Supreme Court: No hope on electoral reforms

New Delhi: Supreme Court on Friday accepted that electoral reforms are "long awaited" but refused to entertain a PIL of several eminent citizens, including former air chief S Krishnaswamy and top cop Julio F Ribeiro, seeking a direction to Election Commission to verify details of persons contesting polls.

The apex court also said poll reforms have to be carried out by the legislature but simultaneously expressed apprehension that they may not do it. "The election reforms are long awaited. Only they (legislature) can make law, but we know that they will not do this," the bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said.

Terming the task of verifying details including assets of candidates as "cumbersome", the bench, also comprising Justices R Banumathi and U U Lalit, said it was for Parliament to act, as the court cannot ask the Election Commission to undertake this exercise. At the outset, the court said, "how do you expect the Election Commission to go on verifying details of thousands and thousands of candidates...".

The bench then asked counsel for Ribeiro and others to make a representation before the poll panel and other authorities concerned and allowed them to withdraw the plea. "Persuade them outside the court. Let us see how they respond," it said. Besides Ribeiro, twelve others including former CAG Vijay K Shunglu, former Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy, former DGP Prakash Singh and ex-IIT Director S K Dubey had co-petitioned the apex court on the issue.

Service tax on senior advocates stayed
The Delhi High Court passed an interim order staying the Centre's notifications providing for levy of 14.5 per cent service tax on senior advocates from today onwards. A bench of justices S Muralidhar and R K Gauba stayed the notifications in order to bring parity with the March 30 interim order of the Gujarat High Court, putting on hold the operation of the government's decision.

The bench also issued notice to the Centre and sought its response before September 27 on a plea of Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) which has challenged the notifications on the ground that they "result in double taxation and was against the basic principles of value added tax regime".

Advocate Abhijat, appearing for DHCBA, has contended that prior to the notifications, service tax was leviable on legal services under reverse charge basis, where it is paid by the beneficiary of service, that is the clients. However as per the notifications, from April 1, 2016, service tax on senior advocates would be leviable on forward charge basis where it is paid by the senior advocate, while service tax on advocates (other than seniors) and law firms would continue to be levied on reverse charge basis, he said.

Thus, in terms of the changed law, in addition to the service tax paid by the clients on reverse charge basis, "senior advocates would be required to pay service tax on fees remitted to him/her by an advocate/firm". "This clearly amounts to double taxation of the fees twice, namely once on reverse charge basis by the client and again in the hands of senior advocate," the petition filed by advocate Ruchir Bhatia said.

DHCBA has also contended that there were already two petitions challenging levy of service tax on advocates on forward charge basis and reverse charge basis, which are pending adjudication in Delhi High Court and have been stayed by way of interim orders. PIL on judges' retirement age dismissed.

The Supreme Court on Friday declined a plea seeking to raise the retirement age of the apex court judges asking the petitioner if he wanted the judges to continue for ever. "Do you want us to continue (as judges) for ever," Chief Justice T.S. Thakur asked petitioner Vibhor Anand, pointing out to him that the provisions he was relying upon concerned the determination of judges' age in the event of any doubt and not their retirement age.

The bench, which also had Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, told Anand that the age of a judge was different from their retirement age which was prescribed under the constitution. Clause 2 of the constitution's article 124 says: "Every judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years."