Saturday, May 11, 2013
A succinct analysis of the famous judgment of Hon'ble Justice Mr. G P Mittal in the Constable Tomar Case
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
|Alumni, faculty and students of IIT express support for Anna Hazare in New Delhi|
Marching with placards, the students demanded that Hazare's Jan Lokpal Bill be made into a law.
Advani met the students and assured them of his party's support for a strong Lokpal.
"There is no criminal law which exempts any one. even the Prevention of Corruption Act does not exempt the prime minister. On the Lokpal, we are of the view that the prime minister should be under the purview of the Lokpal," Advani told the students.
The IITians' protests come a day after BJP top brass met Team Anna over the party's misgivings about certain provisions of the Jan Lokpal. The BJP on Thursday said that it was ready to support the Jan Lokpal Bill to the extent it does not dilute Parliament and the Constitution.
Raj Shekhar, TNN Aug 28, 2011, 02.41am IST
Friday, August 5, 2011
Anna Hazare's message to the Nation for 15th and 16th AugustMy Dear Fellow Indians, A decisive battle against corruption has begun. We are not against any political party. We want systemic reforms. We want a corruption-free India. After all, what are the people asking for – a strong anti-corruption law which provides for honest and time-bound investigations and trials that result in jail for the guilty, confiscation of embezzled money and their dismissal from service? Are we asking too much? For two months, we were talking to the government. Government seems unwilling to take even small steps against corruption. Government appears insincere. We have met all prominent political leaders. We have tried everything. What do we do now? When I announced my indefinite fast from 16th August, the government threatened that they would crush us the way they crushed Baba Ramdev's peaceful agitation. Friends, this is a historic opportunity. We can't afford to lose it. We are determined to fight to the end. If they arrest us, we will peacefully offer ourselves. If they use batons and bullets, we will happily lay down our lives but will not leave the place. We will not retaliate. It will be a completely non-violent movement. “If you fast on 16th August, you will be crushed” – this is what they are saying. “We will impose section 144 on Jantar Mantar” – this is what they are thinking. But I say that if every citizen in this country takes off from his work from 16th August, comes on the streets in front of his house, at the crossing, with a tricolor in his hands shouting “Bharat Mata ki Jai” and raising slogans against corruption, they will fall short of batons and bullets. The government may arrest one Anna Hazare but how will they arrest 120 crore Anna Hazares? They may impose section 144 at one Jantar Mantar but will they impose section 144 on the whole country? And let me tell you – the police and army is with us. At traffic signals, policemen stop us, express their support and wish us well; at Raj Ghat, the policemen donated generously for the movement! So, will you take off from your work from 16 August? Will you descend on the streets with me? This year, the country will wait for 16th rather than 15th August. In solidarity, thanks Anna Hazare (Please make copies of this pamphlet and distribute it in large nos.) “WHY GOVERNMENT'S LOKPAL IS DANGEROUS???” Government's Lokpal is targeted against those who raise their voice against corruption rather than to punish the corrupt! The government's Lokpal bill covers only about 0.5% of public servants, yet it brings under its ambit virtually every citizen's group and organization, registered or unregistered, meant to serve the social sector. This raises a pertinent question -- whom is the Lokpal really targeted at? There are more than 1.25 crore central and state government employees. Out of this merely 65,000 Group A Central Government employees would be covered in the government bill leaving out all the lower officers and staff. This effectively means that there is no remedy against corruption that a common person faces daily in police, roads, industry, licensing, transport, roadways, municipality, rations, health services, education, pension, provident funds, Panchayat, forest department, irrigation department, etc. On the other hand, Lokpal would have jurisdiction over ALL NGOs, trusts, societies like Resident Welfare Associations(RWAs), big or small, whether registered or unregistered, whether they receive government funding or not, up to the village level! For instance, consider a group of citizens that unearths corruption of the Sarpanch and Block Development officer (BDO) in a village. The government's Lokpal can't take any action against the Sarpanch or BDO but it CAN lock up the group of HONEST active CITIZENS. Each and every association, like Resident Welfare Associations, Market Associations, even your neighborhood committees that organize festivals like Durga Puja, Ramlila, etc. would be under the purview of Lokpal. While there is no disagreement that the rot of corruption is also afflicting many societies, associations and NGOs, there already exists a plethora of laws like the Trust Act, Societies Act, FCRA, etc. to monitor them. Lokpal was originally intended for checking corruption in public servants. Regardless, if it is being extended to all associations of civil society, then why shouldn't it also cover all companies, businesses, political parties, and media houses? Government's Lokpal Provides Greater Protection to Corrupt! Provisions in the government's Lokpal Bill heavily favour corrupt public servants. Under this bill, a public servant accused of corruption is allowed to turn around and file a lawsuit against the complainant accusing him of filing a frivolous complaint. The government will provide a free advocate to the accused to help prove the citizen was wrong, while the citizen has to fend for himself. If the complaint proves to be frivolous, the minimum sentence FOR THE CITIZEN is TWO YEARS. But if the corruption charges are proved, the minimum sentence for the public servant is just SIX MONTHS! Will then any citizen dare raise a voice against corruption?
