Introduction
The increasing monetarization is society in social, political atmosphere is created problematic, alarming situation which approaching sometimes criminality that unhealthy position to society. Due to this, it is adversely being affected to every corner of society including the policy of Government. Hence the expected results on the basis of policy could not be achieved. The different activities of money has got its importance upto such extent that it is almost become presumption that for everything money is required which resulted in compelling circumstances of creation of money till the need is satisfied and ultimately turned in ‘black-money’ which generally is not accounted as expressed in economics. This concept of ‘black-money’ is putting us in its temptation as that is rather easy and hence is unfortunately increasing day-by-day. ‘Black-money’ hardly helps the economy in real sense. Therefore it has become necessary to control said situation and to bring the unaccounted money, ‘black-money’ in transaction by Government by taking different steps within the four corners of legislations.
Relevant legislations, Legal Provisions and precedents relied on
• Relevant Legislations and Provisions
1. Constitution of India
2. Right to Information Act
• Precedents relied on
1. Vineet Narain v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0926/1996 : (1996) 2 SCC 199,
2. NHRC v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 8 SCC 610
3. Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2005) 5 SCC 517
4. Centre for PIL v. Union of India, MANU/SC/1074/2010 : (2011) 1 SCC 560
5. Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, MANU/SC/1219/2003:(2004)10 SCC 1
Brief Facts of case and discussion
• Brief Facts and discussion
Part – I
1. The worries of this Court that arise, are
a. To transfers of monies, and accumulation of monies, which are unaccounted for by individuals and other legal entities in the country, in foreign banks.
b. Not merely to quantum of monies said to have been secreted away in foreign banks, but also manner in which they may have been taken away from country, and with the nature of activities that may have engendered the accumulation of such monies.
c. Nature of activities that such monies may engender, both in terms of concentration of economic power, and also the fact that such monies may be transferred to groups, individuals who may use them for unlawful activities that are extremely dangerous to nation, including actions against the State.
d. Whether activities of engendering such unaccounted monies, transferring them abroad, and routing them back may not actually be creating a culture that extols the virtue of such cycles, and activities that engender such cycles are viewed as desirable modes of individual and group action.
e. The manner, and extent to which such cycles are damaging to both national and international attempts to combat the extent, nature and intensity of cross-border criminal activity.
f. The extent of incapacities, system wide, in terms of institutional resources, skills, and knowledge, as well as about incapacities of ethical nature, in keeping an account of monies generated by various facets of social action in the country, and thereby developing effective mechanisms of control.
These incapacities go to heart of constitutional imperatives of governance. Whether such incapacities are on account of not having devoted enough resources towards building such capacities, or on account of a broader culture of venality in the wider spheres of social and political action, they run afoul of constitutional imperatives.
2. Large amounts of unaccounted monies, stashed away in banks located in jurisdictions that thrive on strong privacy laws protecting bearers of those accounts to avoid scrutiny, raise each and every worry delineated above. Security of nation, infrastructure of governance, including those that relate to law making and law keeping functions, crime prevention, detection and punishment, coordination of the economy, and ensuring minimal levels of material, and cultural goods for those who may not be in a position to fend for themselves or who have been left by the wayside by the operation of the economy and society.
3. If the State is soft to a large extent, especially in terms of the unholy nexus between the law makers, the law keepers, and the law breakers, the moral authority, and also the moral incentives, to exercise suitable control over the economy and the society would vanish. India finds itself in a peculiar situation. that some of its nationals and other legal entities have stashed the largest quantum of unaccounted monies in foreign banks, especially in tax havens, and in other jurisdictions with strong laws of secrecy.
4. Issues of large sums of unaccounted monies, allegedly held by certain named individuals, and loose associations of them; consequently court has to express its serious concerns from a constitutional perspective. The amount of unaccounted monies, as alleged by the Government of India itself is massive. The show cause notices were issued a substantial length of time ago. The named individuals were very much present in the country. Yet, for unknown, and possibly unknowable, though easily surmisable, reasons the investigations into the matter proceeded at a laggardly pace. Even the named individuals had not yet been questioned with any degree of seriousness. These are serious lapses, especially when viewed from the perspective of larger issues of security, both internal and external, of the country.
