Which Side Congress Stands : Criminals or Justice ? Nakedly Exposed .

To cut the growing dominance of criminals in politics and Government administration, the Supreme Court has passed an order to disqualify the convicted MPs and MLAs from taking part in law making and influencing the administrative workings, and thus  tried to curb the fast spreading corruption in Indian politics. 

In usual course of time lot of criminal cases comes to the knowledge of public domain. The state is duty bound to take cognisance of those and act fast on that. But in practise the avoids in most cases.

First the ruling government reluctantly agrees to investigate those, then delays it by all the means like, a) interfering in investigation (our previous law minister checked the confidential reports to be submitted by CBI to Supreme Court ; and then edited that in collusion with  the accused itself, that is our pious PMO in 2G and Coalgate scams) ,

b) subsequently they try to bloke the investigation by even removing the important files from the records as in the case of coal allocation by the coal ministry, all this acts are done to protect the crime doer.

But even when the case is finalised in lower or high courts after passing of one to fifteen year's time and finally the crime is proved and the criminal is convicted, they still manage to evade the judgement by appealing in higher Supreme Court, while enjoying the privilege of  being an elected representative of people.

Supreme Court tried to remove this anomaly that, why a MLA or MP , even after convicted for a crime by nation's judiciary should hold any post, by just appealing to higher court ?

HONEST INDIA : argues  why any case should be filed in lower courts if we are not supposed to accept the verdict ? The Constitution gives us right to appeal, it implies that till the higher court negates the verdict of lower court you are supposed to accept that status morally and should behave and act like that.

If not why in certain cases passports are seized or compulsory reporting to police authority is ordered ? An elected representative should also behave like an "idol" face of a law abiding person.

The Supreme Court's above order was cancelled today when the (the Law Avoiding or Evading) Congress government issued an ordinance to undo the Supreme Court's order disqualifying convicted MPs and MLAs, a move that comes just ahead of a verdict on key UPA ally Lalu Yadav in the multi crore fodder scam of nineties. 

The Supreme Court had, in its landmark order in July, had struck down a provision in the Representation of the People's Act (RPA) that protects convicted MPs and MLAs from disqualification even if they appeal to a higher court. This left RJD chief Lalu Yadav facing the prospect of losing his membership if convicted in the fodder scam case on September 30. Congress's Rajya Sabha member Rashid Masood was also facing disqualification after being convicted in a corruption case.

The Centre had argued that protecting convicted MPs and MLAs from disqualification during pendency of appeal is necessary "to protect the House and to ensure that governance is not adversely impacted".

HONEST INDIA agrees with the argument that if Congress does not protect a convicted MLA or MP,  the governance of this corrupt Congress will be seriously hampered and they are justified in passing this ordinance to protect the criminals, convicted by Court of Justice in India.

Supreme Court and the Retail Market Open " Onion Covers" One by One

The centre is deeply embarrassed by the rising prices of onions in market to touch 80 rupees a kg., throwing tears in the eyes of poor and middle class Indians, similarly another pull up by the SC bench of Justices R.M. Lodha, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph by opening one after another covers like in an onion in the coal allocation scam case, that is putting more tears in the eyes of Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati.

a) The bench concluded that Union government has not followed the procedure contemplated in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and the rules framed there under in the allocation of coal blocks, and said,“You have put the cart before the horse. You [the Centre] have no power to grant lease for coal block, which exercise can be done only by the State. You can only grant approval. You have not followed the procedure under the Rules.”

b) Justice Lodha told the AG, “You must show how the Screening Committee was given power to identify the coal blocks. The Cabinet note [of April 1992] says identification of blocks will be done by CMPDIL [Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited]. Why this departure to Screening Committee?  Why has the Screening Committee become an extra player?”

c) Justice Lodha posed a series of questions to the AG ,“We want to have all booklets identifying the coal blocks for allocation to private parties and power plants over a period of time; how the applications were received from the private power plant operators by the Central government, either directly or through the State government concerned; the brief given to the Screening Committee for selection, whether any guidelines were framed or the Screening Committee was asked to frame its own guidelines and how the applications for allocation of blocks were considered.”

