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.

I never dreamt of joining any service. But one day, I saw an advertisement for the Indian Administrative Services Examination which is conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and filled the form. I was not serious about the examination. So I did not do any preparation and did not take any coaching. But I was selected !

I was offered the Indian Police Service and the Indian Revenue Service. My mother did not like the idea of her second son becoming a police officer and could not understand why a softie like me should be selected for the Police. In those days, mothers ruled the roost and had the final say. Right or wrong, the mother was always right. So I landed up in the Indian Revenue Service.

But unlike my colleagues, friends and foes alike, I continued with my studies, getting a Masters in Law, 6 Post Graduate Diplomas in different fields, and the highly coveted Ph.D. in law.

Convocation Dress

When I was declared to have qualified for the Ph.D., the University of Bombay sent me a form for the next convocation – whether I would like to attend the convocation, and take the diploma in persona or take the diploma in absentia (which means collecting it from the University office after the convocation).

I had never attended a convocation before. So this time, I made up my mind to attend the convocation. I asked my staff to obtain a convocation dress for me.
They searched everywhere (I really could not understand why they had to search so much), and after a lot of effort, managed to hire a set of convocation dress from an old time photographer.

On the day of convocation, I proudly dressed up in the hired convocation dress and arrived at the university premises.  I was shocked to learn that the Bombay University had discontinued the old traditional convocation dress several years ago and males were to be dressed in simple white shirt and trousers.

So I had to take off the convocation dress which only made everyone stare at me and since I was not wearing the white shirt and trousers, I could not take part in the convocation procession. I had to be content with watching the entire proceedings from a chair in the University Convocation Hall.

It was therefore a bit of stale news to me  to learn that at a convocation function at the Indian Institute of Forest Management in Bhopal, the Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh found the traditional attire  ’barbaric’ and ‘a sign of colonial slavery’ and discarded the square hat and the red and yellow gown he wore.
The Indian Institute of Forest Management is a under Jairam’s ministry. Which sane person could question his outburst?

I am surprised to hear that soon after, Bihar Chief Minister, Nitish Kumar called for a debate on convocation clothes.

But my dear sirs, both of you are a little too late.
Bombay University has already taken a lead.

Advocates Robes

After my retirement, I appear in some courts and forums. An advocate is required to wear the traditional lawyers dress…..black coat, tie or band, white shirt and trousers.
Of course, lawyers may not wear the black coat during the summer for a month or so.

The dress is colonial no doubt. But it is still in vogue in many countries of the world.
I have no grievance on this score.
The dress is all right in air conditioned environment. But it is really awful to see lawyers perspiring in the lower courts and forums, where some times even fans don’t work.

Is it not time to become practical and have a more practical dress code for lawyers in India?
You don’t need public debate on this. The Bar Council of India, the Supreme Court, the Government ..in fact, anyone can take the lead.
I am sure everyone will welcome the change.

Club and School Dress

For these, who are allergic to dress codes, I can only point out that some elite clubs and most elite schools have some sort of dress code.
And the dress code is not imposed by any one from outside, but by the management themselves.

If you don’t like the dress code, don’t join these institutions.
Don’t join the elite club.
Don’t send your child to that elite school.
That’s all……

The matter is as simple as that.

After all, to err is human.
But to accept a mistake and correct it is divine.

In this glaring case of unprecedented injustice, the Supreme Court Judges made serious mistakes, not once, but three times. As a result, three innocent persons languished in jail for several months.

October 1991

In October 1991, a Sessions Court in Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh convicted Bhoja, Pooran, Balvir and Raghuvir (along with four others  - Sugar Singh, Laxman, Onkar and Ramesh) and sentenced them to 6 years imprisonment on charges of rioting and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

January 2003

The eight convicts appealed to the Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court In January 2003, the High Court acquitted all the accused.

The Madhya Pradesh Government accepted the acquittal of Bhoja, Pooran, Balvir and Raghuvir; but filed appeal before the Supreme Court against the acquittal of the other four.