Part – II
1. As per petitioners various individuals, mostly citizens, but may also include non-citizens, and other entities with presence in India, have generated, and secreted away large sums of monies, through their activities in India or relating to India, in various foreign banks, especially in tax havens, and jurisdictions that have strong secrecy laws with respect to contents of bank accounts and the identities of individuals holding such accounts. Most of such monies are unaccounted, and in all probability have been generated through unlawful activities, whether in India or outside India, but relating to India. Large part of such monies may have been generated within India, and have been taken away from India, breaking various laws, including but not limited to evasion of taxes.
(i) Sheer volume of such monies points to grave weaknesses in governance of the nation, because they indicate a significant lack of control over unlawful activities through which such monies are generated, evasion of taxes, and use of unlawful means of transfer of funds; (ii) These funds are then laundered and brought back into India, to be used in both legal and illegal activities; (iii) The use of various unlawful modes of transfer of funds across borders, gives support to such unlawful networks of international finance; and (iv) In as much as such unlawful networks are widely acknowledged to also effectuate transfer of funds across borders in aid of various crimes committed against persons and the State, including but not limited to activities that may be classifiable as terrorist, extremist, or unlawful narcotic trade, the prevailing situation also has very serious connotations for the security and integrity of India.
2. Even though such evidence was secured against Hassan Ali Khan nearly four and half years ago, (i) proper investigation had not been launched to obtain the right facts from abroad; (ii) individuals concerned, though present in India, and subject to its jurisdiction, and easily available for its exercise, had not even been interrogated appropriately; (iii) Union of India, and its various departments, had even been refusing to divulge details and information that would reveal actual status of the investigation, whether in fact it was being conducted at all, or with any degree of seriousness; (iv) given the magnitude of amounts in question, especially of demand notice of income tax, laxity of investigation indicates multiple problems of serious non-governance, and weaknesses in system, including pressure from political quarters to hinder, or scuttle, the investigation, prosecution, and ultimately securing the return of such monies; and (v) given the broadly accepted fact that within the political class corruption is rampant, ill-begotten wealth has begun to be amassed in massive quantities by many members in that class, it may be reasonable to suspect, or even conclude, that investigation was being deliberately hindered because Hassan Ali Khan, and the Tapurias, had or were continuing to handle the monies of such a class. The fact that both Income Tax department, and the Enforcement Directorate routinely, and with alacrity, seek powers for long stretches of custodial interrogation of even those suspected of having engaged in money laundering, or evaded taxes, with respect to very small amounts, ought to raise the reasonable suspicion that inaction in the matters concerning, was deliberately engineered, for nefarious reasons. The inaction of Union of India is shocking.
3. In 2007, Reserve Bank of India had obtained some "knowledge of dubious character" of UBS Security India Private Limited and consequently stopped this bank from extending its business in India by refusing to approve its takeover of Standard Chartered Mutual Funds business in India. SEBI had alleged that UBS played a role in the stock market crash of 2004. UBS Bank has apparently applied for a retail banking license in India, which was approved in principle by RBI initially. In 2008, this license was withheld on the ground that "investigation of its unsavoury role in the Hassan Ali Khan case was pending investigation in the Enforcement Directorate." However, it seems that the RBI reversed its decision in 2009, and no good reasons seem to be forthcoming for the reversal of the decision of 2008. Hence in circumstances it would have to be concluded that the investigations into the affairs of Hassan Ali Khan, and Tapurias, would be severely compromised if the Court does not intervene, and monitor the investigative processes by appointing a special investigation team reporting directly to the Court.
4. Prayed to intervene, order proper investigations, and monitor continuously, the actions of Union of India and its departments, in these matters. As inaction of Union of India violates fundamental rights - to proper governance, as per Article 14 provides for equality before law and equal protection of law, and Article 21 promises dignity of life to all citizens. Having regard to nature of investigation, its slow pace, and non-seriousness on part of Respondents, there is a need to constitute a Special Investigation Team ("SIT") headed by a former judge or two of Supreme Court. However, this has been resisted by Solicitor General. Relying that all possible steps were being taken to bring back the monies stashed in foreign banks, and that investigations in cases registered were proceeding in an appropriate manner. He expressed his willingness for Court monitored investigation. The Respondents, in principle, have no objections whatsoever against main submissions of the petitioners. Whether there is a need to constitute a SIT to be headed by judge or two, of this Court, to supervise investigation.
