The recent issues, incidents and happenings brought to the public glare by Baba Ramdev and Anna Hazare, and hyped to the peak by the media, have left me totally bewildered and in a dizzy.

I have decided to go back to the very basics of corruption, political parties, and the role a government functionary like Santosh Hegde, can and should play in such matters.

Corruption

Corruption is a very serious issue plaguing all the not fully developed countries in the world.

Don’t be fooled into believing that there is no corruption in the developed countries. Corruption is very much there. The reasons for far lesser corruption are the very stiff penalties and swift punishment.
It simply does not make economic sense to take the enormous risks if caught.
The result is that you don’t have to pay bribes for day to day routine mundane matters.
.
Surprisingly, when we talk of corruption in India, we generally have the government employees and other public officials in mind.
After all, the Lok Pal movement is all about this kind of corruption only.

And the Karnataka Lokayukta, of which Santosh Hegde is the Chairman, broadly covers the same territory (for the State of Karnataka).

The fact is that corruption has permeated the entire society, including the private sector, down to the commonest man.
Just try to sell something to a big corporate body. The purchase manager or assistant will first talk about his commission.
Park your car in an authorized parking lot, say near the Gateway of India (Mumbai), or near the cinema theatres near V.T. (Mumbai), on a Sunday or some other holiday.
The parking attendant will ask for Rs. 100 or so in lieu of the prescribed Rs. 8 or so.

Take a metered taxi from Mumbai Airport to any part of South Mumbai.
The fare meter will show three to four times the correct fare.

When a boy is about to get married, his parents proudly flaunt his “oopari kamai”.
And this only ups his value in the matrimonial market, which translates into dowry.

If every person, who gets an opportunity to make some extra money, extracts money, things are not only serious, but call for a self cleaning movement.
Why don’t we try to preach this simple truth and meticulously follow it.

Bab Ram Dev

Perhaps Baba Ram Dev is a good yoga teacher.
Most of his claims about treating cancer, etc. remain unsubstantiated, or to be more precise, dubious.
But remember, it is not easy to extract money, call it donations or whatever you like, from powerful politicians and the rich and mighty.
Baba Ram Dev is certainly a great salesman – a salesman par excellence.

Being a sannyasi,  he should not have started the movement for such things as black money, demonetization of large currency notes, and even direct election to the post of prime minister.
But having started the wrong movement, he blotched up the movement,  more so,  by threatening to raise an armed army.
He should have retracted at the right moment and his public image would have remained untarnished.
Now there are more questions than he can answer.
And he has rightly chosen to keep mum.

I was shocked to see him jumping down the stage, running away like a pursued criminal, and then escaping in a sari.
I am yet to see a greater act of cowardice from a sannyasi.
Who could have hurt him in that public place ?
The media was his guarantee of safety, if any was needed.

You can see my comments on Baba Ram Dev on my blog.

Anna Hazare

Anna Hazare is an honest and clean person.
His intentions and motivations are beyond any shade of selfishness.

But in my view, equating  him to Gandhi is going too far.
Gandhiji was fighting against a foreign rule.
Whom are Anna’s team fighting with? Our own elected leaders
who are doing what they can legally do.

Anna Hazare’s intentions are good. His motives are honest.
But ultimately, it is the MPs and the law of the land which will have the final say.
I would wait and see how things turn out in the future.

At this stage, I would like to put a simple poser……can we say Baba Ramdev and Anna Hazare are indulging in Politics ?

I am not very sure.

1. A political party is a group people who share the same ideas about the way the country should be governed.
2. They work together to introduce new laws, the alter old laws.
3. Political parties try to control what happens in Parliament by securing a majority of seats (Members of Parliament).
4. Political Parties have policies. A good example of a policy is “education must be free for all youngsters between the age of 5 to 18 years of age”.
5. Usually, when a political party wants to change Laws and Regulations they have to put their idea to all the Members of Parliament. A vote then takes place and if the majority of MPs vote ‘YES’ then the change to the Law/Regulation takes place.

http://www.technologystudent.com/pse1/polprt1.htm

The above definition deals with political parties which seek to contest elections.