d) Justice Lodha, on the point of AG that the decision was taken by the Prime Minister himself,said, “We are concerned with the decision-making process, whether it is ultra vires or not.” He also wanted to know how many private captive power plants were allocated coal blocks between 1993 and 2003, 2003 and 2004, 2004 and 2005, and 2005 and 2009; when they became operational; and how many did not begin production at all; and whether these blocks were re-allocated.

e) The judge wanted to know why competitive bidding was not followed in the allocation of blocks to private power plants; what were the norms fixed by the Central or State governments for such allocation and minutes of the meetings for coal allocations.

The Bench of Justices R.M. Lodha, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph was not satisfied with the explanations of Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and asked him to respond by Wednesday on all the above points along with the supporting past reports.

Supreme Court Sought Clarifications in Coal Blocks Allocation from Centre

The Supreme Court bench headed by justice R M Lodha and comprising justice Madan B Lokur and justice Kurian Joseph  sought several clarifications from the Centre :

a) clarifications relating to the policy and guidelines adopted in coal block allocations which was extended to private sector in the post-liberalisation era. 

This is with reference to the PILs seeking cancellation of the coal block allocations in which the CBI has undertaken probe against each and every company allocated coal block since 1993 and "in particular during the period 2006 to 2008." 

b) The bench asked Attorney General G E Vahanvati "to prepare the compilation of reports of all the screening committee meetings from July 14, 1993 to March 31, 2011 and the guidelines which were followed in the coal block allocations." 

c) The court has asked for minutes of each meeting of screening committee involved in the allocation process. The bench observed, "We are not considering the individual applications of the allottee. We are examining as to whether any unfair practise was adopted on the decision-making process. Whether it was in accordance with law or it was done in an arbitrary manner," .

d) The court asked, "whether any policy was in place" for the purpose of coal block allocation",and said "minutes of each meeting of screening committee will make things clear about each allocation" to the centre's Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran.

e) The bench questioned to the centre's Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran and asked, "The pointed question to you is whether coal block allocations were made to private firms for captive consumption or not? "When was the scope of private participation in coal block allocations expanded... When was this cabinet decision amended?" .

f) The court further asked the Attorney General to apprise it of the role of state governments in the coal block allocations. 

To this Solicitor Vahanvati replied during the hearing that the law was amended as there was shortage of power in 1992-94 and Coal India Ltd (CIL) was not able to produce enough coal. He said "CIL was not in a position to explore and mine the coal required for electricity production", .

Advocate M L Sharma, who filed one of the PILs, said the Prime Minister, on March 24, 2005, had approved the policy of competitive bidding for the allocation of coal blocks and also said that Department of Legal Affairs, in 2004, had also given its opinion to the Coal Ministry that the competitive bidding process be adopted in coal block allocations. To this the court observed, "This was not a policy decision, it was merely an opinion (of Legal department) that never culminated into a policy,".

The court mood seemed to be of not  satisfied with the delay in getting many basic and vital clarification as regard to the Government policy in the allocation of coal blocks during the said period and specifically asked for those during the hearing of the PILs.

How Truly Autonomous CBI Carry the Risk of Potential Misuse ?

As reported in media, the Centre  told the Supreme Court that the CBI's suggestion to make the agency "truly autonomous" appeared to be an attempt to create "an all powerful" CBI director, which is not provided for in the Constitution and "would always carry the risk of potential misuse".

It said,  "Authority without accountability will be draconian, more so when we are dealing with an organisation (the CBI) with police powers of arrest, seizure, raids and confinement. The government works on a system of checks and balances and builds adequate safeguards so that scope of misuse and arbitrary action is minimised,".