Thursday, July 14, 2011
- Keeping the countrymen deep scared, instilling fear psychosis in their being so that their questioning tendencies go away. So that any uprising against corruption, against malpractices of the powerful stop and does not rise again.
- With countries becoming nuclear enabled and empowered, the possibility of war has terribly decreased. Now all these countries know that one mistake by one country and the chain would start wiping out the total habitation off the earth. Hence no old time war would happen wherein they used small weapons to attack the other. Available information suggest that the nuclear arsenal, in possession with various countries, is good enough to wipe out the earth 15-16 times. I wonder why do we need so much nuclear arsenals, after all not everybody is Jesus Christ that a resurrection will happen and that too 15-16 times which even Jesus would have failed. In absence of such wars which were great markets of small weapons; these weapons now get used in the name of terrorism. I am sure that the persons involved in such businesses will realize someday their misdeeds. I have read that the king who ordered crucifixion of Jesus developed one life-time disease of washing his hands believing them to be stained with the blood of Jesus.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Again in Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra, (supra) the question arose whether a Magistrate to whom a report under Section 173(1) had been submitted to the effect that no case had been made out against the accused, could direct the police to file a charge-sheet, on his disagreeing with the report submitted by the Police. this Court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct the police to submit a charge-sheet. It was open to the Magistrate to agree or disagree with the police report. If he agreed with the report that there was no case made out for issuing process to the accused, he might accept the report and close the proceedings. If he came to the conclusion that further investigation was necessary he might make an order to that effect under Section 156(3). If ultimately the Magistrate was of the opinion that the facts set out in the police report constituted an offence he could take cognizance of the offence, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expressed in the report. While expressing the opinion that the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police the Court observed that the Magistrate could take cognizance under Section 190(1)(c)'. We do not have any doubt that the reference to 'Section 190(1)(c)' was a mistake for 'Section 190(1)(b)'. That appears to be obvious to us. But Shri Kapil Sibal urged that the reference was indeed to Section 190(1)(c) since at that time Section 190(1)(c) included the words 'or suspicion' and the Court had apparently taken the view that the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence not under Section 190(1)(b) as if on a police report but under Section 190(1)(c) as if 'on suspicion'. We do not agree with this submission. Section 190(1)(c) was never intended to apply to cases where there was a police report under Section 173(1). We find it impossible to say that a Magistrate who takes cognizance of an offence on the basis of the facts disclosed in a police report must be said to have taken cognizance of the offence on suspicion and not upon a police report merely because the Magistrate and the Police arrived at different conclusions from the facts. The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the police even as he is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the complainant in a complaint. If a complainant States the relevant facts in his complaint and alleges that the accused is guilty of an offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion of the complainant. He may think that the facts disclose an offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code only and he may take cognizance of an offence under Section 324 instead of Section 307. Similarly if a police report mentions that half a dozen persons examined by them claim to be eye witnesses to a murder but that for various reasons the witnesses could not be believed, the Magistrate is not bound to accept the opinion of the police regarding the credibility of the witnesses. He may prefer to ignore the conclusions of the police regarding the credibility of the witnesses and take cognizance of the offence. If he does so, it would be on the basis of the Statements of the witnesses as revealed by the police report. He would be taking cognizance upon the facts disclosed by the police report though not on the conclusions arrived at by the police. It could not be said in such a case that he was taking cognizance on suspicion.
In case you wish to clarify any of your doubts in connection with the above, let me know.