Political parties that wish to contest local, state or national elections are required to be registered by the Election Commission of India (EC).

But there can be, and there are political parties, who do not wish to take part in elections.
In my opinion, what would ultimately decide whether a group is political or not would be the first two criterias:
1. A political party is a group people who share the same ideas about the way the country should be governed.
2. They work together to introduce new laws, the alter old laws.

Judged by this standard, both Baba Ram Dev and Anna Hazare’s movements are only political and their groups become political parties.

Santosh Hegde, Lokayukta, Karnataka

Well what does all this have to do with Santosh Hegde.
Karnataka has a Lokayukta Act and also a functional Lokayukta institution.
Let us see what a Lokayukta should not do:

Section 4 of the Lokayukta Act  - Lokayukta or Upalokayukta not to hold any other office

“Lokayukta or Upalokayukta not to hold any other office- The Lokayukta or Upalokayukta shall not be a member of the Parliament or be a member of the Legislature of any State and shall not hold any office or trust of profit (other than his office as Lokayukta or Upalokayukta) or be connected with any political party or carry on any business or practice any profession and accordingly, before he enters upon his office, a person appointed as the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall-

(c) if he is connected with any political party, sever his connection with it; or ..

http://www.kar.nic.in/lokayukta/karnataka_lokayukta_act.htm

There is no doubt that the Lokayukta of Karnataka is a Government Servant, drawing salary, allowances and other perquisites from the Govt. of Karnataka.
I am sure he is expected to devote his entire time and energy to affairs of his office which are basically confined to Karnataka.

Yet, we find him in Delhi, along Anna group, and lobbying for his views.
How can anyone justify this kind of conduct, which in legal parlance is loosely termed….“Conduct unbecoming of a government servant.”

But again, who will bell the cat. If the Lokayukta decides to do what he should not do,
people like me can only grumble and have disturbing fitful dreams.
The reason is that the procedure for removing the Lokayukta is as follows:

Section 6 of the Lokayukta Act – Removal of Lokayukta or Upalokayukta

 (1) The Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the Governor passed after an address by each House of the State Legislature supported by a majority of the total membership of the House and by a majority of not less than two thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the Governor in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. 

(2) The procedure of the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta under sub-section (1) shall be as provided in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 in relation to the removal of a Judge and accordingly the provisions of that Act shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in relation to the removal of the Lokayukta and Upalokayukta as they apply in relation to the removal of a Judge.

Well, in my view what Santosh Hegde, the Lokayukta is doing is all wrong.
I would be grateful if someone could convince me that I am wrong and should modify or change my views.

This is a bizarre story of a high handed lady magistrate in Mumbai who travelled in local travels in Mumbai without paying for her tickets.

Arundhati Ashok Walavalkar was appointed a Metropolitan Magistrate in Bombay on 28.5.1992.
She travelled between Mulund and Dadar on First Class.
She was caught by the Railway Ticket Checkers on at least three occasions.

She behaved offensively with the Railway officials.
The Railway authorities reported the matter to the Bombay High Court.
The High Court found her guilty of ticketless travel and compulsorily retired her on 27 September 2000.

The matter went up to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decided against her

in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6966 OF 2004

ARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKAR …. Appellant

Versus

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …. Respondent

Order Passed by: Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.
Date of Order: 13 January 2011 

The Supreme Court observed:

“1. This appeal was filed by the appellant herein being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

“3. The allegation against the appellant was that she had travelled without tickets on 21.2.1997, 13.5.1997 and also on 5.12.1997 when she was caught. The charges here not only related to such incidents of ticketless travelling but also about misusing her official identity card and for making unnecessary scene on the Railway platform and giving threats to the Railway staff which was considered to be misconduct unbecoming of a judicial officer as per Rule 3(iii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1979.

