain community of Shvetambara.
According to the petitioner, it is a divine fast to death on the grounds that if every purpose of life has been fulfilled, or if the body is unable to serve any purpose of life, the Santhara will receive “Moksha” (salvation). A human, after taking the vow of Santhara, stops eating and drinking water and waits for death to come.
It is believed that the Santhara is a religious thought which has no position under the law of the land. The Constitution of India ensures the right to life and preserves the lives of individuals.
The right to freedom of religion referred to in Article-25 of Part-III-Fundamental rights shall be regulated by public order, morality and health and by the other provisions of this Part, which shall include Article 21.
Both individuals have the right to freedom of faith and the right to profess, practise and spread religion freely. A practise, however ancient it may be to a specific faith, cannot be permitted to infringe an individual’s right to life. It is believed that voluntary speed to death is an act of self-destruction, which amounts to “suicide” which is a criminal offence and is punishable under section 309 of the IPC by simple imprisonment for a period of one year or a fine or both.
The suspension of suicide is also punishable under section 306 of the IPC for a period of imprisonment which may stretch to ten years and may also be subject to a fine. “Suicide” means the deliberate murder of oneself.
Any act of self-destruction by a human being, subject to discretion, is defined in the common language of the word “suicide” given that it is a deliberate act of the party knowing the probable effect of what it is about to do.
Suicide may never be presumed. Purpose is the basic legal ingredient of Section 309 of the IPC.
CYRUS MISTRY VS TATA SONS
Tata Conglomerate is India’s largest business group operating in seven industries in more than eighty countries. Tata Sons is a holding company in the Tata Group. Tata Sons is a non-listed stock. Approximately 66% of its shares are held by the various Tata trusts, most notably Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (27.97%) and Sir Ratan Tata Trust (23.56 percent ).
The next major portion of 18 per cent is dominated by the Shapoorji Pallonji Party, whose heir is Cyrus Mistry. (‘Mistry’) Mr. In 2011, Mistry was named president of Tata Sons, who was the sixth president of Tata Sons. At the meeting of the Board of TATA Sons Limited held on 24 October 2016, Mr Cyrus Mistry was replaced with immediate effect and Mr Ratan Tata was named interim Chairman of TATA Sons.
The Board also formed a selection committee consisting of Mr. Ratan N. Tata, Mr. Venu Srinivasan, Mr. Amit Chandra, Mr. Ronen Sen and Lord Kumar. In compliance with the provisions of the Articles of Association of Tata Sons, Bhattacharyya shall elect a new Chairman within four months.
It would seem to be a case of poor governance in the first place. Such a conclusion, however, would be risk-impaired as one is not completely conscious of the circumstances leading to such a decision.
Therefore, it would have to be determined first that there was a gross infringement or breach of AoA and then that the decision was not in the best interests of the stakeholders in general. Although it may seem to be a failure of governance on the face, the situation may, in fact, be such that it may be the case that decisions are in the best interest of stakeholders.
In the worst case, it will be at most a case where the AoA regulations have not been complied with, the legal recourse would be to obey the protocol. No law will compel a chairperson to continue despite the fact that the shareholders and the board do not want him to continue.
As the appointment contract is not available in public domain, based on logic it can be concluded that Board of Tata Sons was within its legal rights to remove Mr. Cyrus Mistry from position of Chairman and their decision cannot be questioned unless there was any case of:
- Breach of Contract terms.
- Not following provisions of AoA-relating to procedure as well as authority related to convening and conducting of Board Meeting and removal.
- Compliance of Procedure.
JALLIKATTU CASE
It was only in January 2016 (when Narendra Modi took office as Prime Minister) that the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Climate Change amended its 2011 notification, enabling jallikattu and bullock cart races across Maharashtra, Karnataka and Gujarat under clear conditions.
Permission from the collector was necessary and proper race tracks were given, and the bulls had to be tamed in jallikattu within a radial distance of 15m.
However, in July 2016, the Supreme Court, on the basis of a petition filed by the Animal Welfare Board and PETA, overturned the decision of the Modi Government and again prohibited jallikattu. Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi is a member of the Animal Protection Commission, which is at the forefront of the ban on jallikattu.
POLITICAL CAREER:
Abhishek Manu Singhvi is the one of the current spokesperson of Indian National Congress. He is representing the State, West Bengal in Upper House of the parliament.
He is also the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Law, Justice, Personnel and Grievances and present or former Member of several other Parliamentary Committees, including Privileges, International Relations, Urban Affairs and the Office of Benefit.
He is Chairman of the Indo-American Forum of Parliamentarians and Vice-Chairman of the Indo-Greek Parliamentary Forum.Abhishek Manu Singhvi is President, Saarclaw and Member of the Board of Governors of the National Law University of Jodhpur and Delhi.
He was the first speaker in Parliament at almost all major parliamentary debates during his tenure, including the Indo US Nuclear Agreement, the Office of Profit, Internal Security, Judicial Activism, Terrorism, the Budget, the Motion of Thanks to the President of India, the Ayodhya/Liberhan Commission, the Lokpal Bill and several others.
Rajya Sabha MP and Congress Speaker Abhishek Singhvi chaired the 30-member Parliamentary Commission, which delivered its voluminous report on the Lokpal Bill.
Apart from his numerous contributions as a politician, his support for the Lokpal Bill is a significant one. He says, “You are creating breeding ground for corruption. You are making a body outside the whole system, with inherent conflict of interest. Our conception is of checks and balances.
That is how our Constitution is framed. This bill abolishes need for prior sanction for investigation against govt servants. We have said for 60 years we should have some difference between prosecution and investigation.”
Abhishek Manu Singhvi is a man of varied interests, and he is also engaged in artistic practises. He is also a member of the Parliament of India representing Rajasthan in Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Indian Parliament.
Besides being a renowned politician and a member of the Parliament of Rajasthan, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi has been regularly writing columns in a number of newspapers.
BOOKS: Straight Talk, India’s Vibgyor Man: Selected Writings and Speeches of L.M. Singhvi, Candid Corner, From the trenches
POSITION HELD: National Spokesperson of Indian National Congress, 2001
Additional Solicitor General of India, (1997-1998)
National Spokesperson of Indian National Congress, 2001
Rajya Sabha elected member, April 2006
Member of Committee on Personnel, public Grievances, law and Justice, (2006- 2009) (2009 – 2011)
Member of Joint committee on offices of Profit Member, Joint committee to examine the constitutional and legal position relating to office of profit, Member of Consultative committee for Ministry of Urban Development (2006-2007)
He has also been a part of many other committee such as, Committee of Privileges (2006-2010)
Member of Consultative Committee for the Ministry of External Affairs, July 2010 onwards
CONTROVERSIES: A tape allegedly featuring Singhvi and another woman in a position of compromise was circulated. He categorically denied any misdeeds.
In 2014, he was sanctioned 57 crore by the Income Tax Settlement Commission for failing to include records supporting his claims for expenses for operating his office.