The rule equally applies to all and universal like on all the state or central ministers, MLA's, MP's  bureaucratic secretaries and officers, even to all heads and officers of all those regulators like SEBI, CAG, LOKAYUKTS, RAW or IBs etc... The question how it is different in case of CBI as a whole of an institution and why the government whimsically and astonishingly treating "to make the agency "truly autonomous" appeared to be an attempt to create "an all powerful" CBI director which is not provided for in the Constitution and "would always carry the risk of potential misuse".?  How come a director heading the CBI wing will simply become risky unless the vast number of subordinate staff not supporting him in his malafide actions ? 

Yes checks and guards have to be employed, nobody denying this but the question is why this crucial button of check and control remains in the hands of politically installed leaders ? Can anyone guarantee that they (the political leadership) themselves will not become biased and draconian ?

When hundreds of such allegations are regularly made by the same set of people elected political leaders like MLA's, MP's ?, yes at that moment they are in opposition benches, but how one can say that those dully elected representative are  not  responsible and  accountable,  but  the  Home Minster controlling  the CBI is ? 

Is it not a glaring fact that the same CBI is entrusted to investigate at least Seven minister and various ministries and various political leaders of ruling parties ? Yes ironically it is true that the CBI's governing Home Ministry was of course not needed to be investigated.

If someone suggest that why so, the answer is you are foolish in asking such question, how  a SP of Police find fault and investigate the IG of Police ? Yes here remains the anomaly the Supreme Court wanted to rectify, when   it wanted to make this highest investigating institution independent and powerful free from the clutches of  powerful but rampantly corrupt and unashamed, but so called people's elected political leadership.

During  coal scam hearing in the court  the CBI was called almost a "caged parrot" and vowed to make it independent of political interference, and to that court advice the CBI  submitted that it could not remain insulated from political interference as long as it was dependent on government funds and lacked complete autonomy in running its internal affairs and wanted a stable and fixed tenure of three years. 

But the department of personnel objected in its affidavit, "An all powerful director CBI without adequate checks and balances would not be consonant with settled constitutional principles and would carry the risk of potential misuse and may not be conducive to fearless and independent functioning of the organisation at all levels."

Also rejecting the CBI's proposal for an internal vigilance mechanism instead of the accountability commission, the Centre said the chief vigilance officer, who is an employee of the agency, could seldom question the CBI director for potential acts of commission or omission.And added, "The fact that the CBI is outside the purview of the Right to Information Act (except administrative matters) is also relevant in this regard,".

But where it solves the basic question that how the CBI becomes effective and independent, when it has to investigate the Government machinary  time and again in the major national  interest ? Does it serves the purpose of effective security of national interest without the crucial autonomy to do so?

Where is the Rational of Tapping Corporate Lobbyist Niara Radia ?

The Supreme Court bench of Justices G S Singhvi and V Gopala Gowda  questioned the rationality or justification of securing permission for tapping corporate lobbyist Radia's telephone and sternly asked the CBI team probing the spectrum scam to take a fresh look at the sensational cache of telephone calls.The bench  expressed distress that the investigating agencies did not probe the "serious criminality" reflected in the conversations referred to as Radia tapes wondering why the delay or basic justification such power of tapping, when they said, "For five years, they had the tapes and transcripts. It shows serious criminality. But they have not done anything. Are they waiting for court orders," .

HI smells that such methods are used, by obtaining such dictatorial permission of intercepting conversations of politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen or even journalists, in the disguise of "National Interest and Security", only for getting important personal informations and then pass on "those" to their bosses may be political also, and which is inadvertently used or Misused to nail or blackmail someone for their personal objectives, and only very rarely used for national interest.

The Supreme Court observed the issue in a larger context and said,  "We are asking the larger question. There may be thousands of such interceptions which could have a bearing on national interest. Intercepted conversations in this case concern a lady. But in some other case it could be officials who are intensely negotiating sensitive equipment for Navy or Army. The government comes to know of involvement of middlemen or arms dealers and they intercept their conversation. If the agencies do not take any action, what should be done?" But it added, "We pointed out one more area which has got huge significance in modern times affecting governance. They talk very loosely about how to mould a particular decision in a particular manner. The top government officials are aware of it. These are more serious matters. Yet no action has been taken."