“21. In this connection, we may also refer to a letter written by her on 8.12.1997 to  the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai. The said letter was admittedly written by her and it reads as follows:-

“I would like to mention to you that sometimes, I am required

to enter into your local Trains to reach my Court in time, as the

vehicle given to us is a pooling one which takes a very long

time due to unexpected traffic on the roads or break downs.

During such occasions, I am unable to buy tickets because of

short of time and consequently it had happened so, that I had

to face your nagging ticket collectors. Your lady ticket

collectors at Dadar instead of understanding our difficulties

have further harassed us in the most insulting manner and

this has left a deed scar in our mind. If you care to know how

nasty your people could be, you may depute a representative

to whom we can explain the facts.

I am aware that the Metropolitan Magistrates handling the

matters of any railway police station on central line get first

class free pass right from Nagpur to Igapturi. Even the staff

attached to such Magistrates also get free passes. We also

attend to the work of railways on Saturdays, Sundays and

holidays. Are we therefore, not entitled, at least to stand in

the first class compartments of local trains only for the

purpose of reaching our Courts in time during such

emergencies ? Please do the needful in this matter urgently

by giving necessary instructions to the ticket collectors so that

we are not humiliated by your ticket collectors on this count

and made to pay fine.

If you are of the negative opinion, that even this little courtesy

cannot be extended to us, please communicate to me, so that I

am prepared for such eventualities. Your early response

would be highly appreciated.”
“29. …..This is the case of judicial officer who was required to conduct herself with dignity and manner becoming of a judicial officer. A judicial officer must be able to discharge his/her responsibilities by showing an impeccable conduct. In the instant case, she not only travelled without tickets in a railway compartment thrice but also complained against the ticket collectors who accosted her, misbehaved with the Railway officials and in those circumstances we do not see how the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to her could be said to be disproportionate to the offence alleged against her. In a country governed by rule of law, nobody is above law, including judicial officers. In fact, as judicial officers, they have to present a continuous aspect of dignity in every conduct. If the rule of law is to function effectively and efficiently under the aegis of our democratic setup, Judges are expected to, nay, they must nurture an efficient and enlightened judiciary by presenting themselves as a role model. Needless to say, a Judge is constantly under public glaze and society expects higher standards of conduct and rectitude from a Judge. Judicial office, being an office of public trust, the society is entitled to expect that a Judge must be a man of high integrity, honesty and ethical firmness by maintaining the most exacting standards of propriety in every action. Therefore, a judge’s official and personal conduct must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity. Obviously, this standard of conduct is higher than those deemed acceptable or obvious for others. Indeed, in the instant case, being a judicial officer, it was in her best interest that she carries herself in a decorous and dignified manner. If she has deliberately chosen to depart from these high and exacting standards, she is appropriately liable for disciplinary action.

30. We fully agree with the conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary authority……..”

Well said and well decided.
The Magistrate has been rightly punished.
But the public expects the same standards from their political leaders…leaders who lead the nation’s destiny.

Such leaders should never say they are innocent till proved guilty.
If the needle of suspicion – supported by loss to the nation, loss to the public is ever raised, they should be thrown over board.

The entire government machinery – the politicians and the civil servants in India – are facing the worst ever low in terms of credibility and reputation.
The recent incidents have left every one open mouthed and flabbergasted.

The Prime Minister’s role

The Prime Minister’s assertion that he is innocent does not impress anyone.
No one has cast any aspersion on his honesty.

But as the leader of his Council of Ministers, it is his duty to keep tabs on his Ministers.
It is his duty to see that his colleagues and subordinates live up to the expectations of the common man.
It is for him to see and ensure that public money is not stolen or squandered.

A Raja and Suresh Kalmudi

It is not sufficient for A Raja, the former Telecom Minister, to say that he has done nothing wrong; or for Suresh Kalmudi, Chairman of the Common Wealth Games Organising Committee, to say that he is innocent till proved guilty.
Both of them have taken arbitrary decisions which have caused huge losses to the nation.
They have taken unilateral decisions which have been criticised all around.
We all know that Commissions of Enquiry and the like will be constituted.
But we also know all these are only waste of more public money.
Nothing happens !

