Naavi.org

After a long time UIDAI has realized what was evident all along that that it had an option to issue digitally signed letters to confirm aadhar numbers electronically.  UIDAI has now announced that e aadhar numbers will now be issued with digital signatures.

Amongst other thins this will enable a greater recognition to “Digital Signatures” as a means of authentication and ensure that other institutions such as Banks who have been resisting its use will now have weaker excuses.

More information

Naavi

Cyber Crime observers are well aware of “Nigerian Frauds” where people from Nigeria cheat persons globally on false allurements. Exporters to Nigeria are aware from times immemorial that remittances from Nigeria are unreliable. Bankers refuse to finance exporters for exports to Nigeria.

Now it appears that Hong Kong is also becoming a country like Nigeria where criminals are opening bank accounts to commit frauds on the global netizens.

In one of the cases reported in India, an importer has been lured to transfer money due to the Chinese Company to an account in Hong Kong which happenned to be a fraudulent account.

It is also reported that Hong Kong is trying to develop “Secret Banking” on the Swiss Banking model so that tax evaders and criminals in the world can now switch their Swiss Bank accounts to Hong Kong.

In view of the above if any remittance is sent to a bank in Hong Kong, the remitter may find it very difficult to recover the money through normal legal course.

I therefore urge Reserve Bank of India to send an advisory to all Banks that any remittances to a Bank in Hong Kong should be subjected to a check on the authenticity of the recipient. The receiving Bank must give an undertaking that any customer recipient of a remittance from India is not a criminal and the remittance is not part of money laundering.

Naavi

I refer to my earlier article on “Risk Appetite” where I had highlighted the fact that many managements are unaware of risks and hence keep on consuming the risks until one day it is too late to correct.

CISO s by virtue of their exposure to threat environments may try to keep their managements informed from time to time the need to undertake “Risk Assessments” and initiate “Risk Mitigation” efforts. But often in organizations which have a low Information Security awareness, CISO even if one such designation exists may not have adequate authority to reach out to the top management. In many organizations there will be only an IT Manager and no CISO. Only if the IT manager has adequate security exposure, he tries to bring it to the notice of the management the need for a risk assessment and initiate some action leading to Risk assessment.

In this context when the need for Information Security is presented as a “Legal Compliance” mandate, the possibilities of the top managements understanding the implications are higher. If the Chairman is made aware that he may personally go to jail if adequate security is not in place, then only the Board of Directors will call for a presentation from the IT head on the need for creating a Information Security department and proceed further.

The path to Information Security implementation is therefore through the fear of legal consequences. This needs to be communicated to the top management through various means to kink off the IS process.

Even after this, before the top management can agree to an Information Security program, they need to be aware of the compliance requirements and consequences of non compliance. Hence building the “Awareness about Legal aspects of Information Security” often becomes the starting point for Information Security in an organization.

It is for this reason that the undersigned often recommends that the IT department may organize an “Awareness Workshop” for top management before even discussing the details of what is the Risk assessment program, how much it may cost, how long it may take and what benefits that the organization may expect.

This “Information Security/Assurance Feasibility Workshop” is one of the services that the undersigned has proposed to help the CISOs break the barriers of communication.

I hope more and more companies will opt for such a workshop which is a low cost investment before they take the decision to proceed further.

Naavi

The power to pardon which the President of India and the Governors are empowered to exercise under our constitution have come for a debate in the context of Sanjay Dutt being convicted by the Supreme Court of India.

A good review of the provisions of the law is available here: http://www.lawteacher.net/administrative-law/essays/power-to-pardon-an-analysis-law-essays.php

For the general information of the public, I am reproducing the two articles of the Constitution that provide powers to the President and the Governor.

Article 72 : Powers of the President:

(1) The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence—

(a) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial;

(b) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;

(c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.

Article 161 : Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases:

The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends

However the orders if any are subject to Judicial Review as per the following Supreme Court decisions.

In Swaran Singh v State of U.P. [10] , the Governor of U.P. had granted remission of life sentence awarded to the Minister of the State Legislature of Assembly convicted for the offence of murder. The Supreme Court interdicted the Governor’s order and said that it is true that it has no power to touch the order passed by the Governor under Article 161, but if such power has been exercised arbitrarily, mala fide or in absolute disregard of the “finer cannons of constitutionalism”, such order cannot get approval of law and in such cases, “the judicial hand must be stretched to it.” The Court held the order of Governor arbitrary and, hence, needed to be interdicted.

In the early case of K.M. Nanavati v State of Bombay [11] , Governor granted reprieve under Article 161 which was held unconstitutional as it was in contrast with the Supreme Court rulings under Article 145.

In a landmark judgment Epuru Sudhakar & Anr vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors [12] , it was held by the Supreme Court that it is a well-set principle that a limited judicial review of exercise of clemency powers is available to the Supreme Court and High Courts. Granting of clemency by the President or Governor can be challenged on the following grounds:

The order has been passed without application of mind.

The order is mala fide.

The order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations.

Relevant material has been kept out of consideration.

The order suffers from arbitrariness.

Now that Mr Sanjay Dutt has said he will not apply for pardon, and Mr Katju insists that he will do so, the issue of whether a third party can apply for pardon will also come for discussion. In either case the review would be possible if any person either Mr Subramanya Swamy or Mrs Abha Singh files a review petition.

We are all aware how the Governors of different States are appointed. The position is occupied by hard core politicians who some times return to politics after a stint as a Governor. In such cases, granting them powers to overrule the Supreme Court judgements is very very dangerous. So far the only pardons that are being discussed were remission of death sentence and converting them into life sentence. This had some logic. But what is being discussed now is whether a prison sentence of 3 years and 6 months should be cancelled. If this is allowed then there would be no respect for any Court judgement and all the politically strong criminals will be able to get the support of politician Governors and escape punishments given to them by Courts after years of prosecution.

Such pardons will not be of any use to common people since it would only be used by politically powerful persons. Persons like Raja Bhayya or even Kanzimoli (under DMK Government in the State) can never be punished.

The provision of pardon is therefore not to be exercised without a very stringent control mechanism. The best option is to develop a public referendum if a suitable mechanism is in place (possible in the Netizen world). In the case of Sanjay Dutt type references which is closely related to “National Security” the state Government alone (in this case Maharashtra) should not have a say. Hence a referendum should be conducted by the same collegium that elects the Indian President which includes the MLAs/MLCs of all the State Government before any executive action is contemplated. Mere advise of the State Cabinet should not be considered acceptable.

Subsequently the decision should be subjected to mandatory review at Supreme Court before the terms of pardon are taken cognizance of.

Hopefully some of these points will be discussed in detail in the coming days.

Naavi