Political observers were surprised, when within hours of his announcement, his senior, Home Minister R. R. Patil, distanced himself from Ramesh Bagwe and said he was not aware of the announcement and that Bagwe had not discussed the move (to transfer the Police Commissioner) with him.

Incidentally, Home Minister R. R. Patil belongs to the NCP, while Ramesh Bagwe belongs to the Congress and represents the Pune Cantonment constituency.
Some observers will remember Ramesh Bagwe for picking up Rahul Gandhi’s shoes at a public function as an act of shame.

 Later sequence of events, clarified the reasons for Ramesh Bhagwe’s ire and announcement.
Lakhmi Gautam, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Special Branch) later confirmed that :

• There were 19 criminal cases against Bagwe
• 15 of those were cognizable offences, and
• 4 were non-cognizable offences.

Lakhmi Gautam clarified that that Bagwe had been acquitted by the courts in some cases, while some cases were still pending against him.

All the furore arose at this point of time because Bagwe had applied for the renewal of his passport in January. All passport applications are sent to the police for verification. They verify whether the applicant has any criminal record.

The police found that some cases were registered against Bagwe in some police stations in the city.
The police sent their report about the cases to the Passport Office in Pune which refused renewal of his passport.

On the 15 May 2010, the Maharashtra Home department sought explanation from Pune’s Police Commissioner, Satyapal Singh as to how a junior police officer was allowed to speak to a journalist against the minister of the department that governs the police force.

The Real Issues

• The real issue is not whether Bagwe manages to get Satyapal Singh the Police Commissioner transferred out of Thane.
• The real issue is also not whether the Lakhmi Gautam, Deputy Commissioner should not have spoken to the press and some minor action will be taken against him.
• The issue is also not about the renewal of a minister’s passport.
• The issue is are we so much short good politicians and administrators  that the ruling party(ies) find it difficult to find a clean person for a sensitive post.
• The issue is whether a person with as many as 19 cases in different courts can or should be appointed a Minister of the very department which is in charge of investigations against him.
• Think over. Morality, ethics, common sense and judicial propriety all defy any logic in this appointment.

Issue of Passport

The State Government can not issue a Passport.
Issue of Passport is the Centre’s prerogative.
The Regional Passport Officers have to necessarily refer all applications to the police for verification. And they have specific guidelines on what to do after receiving a negative report.
Obviously, the police could not have suppressed mentioning the case in their report.

Minister with 19 degrees

Come to think of it, when I was Commissioner of Income Tax in Chennai during 1986 to 1993, I used to take part time classes for MBA and P.G. diploma courses in Madras University.

I decided to acquire a number of PG qualifications. I obtained 4 PG Diplomas and a Masters in Law in 6 years.

So in hindsight, a person with so many pending and disposed off criminal cases is perhaps the best person to head the department.
He would know the ins and outs of the working of the police.
And to say the least, Bagwe’s threat to file a defamation suit is simply ridiculous.
And it would be far more ridiculous for the Congress to support him in this infamous case. They should remove him or at least transfer him.

Even God cannot save this country………  
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, August 5, 2008

The Supreme Court was hearing a case relating to unauthorised occupation of Government accommodation.

The Bench had suggested that the Government should amend the law to make unauthorised occupation a criminal offence.

Additional Solicitor General, Amarender Saran, told the court that the Union Government had decided not to amend Section 441 IPC (criminal trespass) for prosecuting squatters of Government accommodation in the country. The Government took the stand that the existing provisions under the Public Premises Act were sufficient to evict those unauthorisedly occupying Government accommodation.
The Government further claimed that out of 99,100 government houses, only 300 and odd were under unauthorised occupation for which action had been taken to evict them. This did not satisfy the apex court which said the Government does not have the guts to take on the offenders.

Some Observations of the Bench of the Supreme Court comprising
Justices B N Aggrawal and G S Singhvi.

·         We are fed up with this Government. They don’t have the guts to differ with the opinion of the clerks.
·         Even God will not be able to save this country. In India, even if God comes down, he cannot change our country. Our country’s character has gone. We are helpless.
·         You complain about judicial activism when you are in power. When you are not in power, you come to us for remedy.
·         PILs are being filed by people who are vexed with the approach of the Government on various issues.

Insensitive officials need regular flogging……..

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, August 8, 2008

Those who have experienced the problems involved in going to a police station and filing a FIR (First Information Report) will advise you never to visit a police station.
You will be advised not to file a FIR and treated worst than a criminal.

A Ghaziabad resident, Lalita Kumari, had to run from pillar to post for registering an FIR after her teenaged daughter was abducted early this year.

Even after registering an FIR on the orders of the Ghaziabad Superintendent of Police on May 11, the local police did not try to search for her daughter. Instead they threatened her to withdraw the FIR.
While hearing this matter, on July 14, 2008, Justice Agrawal had noted his “personal experience” while working as the judge of the Patna High Court, the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and as Judge of the apex court – that despite the Supreme Court’s strict instruction for prompt registration of FIRs, the concerned police authorities do not register FIRs unless some direction is given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the high court or this court.

“Further experience shows that even after orders are passed by the concerned courts for registration of the case, the police does not take the necessary steps. And when matters are brought to the notice of the inspecting judges of the high court during the course of inspection of courts and superintendents of police are taken to task, then only FIRs are registered,” Justice Agrawal had noted.

In a large number of cases, investigations do not commence even after registration of FIRs, and in cases like the present one steps are not taken for recovery of the kidnapped person or apprehending the accused person, Justice Agrawal said.

Justice Agrawal had made some suggestionsfor corrective measures to deal with the callous approach of police in filing criminal cases on the complaints of people.

The bench had suggested that if the police fail to file a criminal case, then the citizen may approach the nearest judicial magistrate, who could direct police to register a First Information Report (FIR).

After this, if the police still fail to register an FIR without any proper reason, the magistrate would be justified in launching contempt to court proceedings against the erring police officer and send him to jail for defying court orders.

Only two states – Uttar Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh, filed their responses to the suggestion.

Justice Agrawal was very harsh.

Some Observations of the Bench of the Supreme Court comprising
Justices B N Aggrawal and G S Singhvi.
·         Government officials are simply insensitive to the suffering of millions of people across the country. They think they live in ‘Ram Rajya’ (ideal rule). They think it’s their ’swarajya’ (own self-rule, not for the people.
·         This is their style of functioning. They need regular huntering or flogging by  the court to be made to work said.

The bench ordered the chief secretaries and the police chiefs of all states and union territories to file their responses to the court’s July 14 suggestion within two weeks failing which they would be personally summoned to the court and taken to task.

Recommendation

Wake up bureaucrats.  Supreme Court is watching you.