The two should have been thrown out long back.

Once their chastity had been thrown open to doubt, they themselves should have resigned.

Now the public should remember their misdeeds and ensure that they are never reelected to any post. But alas, the public is too innocent and forgets the past too fast.

 P. J. Thomas, Chief Vigilance Commissioner

Worst still are the likes of P J Thomas, Chief Vigilance Commissioner who was the Telecom Secretary during the time all the Telecom bungling was taking place.

A government officer against whom any proceedings are pending cannot be appointed to any post retirement post. Thomas could not have been appointed to any post. But he managed to become the Chief Vigilance Commissioner.

The Chief Vigilance Commissioner can be removed only in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act of 2003. A portion of this section is reproduced below:

 6. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Central Vigilance Commissioner

or any Vigilance Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the

President on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the President, has, on inquiry, reported that the Central Vigilance Commissioner or any Vigilance Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed.

(2) The President may suspend from office, and if deem necessary prohibit also from

attending the office during inquiry, the Central Vigilance Commissioner or any Vigilance

Commissioner in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under sub-section (1) until the President has passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the President may by

order remove from office the Central Vigilance Commissioner or any Vigilance Commissioner if the Central Vigilance Commissioner or such Vigilance Commissioner, as the case may be,—

(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or

(b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Central

Government, involves moral turpitude; or

(c) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the

duties of his office; or

(d) is, in the opinion of the President, unfit to continue in office by reason of

infirmity of mind or body; or

(e) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially

his functions as a Central Vigilance Commissioner or a Vigilance Commissioner.
So stringent are the safeguards and so limited the grounds for removal of the Central Vigilance Commissioner, that they are difficult to use, if and when necessary.

I really find it difficult to understand how Thomas can continue.  He should have resigned like a gentlemen.

The Supreme Court is now hearing the matter and it can issue a writ of Quo Warranto holding his appointment as invalid.

 Adarsh Housing Society and similar scandals 

Adarsh Housing Society and similar scandals need a quick deterrent action.

Someone once narrated a story of a young girl who had been raped.
She went to the police station to lodge an FIR.
The junior most officer took her inside his cabin, and under the pretext of recording her statement, raped her.
His senior came and did the same. And this was repeated several times.
Finally, a Superintendent called her into his room and said he would like to record her statement. The entire incident came to light when she told him that her statement had already been recorded five times.

Adarsh Society was raped and ravaged at every level. Every senior officer, through whose hands the file passed, took a portion of the rich pie.

Now the Government is asking the concerned officers to explain the source of investment. I have no doubt the source will be fully explained.
What is heinous is the way flats meant for the defence personnel were taken by different officer and politicians and this is what calls for deterrent action.
Civil servants enjoy invulnerability and enormous power.
They are difficult to touch.

But there is Article 311(2) which can be invoked in appropriate cases.
I am reproducing it :

Article 311 {Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State}

( (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges:

Provided further that this clause shall not apply -

 (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or

(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

Post Retirement Posts

Surprisingly, the post retirement posts, like various posts in the Human Rights Commission and Information Commission increase the immunity several fold.
Some thing far more effective and meaningful is called for.

The Britishers had the unique knack of calling such officers and asking them to resign or face a formal infamous enquiry.  Guilty officers preferred to resign.

Perhaps, we can do the same.

17 January 2011 Adarsh Society – the latest

 The environment ministry has ordered that the scam-hit housing society building has to be demolished within three months for Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) violations.

In its 29-page order, the ministry has concluded that the 31-storey structure built at Block 6, Backbay Reclamation Area in Mumbai’s upscale Colaba area, is ‘unauthorised’ and should be removed in its entirety and the area should be restored to its original condition.

The members of the Society will probably approach the courts.

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

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.