5. Supreme Court express serious reservations about responses of Union of India. In the first instance, attempts were clearly evasive, confused, or originating in the denial mode. It was only upon being repeatedly pressed by court did Union of India begin to admit that indeed the investigation was proceeding very slowly. In fact investigation had completely stalled, in as much as custodial interrogation of Hassan Ali Khan had not even been sought for, even though he was very much resident in India. It also now appears that even though his passport had been impounded, he was able to secure another passport from the RPO in Patna, possibly with the help or aid of a politician.
6. During continuing interrogation of Hassan Ali Khan, Tapurias, undertaken for the first time at behest of this Court, many names of important persons, including leaders of some corporate giants, politically powerful people, and international arms dealers have cropped up. So far, no significant attempt has been made to investigate and verify the same. This is a further cause for the grave concerns of this Court, and points to the need for continued, effective and day to day monitoring by a SIT constituted by this Court, and acting on behalf, behest and direction of this Court.
7. The issues are complex, requiring expertise and knowledge of different departments, and the necessity of coordination of efforts across various agencies and departments, it was submitted to us that the Union of India has recently formed a High Level Committee, under the aegis of Department of Revenue in Ministry of Finance, which is the nodal agency responsible for all economic offences. The Union of India claims that such a multi-disciplinary group and committee would now enable the conducting of an efficient and a systematic investigation into the matters concerning allegations and such a committee would also enable the taking of appropriate steps to bring back the monies stashed in foreign banks, for which purposes a need may arise to register further cases. Union of India also claims that formation of such a committee indicates seriousness with which it is viewing the entire matter.
8. Court was not convinced that the situation has changed to the extent that it ought to so as to accept that the investigation would now be conducted with the degree of seriousness that is warranted. According to the Union of India HLC was formed in order to take charge of and direct the entire investigation, and subsequently, the prosecution. In the meanwhile a charge sheet has been filed against Hassan Ali Khan. Upon inquiry by us as to whether the charge-sheet had been vetted by the HLC, and its inputs secured, the counsel for Union of India were flummoxed. The fact was that the charge-sheet had not been given even for the perusal of the HLC, let alone securing its inputs, guidance and direction. Court is not satisfied by the explanation offered by the Directorate of Enforcement by way of affidavit after the orders were reserved. Be it noted that a nodal agency was set up, pursuant to directions of this Court in Vineet Narain case given many years ago. Yet the same was not involved and these matters were never placed before it. Why?
9. Moreover, Union of India has been unable to answer any of the questions regarding its past actions, and their implications. The question that arises is whether the task of bringing foreign funds into India override all other constitutional concerns and obligations?
10. What is important – 1. Union of India had obtained knowledge, documents and information that indicated possible connections between Hassan Ali Khan, and his alleged co-conspirators and known international arms dealers. 2. It was also in possession of information that suggested that because the international arms dealing network, and a very prominent dealer in it, could not open a bank account even in a jurisdiction that is generally acknowledged to lay great emphasis on not asking sources of money being deposited into its banks, Hassan Ali Khan may have played a crucial role in opening an account with the branch of the same bank in another jurisdiction. The volume of alleged income taxes owed to the country, as demanded by the Union of India itself, and the volume of monies, by some accounts US $8.04 billion, and some other accounts in excess of Rs. 70,000 crores, that are said to have been routed through various bank accounts of Hassan Ali Khan, and Tapurias. 3. From all accounts it has been acknowledged that none of named individuals have any known and lawful sources for such huge quantities of monies.
11. This highly complex investigation has in fact just begun. It is still too early to conclude that Union of India has indeed placed all necessary machinery to conduct proper investigation. Formation of HLC was necessary step, and may even be characterized as a welcome step, though an insufficient step. Hence court had proposed to Union of India that same HLC constituted by it be converted into a Special Investigation Team, headed by two retired judges of Supreme Court of India. Union of India opposes, but provides no principle as to why that would be undesirable, especially in light of the many lapses and lacunae in its actions in these matters spread over the past four years.