November 7, 2008

A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker and L.S. Panta set aside the High Court order and held all the eight accused guilty in the case, even though

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court had acquitted  Bhoja, Pooran, Balvir and Raghuvir;
•  The Madhya Pradesh Government had accepted the verdict and had not filed any appeal against it, and
• The issue relating to these four persons – Bhoja, Pooran, Balvir and Raghuvir – was not before the Supreme Court (Bhoja, Pooran, Balvir and Raghuvir were not even parties to the case).

Bhoja, Pooran and Balvir surrendered and were put back inside the jail.

March 9, 2010

Bhoja, Pooran, Balvir and Raghuvir  filed a review petition for reconsideration of the matter. The matter went to the same bench, which through another quirk of fate, released the four other persons instead of Bhoja, Pooran, Balvir and Raghuvir.

April 20, 2010

On April 20, Aftab Ali Khan, Advocate for the four accused pointed out the mistake to a bench comprising of  the Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and three senior most judges, Justices S H Kapadia, Altamas Kabir and R V Raveendran. The Bench promised to examine the matter in May.

April 22, 2010

This matter was widely reported by the media.
In an unprecended move, the Bench comprising of the Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and three senior  most judges, Justices S H Kapadia, Altamas Kabir and R V Raveendran, convened on an urgent basis, called the lawyers and passed order  “acquitting” Bhoja, Puran and Balbir, who had been languishing in jail due to two wrong consecutive orders passed by the Supreme Court in November 2008 and March 2010.

My humble request

At last a serious error has been corrected and justice has been done to the accused. Or has it been done ?

**    Was it not the duty of the Govt. prosecution to point out on each occasion that the courts orders were wrong, that wrong persons were being sent to jail ?

***  Was it not the duty of the Judges to do their home work ?

*** Was it not the duty of the Present Bench of the Supreme Court  to award damages on their own ?

Do the Supreme Court judges really expect the poor accused to engage in one more round of litigation for damages. Would they have the money and energy to file a case at all.

The Supreme Court should have been magnanimous to award damages to the wronged persons. They can pay such damages from the funds of the Supreme Court or direct the Govt. to pay the same.

But in my humble view, the Supreme Court should award the damages.
That is the least they can do now to rectify all the wrongs done.

Dr. Binoy Gupta, Retd. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Asiatic Cheetah

Once upon a time, the Asiatic Cheetah (a different sub specie from its African cousin) was quite common and  roamed all the way from Arabia to Iran, Afghanistan and India. The Asiatic Cheetah was also known as the hunting leopard, and were kept by kings and princes to hunt gazelle.
The Moghul Emperor Akbar is believed to have kept 1000 cheetahs.

 
Decimation of the Asiatic Cheetah

At the turn of the 20th century, there were several thousands of the Asiatic Cheetah in India.
But they were indiscriminately hunted.
The last three wild cheetahs in India were shot by the Maharajah of Surguja in eastern Madhya Pradesh in 1947.

After that, there remained a few cheetahs in different zoos of India.
But all of them died.
Since then, 35 cheetahs have been brought to India.
All of them died due to improper care and diseases in 6 different zoos – Hyderabad, Delhi, Kanpur, Calcutta, Trivandrum and Mysore. 

Cheetah from Numibia

The Government of India approached Iran for a pair of cheetahs.
Iran agreed to give a pair in exchange of a pair of wild lions.
But Gujarat refused to give the two lions from the Gir Sanctuary.

The Government of India then approached Namibia and Namibia agreed to give a pair of cheetahs to India.
But the Namibian cheetah is a different sub-species from the Asiatic cheetah, and scientists warn that no translocation should be done without proper studies.  

Final decision to be taken in September 2009

An international conference of experts from Africa and Europe will be held in September 2009 to move the project forward.
If the plan is cleared, the pair of Numibian cheetahs are likely to be translocated to Rajasthan.

A final decision will be taken by the Government of India after the expert meeting.
However, scientists want a very cautious approach because what is being reintroduced from Numibia are not the the Asiatic Cheetah but a different sub-species.  

We may soon see the Cheetah in our forests

As things are moving in the right direction, I am sure Cheetah will soon be reintroduced in our forests.  

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.