12. The resources of this Court are scarce, and it is over-burdened with the task of rendering justice. Nevertheless, this Court is bound to uphold Constitution, and its own burdens, excessive as they already are, cannot become an excuse for it to not perform that task. In a country where most of its people are uneducated and illiterate, suffering from hunger and squalor, the retraction of the monitoring of these matters by this Court would be unconscionable. Ultimately the protection of the Constitution and striving to promote its vision and values is an elemental mode of service to our people.
13. In many instances, in the past, when issues referred to the Court have been very complex in nature, and yet required the intervention of the Court, Special Investigation Teams have been ordered and constituted in order to enable the Court, and the Union of India and/or other organs of the State, to fulfil their constitutional obligations.
Part – III
1. Disclosure of various documents referenced by Union of India, as sought by petitioners, including names and bank particulars, relate to various bank accounts, of Indian citizens, in Principality of Liechtenstein ("Liechtenstein"), a small landlocked sovereign nation-state in Europe. It is generally acknowledged that Liechtenstein is a tax haven.
2. Union of India – (i) They secured the names of individuals with bank accounts in banks in Liechtenstein, and other details with respect to such bank accounts, pursuant to an agreement of India with Germany for avoidance of double taxation and prevention of fiscal evasion; (ii) The said agreement proscribes Union of India from disclosing such names, and other documents and information with respect to such bank accounts, to Petitioners, even in context of these ongoing proceedings before this Court; (iii) The disclosure of such names, and other documents and information, secured from Germany, would jeopardize the relations of India with a foreign state; (iv) The disclosure of such names, and other documents and information, would violate the right to privacy of those individuals who may have only deposited monies in a lawful manner; (v) Disclosure of names, and other documents and information can be made with respect to those individuals with regard to whom investigations are completed, and proceedings initiated; and (vi) Contrary to assertions by the Petitioners, it was Germany which had asked the Union of India to seek the information under double taxation agreement, and that this was in response to an earlier request by Union of India for the said information.
3. Whether Union of India could have sought and secured names, other documents and information, without having to take recourse to double taxation agreement is not relevant? For the purposes of determining whether Union of India is obligated to disclose the information that it obtained, from Germany, with respect to accounts of Indian citizens in a bank in Principality of Liechtenstein, need only to examine the claims of Union of India as to whether it is proscribed by double taxation agreement with Germany from disclosing such information. Further, and most importantly, court would also have to examine whether in the context of Article 32 proceedings before this Court, wherein this Court has exercised jurisdiction, the Union of India can claim exemption from providing such information to petitioners, and also with respect to issues of right to privacy of individuals who hold such accounts, and with respect of whom no investigations have yet been commenced, or only partially conducted, so that State has not yet issued a show cause and initiated proceedings.
4. The said agreement does not proscribe the disclosure of the relevant documents and details of the same, including the names of various bank account holders in Liechtenstein. The names of the individuals are with respect to bank accounts in the Liechtenstein, which though populated by largely German speaking people, is an independent and sovereign nation-state. The agreement between Germany and India is with regard to various issues that crop up with respect to German and Indian citizens' liability to pay taxes to Germany and/or India. It does not even remotely touch upon information regarding Indian citizens' bank accounts in Liechtenstein that Germany secures and shares that have no bearing upon the matters that are covered by the double taxation agreement between the two countries. The "information" referred to in Article 26 is that which is "necessary for carrying out the purposes of this agreement", i.e. the Indo-German DTAA. Therefore, information sought does not fall within the ambit of this provision. It is disingenuous for the Union of India, under these circumstances, to repeatedly claim that it is unable to reveal the documents and names as sought by the Petitioners on the ground that the same is proscribed by the said agreement. It does not matter that Germany itself may have asked India to treat the information shared as being subject to the confidentiality and secrecy clause of the double taxation agreement. It is for the Union of India, and the courts, in appropriate proceedings, to determine whether such information concerns matters that are covered by the double taxation agreement or not.
5. The relevant agreement with Germany would indicate that, contrary to the assertions of Union of India, there is no absolute bar of secrecy. Instead the agreement specifically provides that the information may be disclosed in public court proceedings, which instant proceedings are. The proceedings in this matter, relate both to issue of tax collection with respect to unaccounted monies deposited into foreign bank accounts, as well as with issues relating to the manner in which such monies were generated, which may include activities that are criminal in nature also. Comity of nations cannot be predicated upon clauses of secrecy that could hinder constitutional proceedings such as these, or criminal proceedings. The government cannot bind India in a manner that derogates from Constitutional provisions, values and imperatives.
6. The redundancy that would have to be ascribed to the said last sentence of Article 26(1) of double taxation agreement with Germany, if the position of Union of India were to be accepted, also leads to manifest absurdity, in context of Indian Constitution. Such a redundancy would mean that constitutional imperatives themselves are to be set aside. Modern constitutionalism, to which Germany is a major contributor too, especially in terms of the basic structure doctrine, specifies that powers vested in any organ of the State have to be exercised within the four corners of the Constitution, and further that organs created by a constitution cannot change the identity of the constitution itself.
7. The basic structure of Constitution cannot be amended even by the amending power of the legislature. Our Constitution guarantees the right, pursuant to Clause (1) of Article 32, to petition this Court on ground that rights guaranteed have been violated. This provision is a part of the basic structure of Constitution that empowers Court to issue "directions or orders or writs. This is also a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
8. The burden of asserting, and proving, by relevant evidence claim in judicial proceedings would ordinarily be placed upon proponent of such claim; however, the burden of protection of fundamental rights is primarily the duty of the State. Withholding of information, or seeking to cast the relevant events and facts in a light favourable to State in context of the proceedings, even though ultimately detrimental to essential task of protecting fundamental rights, would be destructive to the guarantee and substantially eviscerate the capacity of Court in exercising its powers and those traceable to other provisions of the Constitution and broader jurisprudence of constitutionalism, in upholding fundamental rights.
9. Withholding of information by State, thereby constraining their freedom of speech and expression, may be premised only on the exceptions carved out, in Clause (2) of Article 19, "in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence" or by law that demarcate exceptions, provided that such a law comports with the enumerated grounds in Clause (2) of Article 19, or that may be provided for elsewhere in the Constitution.
10. The actions of governments can only be lawful when exercised within the four corners of constitutional permissibility. No treaty can be entered into, or interpreted, such that constitutional fealty is derogated from. The redundancy, that Union of India presses, with respect to the last sentence of Article 26(1)of the double taxation agreement with Germany, necessarily transgresses upon the boundaries erected by our Constitution. It cannot be permitted.
11. Perused the documents in question, and heard Union of India with respect to the double taxation agreement with Germany as an obstacle to disclosure. Court do not find merit in its arguments flowing from the provisions of double taxation agreement with Germany. However, one major constitutional issue, and concern remains. This is with regard to whether the names of individuals, and details of their bank accounts, with respect to whom there has been no completed investigations that reveal wrong doing and proceedings initiated, and there is no other credible information and evidence currently available with the petitioners that there has been any wrong doing, may be disclosed to them.
12. Right to privacy is an integral part of right to life. This is a cherished constitutional value, and it is important that human beings be allowed domains of freedom that are free of public scrutiny unless they act in an unlawful manner. The situation with respect to unaccounted monies is extremely grave. The rights of citizens, to effectively seek the protection of fundamental rights, under Clause (1) of Article 32 have to be balanced against the rights of citizens and persons under Article 21. The latter cannot be sacrificed on the anvil of fervid desire to find instantaneous solutions to systemic problems such as unaccounted monies, for it would lead to dangerous circumstances, in which vigilante investigations, inquisitions and rabble rousing, by masses of other citizens could become the order of the day. The right of citizens to petition this Court for upholding of fundamental rights is granted in order that citizens, inter-alia, are ever vigilant about the functioning of the State in order to protect the constitutional project. That right cannot be extended to being inquisitors of fellow citizens. An inquisitorial order, where citizens' fundamental right to privacy is breached by fellow citizens is destructive of social order.
Conclusion and importance of case
• Conclusion
Part – I
There are two issues as (i) the appointment of a Special Investigation Team; and (ii) disclosure, to the Petitioners, of certain documents relied upon by the Union of India in its response.
Part – II
In light of the above herewith order:
(i) High Level Committee constituted by Union of India, comprising of (i) Secretary, Department of Revenue; (ii) Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India; (iii) Director (IB); (iv) Director, Enforcement; (v) Director, CBI; (vi) Chairman, CBDT; (vii) DG, Narcotics Control Bureau; (vii) DG, Revenue Intelligence; (ix) Director, Financial Intelligence Unit; and (x) JS (FT & TR-I), CBDT be forthwith appointed with immediate effect as a Special Investigation Team;
(ii) Special Investigation Team, so constituted, also include Director, Research and Analysis Wing;
(iii) Above SIT, so constituted, be headed by and include the following former eminent judges of this Court: (a) Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy as Chairman; and (b) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah as Vice-Chairman; and that the Special Investigation Team function under their guidance and direction;
(iv) SIT, so constituted, shall be charged with the responsibilities and duties of investigation, initiation of proceedings, and prosecution, whether in the context of appropriate criminal or civil proceedings of: (a) all issues relating to the matters concerning and arising from unaccounted monies of Hassan Ali Khan and the Tapurias; (b) all other investigations already commenced and are pending, or awaiting to be initiated, with respect to any other known instances of the stashing of unaccounted monies in foreign bank accounts by Indians or other entities operating in India; and (c) all other matters with respect to unaccounted monies being stashed in foreign banks by Indians or other entities operating in India that may arise in the course of such investigations and proceedings. It is clarified here that within the ambit of responsibilities described above, also lie the responsibilities to ensure that the matters are also investigated, proceedings initiated and prosecutions conducted with regard to criminality and/or unlawfulness of activities that may have been the source for such monies, as well as the criminal and/or unlawful means that are used to take such unaccounted monies out of and/or bring such monies back into the country, and use of such monies in India or abroad. The Special Investigation Team shall also be charged with the responsibility of preparing a comprehensive action plan, including the creation of necessary institutional structures that can enable and strengthen the country's battle against generation of unaccounted monies, and their stashing away in foreign banks or in various forms domestically.
(v) SIT so constituted report and be responsible to this Court, and that it shall be charged with the duty to keep this Court informed of all major developments by the filing of periodic status reports, and following of any special orders that this Court may issue from time to time;
(vi) All organs, agencies, departments and agents of the State, whether at the level of the Union of India, or the State Government, including but not limited to all statutorily formed individual bodies, and other constitutional bodies, extend all the cooperation necessary for the Special Investigation Team so constituted and functioning;
(vii) Union of India, and where needed even the State Governments, are directed to facilitate the conduct of the investigations, in their fullest measure, by the Special Investigation Team so constituted and functioning, by extending all the necessary financial, material, legal, diplomatic and intelligence resources, whether such investigations or portions of such investigations occur inside the country or abroad.
(viii) SIT also be empowered to further investigate even where charge-sheets have been previously filed; and that the Special Investigation Team may register further cases, and conduct appropriate investigations and initiate proceedings, for the purpose of bringing back unaccounted monies unlawfully kept in bank accounts abroad.
Part – III
In light of the above we order that:
(i) Union of India shall forthwith disclose all those documents and information which they have secured from Germany, in connection with the matters discussed above, subject to the conditions specified in (ii) below;
(ii) Union of India is exempted from revealing the names of those individuals who have accounts in banks of Liechtenstein, and revealed to it by Germany, with respect of who investigations/enquiries are still in progress and no information or evidence of wrongdoing is yet available;
(iii) The names of those individuals with bank accounts in Liechtenstein, as revealed by Germany, with respect of whom investigations have been concluded, either partially or wholly, and show cause notices issued and proceedings initiated may be disclosed; and
(iv) Special Investigation Team, constituted pursuant to the orders of today by this Court, shall take over the matter of investigation of the individuals whose names have been disclosed by Germany as having accounts in banks in Liechtenstein, and expeditiously conduct the same. The Special Investigation Team shall review the concluded matters also in this regard to assess whether investigations have been thoroughly and properly conducted or not, and on coming to the conclusion that there is a need for further investigation shall proceed further in the matter. After conclusion of such investigations by the Special Investigation Team, the Respondents may disclose the names with regard to whom show cause notices have been issued and proceedings initiated.
• Importance
To achieve the target of developed economy, there shall be control of law over it which shall always be only after strict implementation of the Rules and Regulation enacted by the Government as per its policy in the light of the four corners of the Constitution and shall always be followed by the citizens, persons and individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment