Red Alert! New RTI rules cancel right to file Complaint u/s 18

Dear fellow activists,

The proposed new RTI Rules aim to cancel our right to bypass the first appellate authority and complain directly to the commission under Section 18. In fact, it aims to virtually nullify Section 18 by compelling you to file a first appeal, and then insisting that you can only approach the Information Commission with a “second appeal”, and not a “complaint”. In this way, Information Commissioners can be made to avoid using the strong court-like powers that Section 18 confers on them.

Did you notice this? No? Neither did I… until today evening when I read this table by activist C J Karira [ http://tinyurl.com/RTIrules2 ] showing sections of the old (existing) and new (proposed) rules side-by-side. The mischief is played in Section 14 and Section 11 of the proposed RTI rules.

Section 14 of the proposed amendment corresponds to Section 7 of the existing rules. All references to “Complainant” in the existing rules, which I am showing in ALL CAPS, are deleted in the proposed amendment.

EXISTING RULES say this:

7. Personal presence of the appellant OR COMPLAINANT.-

(1) The appellant OR THE COMPLAINANT, as the case may be, shall in every case be informed of the date of hearing at least seven clear days before that date.

(2) The appellant OR THE COMPLAINANT, as the case may be, may at his discretion at the time of hearing of the appeal OR COMPLAINT by the Commission be present in person or through his duly authorized representative or may opt not to be present.

(3) Where the Commission is satisfied that the circumstances exist due to which the appellant OR THE COMPLAINANT, as the case may be, is being prevented from attending the hearing of the Commission, then, the Commission may afford the appellant OR THE COMPLAINANT, as the case may be, another opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken or

take any other appropriate action as it may deem fit. -

(4) The appellant OR THE COMPLAINANT, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person in the process of the appeal while presenting his points and the person representing him may not be a legal practitioner.

Now read the PROPOSED RULES:

14. Personal presence of the appellant before the Commission:

(1) The appellant shall be informed of the date of hearing at least seven clear days before that date.

(2) The appellant may, at his discretion, be present in person or through his duly authorized representative or, if permitted by the commission, through video conferencing, at the time of hearing of the appeal by the Commission.

(3) Where the Commission is satisfied that the circumstances exist due to which the appellant is being prevented from attending the hearing of the Commission, then, the Commission may afford the appellant another opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken or take any other appropriate action as it may deem fit.

Do you see the difference? There is no mention of “complainant”. In the proposed new rules, the word “complainant” does not occur even once, and the word “complaint” occurs only once, in Section 16 (“Abatement of an Appeal / Complaint: The proceedings pending before the Commission shall abate on the death of the appellant.”)

But that is not all. Section 11 of the proposed new rules (for which there is no corresponding section in the existing rules), insists that you must go through the first appeal stage.

Read Section 11 with special attention to what is in ALL CAPS:

11. Admission of appeals:

(1) On receipt of an appeal, if the Commission is satisfied that it is a fit case for consideration, it may admit such appeal; but where the Commission is not so satisfied, it may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant of being heard and after recording its reasons, reject the appeal.

(2) The Commission SHALL NOT ADMIT AN APPEAL UNLESS IT IS SATISFIED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD AVAILED OF ALL THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO HIM UNDER THE ACT.

(3) For the purposes of sub-rule (2), A PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE AVAILED OF ALL THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO HIM UNDER THE ACT:

(a) IF HE HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY and the First Appellate Authority or any other person competent to pass order on such appeal had made a final order on the appeal; or

(b) where no final order has been made by the First Appellate Authority with regard to the appeal preferred, and a period of 45 days from the date on which such appeal was preferred has expired.

Information Commissioners use a legal loophole to avoid invoking their powers under Section 18(3), which says: “The… Information Commission… shall, while inquiring into any matter UNDER THIS SECTION, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters …” The loophole is in the wording “under this section”. This means that the Information Commissioner’s civil-court-like powers can only be invoked if the RTI applicant makes direct reference to section 18 in his plaint. If RTI applicant unintentionally uses the term “Second appeal” or “appellant”, or cites any section of Section 19(3), the Information Commissioner takes advantage of this, happily saying that his hands are tied as he is unable to use the powers that Section 18 conferred on him!

Many Information Commissioners go out of their way to blur the distinction between Appeal and Complaint by holding similar hearings and passing similar-sounding orders for both. Many States, including Maharashtra, have framed rules that offer you only one format titled “Second Appeal u/s 19(3) of RTI Act”. Why not another format titled “Complaint u/s 18(1) of RTI Act”? Because that would make the RTI applicant very powerful indeed – and that is the last thing they want!

Here are the two big reasons why DOPT, through the proposed new rules, wants to take away the power to file a complaint, which is given to us by the RTI Act:

A. Because Section 18 greatly improves our chances of getting slippery Public Information Officers (PIOs) penalized. Section 18 is very strongly worded. A strictly legal interpretation of this section leaves truant PIOs with very little scope for escaping penalty.

B. Because there is no time-limit for filing a complaint. One may file a complaint under Section 18 very early (say 45 days after filing RTI application) or very late (say 18 months after filing RTI application).

To understand the importance of our power of Complaint, read this: http://tinyurl.com/RTISec18-19

Fellow activists, please fight against this amendment tooth-and-nail! At any cost, we must not allow ourselves to be deprived of our power to file complaint before Information Commission.

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

Press Release: Maharashtra Chief SIC will act on attacks on activists, setting a precedent

22 Dec, 2010: Maharashtra’s new Chief Information Commissioner Vilas Patil is willing to use his offices to initiate and expedite police proceedings in cases where activists are threatened or attacked in connection with the Right to Information applications that they have filed. The only pre-condition is that such activists should file a formal complaint to State Information Commission and present the facts of their case in an affidavit.

This would set a new precedent in the country. So far, Information Commissioners have been mute spectators who have refused to take a stand ion this important issue.

Mr Patil made this commitment yesterday evening in a meeting with nine leading RTI and human rights activists of the city, including G R Vora, Sunil Ahya, Mohd. Afzal, Krishnaraj Rao and Dr Shrikant Prabhu. He was responding to a representation that they had earlier made on 7 December. With reference to the high incidence of threats and attacks on RTI Activists in the state, their representation said, ”Please announce a fast-track procedure for receiving complaints about threats & attacks, and immediately enquiring and initiating remedial action. Please use your court-like powers u/s 18 to summon evidence, witness, all the RTI documents that the attacked/threatened RTI applicant wants, etc.”

MR PATIL’S IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ON 7 DECEMBER WAS that he would take a decision on this after understanding the legal processes and constraints. He promised to consider how to respond to complaints about attacks and threats by holding investigative hearings on the RTI-related issues on a fast-track basis, and proactively communicating with law-enforcement agencies.

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

Press Release: Maharashtra Chief SIC will act on attacks on activists, setting a precedent

22 Dec, 2010: Maharashtra’s new Chief Information Commissioner Vilas Patil is willing to use his offices to initiate and expedite police proceedings in cases where activists are threatened or attacked in connection with the Right to Information applications that they have filed. The only pre-condition is that such activists should file a formal complaint to State Information Commission and present the facts of their case in an affidavit.

This would set a new precedent in the country. So far, Information Commissioners have been mute spectators who have refused to take a stand ion this important issue.

Mr Patil made this commitment yesterday evening in a meeting with nine leading RTI and human rights activists of the city, including G R Vora, Sunil Ahya, Mohd. Afzal, Krishnaraj Rao and Dr Shrikant Prabhu. He was responding to a representation that they had earlier made on 7 December. With reference to the high incidence of threats and attacks on RTI Activists in the state, their representation said, ”Please announce a fast-track procedure for receiving complaints about threats & attacks, and immediately enquiring and initiating remedial action. Please use your court-like powers u/s 18 to summon evidence, witness, all the RTI documents that the attacked/threatened RTI applicant wants, etc.”

MR PATIL’S IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ON 7 DECEMBER WAS that he would take a decision on this after understanding the legal processes and constraints. He promised to consider how to respond to complaints about attacks and threats by holding investigative hearings on the RTI-related issues on a fast-track basis, and proactively communicating with law-enforcement agencies.

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

SC issues notice to Govt on transparent selection of Info Commissioners

Dear fellow activists,

Here’s some fantastic news: Supreme Court yesterday admitted the special leave petition (SLP) filed by activist Arvind Kejriwal for opposing the arbitrary selection of Central Information Commissioners. The court issued notice to the Union government, asking for their replies and rejoinders.

Earlier, Delhi High Court had dismissed Arvind’s writ petition (WP) at the admission stage. "We cannot restrict the discretionary power of the high- powered committee headed by the Prime Minister to decide on the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner…. We cannot legislate or frame rules," a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Manmohan had said on October 21.

In recent months, Andhra Pradesh High Court and Tamil Nadu High Court have admitted writ petitions filed by activist Madhav Vishnubhatta challenging the arbitrary selection of Chief State Information Commissioners and notices have been issued to respective state governments.

Read the gist of Arvind’s WP here: http://tinyurl.com/ArvindWP1

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

Anti-Corruption Act Full & abridged versions

Prevention of Corruption Act in two versions -- Full and abridged (simplified)

THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988

SIMPLIFIED & ABRIDGED Prevention of Corruption Act 1988:

Originally 6045 words, we reduced it to 3,324 words, and made sentences short and easy.

Please note:

1) It gives a wide scope to the concept of “public servant”. The term includes judges, arbitrators, election officials, employees of public corporations, selection committee members and anybody in the “service and pay of local authority”, office bearers of cooperative societies of various kinds, and recipients of government funding. It is applicable to Information Commissioners and other quasi-judicial authorities.

2) As PCA 1988 includes judges and judge-like authorities, it seems to nullify some of the wide protection to judges under Judges Protection Act 1985.

3) It also gives wide interpretation to “gratification other than legal remuneration” and “criminal misconduct”. Thus, it is not necessary to prove that a public servant actually sought a bribe in cash, or was actually given. It is enough to show that undue favour or disfavor (or undue service or disservice) were given or sought to be given.

4) It spreads the net wide by including abetment of the offences and conspiracy, and thereby includes private parties such as touts and dalals, besides superiors, colleagues and others who assist indirectly and collude in the corrupt practices.

5) It has provisions for granting immunity from prosecution to bribe-givers or bribe-takers who turn into whistle-blowers and assist in the prosecution.

6) It provides for a summary trial, and restricts the scope for appeals before higher courts.

7) Offences under this Act will be tried by a Special Judge with special powers to attach the offender’s properties etc.

8) It mandates hearings on a daily basis.

Limitation of PCA 1988: After FIR is registered and after the police investigation is complete, the prosecuting authority ie. Anti Corruption Bureau must seek approval from the State or Central Government, or from competent authority, to prosecute the corrupt official. According to ACB Maharashtra website, this approval requires three months.

Vinita, please study Chapter III, which consists of the various offenses. These are the sections to be used in making our an FIR.

Regards,
Krish

Activists’ reaction to SM’s selection as Chief Information Commissioner

14 Dec 2010: Satyananda Mishra’s selection as Chief Central Information Commissioner, three months after the selection of another former DOPT secretary A N Tiwari, has many dimensions. Today’s TOI Mumbai (copy-pasted at bottom) has reported it well. Let us objectively analyze the positive and negative aspects.

First the dark side:

a) Hiring the DOPT Secretary is Chief information Commissioner is like hiring the ISI chief for the job of Human Rights Commissioner in Kashmir. DOPT is the dirty-tricks department of Govt. of India. It is the right-hand of PMO, and has powers to hire-and-fire and lynch (or exonerate) virtually any bureaucrat, anywhere in India. It controls CBI, CVC and virtually all vigilance functions of the government. Read this govt. manual: http://tinyurl.com/AboutDOPT

b) Satyananda Mishra (like his predecessor) is a former DOPT Secretary who abused his privileged position to enter Central Information Commission. Despite having many eligible candidates, Satyananda Mishra made the shortlist list so short that it reduced the PM’s selecting committee into a mere rubber stamp. These actions were then concealed by PMO, DoPT and Wajahat Habibullah (then the Chief Info. Committioner) with strange reasoning and self-contradictory statements. See here: http://tinyurl.com/CICduplicity Documents that finally came out last year revealed S Mishra’s abuse of trust and unconstitutional behaviour. See latter part of this document: http://tinyurl.com/SMishra1

a) It was sneaky and secretive – an inside-job between PMO and DOPT. There was no announcement of when the Prime Minister’s selection committee was to meet, and nobody knows who were the candidates considered, and whether any civil-society members were considered at all. It was a slap on the face of civil society. This is part of a larger problem that makes all such appointments malafide. For details, read “How Babus steal power from Civil Society:http://tinyurl.com/ThiefBabus1

Now the bright side:

One hears quite a few good things about Satyananda Mishra from the appellants who have appeared before him. What one hears is from well informed RTI activists like C J Karira and Girish Mittal is:

· SM gives logically reasoned orders

· Uses technology to ensure that his hearing proceedings are transcribed the same day and promptly converted into orders

· Holds hearings within 4-5 months of appeal being filed, has a decent disposal speed, is an efficient office administrator and maintains records well

· Is generally pro-disclosure, and puts the onus of justifying denial of information on the Public Information Officer and Public Authority.

· Often reveals his stand at the end of hearings and gives a general sense of direction as to what he will write in his order.

· He is an intelligent and reasonable man, who has shown guts and independent mind to take on the administration, and generally uphold the logical structure of the RTI Act.

· The only negative thing is that he is not too keen to impose penalty.

· All said, he is the best man that they could have handpicked for the job out of all the existing Central Information Commissioners.

In view of all this, I feel that Satyananda Mishra’s selection as Chief CIC is bad, but not terrible. Things could have been a lot worse.

However, we can still explore the possibility of going to Court to oppose his appointment, as it is overall an untoward appointment.

I now await the views of other activists and appellants – especially those who have appeared before him.

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

SIC Ramanand Tiwari involved in Adarsh-type scams in Mumbai & Pune

Maharashtra’s State Information Commissioner Ramanand Tiwari played a crucial role in two more land scams in Mumbai & Pune involving high ranking bureaucrats, politicians and their aides. One may term them as Adarsh-II and Adarsh-III. Also read about another scam in Wadala, which we may call Adarsh-IV, where Mr Tiwari’s hand, if present, is not clear.

“ADARSH-II”: RENUKA CO-OP. SOC., BANDRA EAST

Ashok Chavan’s aides usurped plot in Bandra meant for displaced families to build a private housing society; but disturbingly, main promoter D P Sawant, a Congress MLA, was sworn in as a Minister of State in Prithviraj Chavan’s government.

Other housing societies are tumbling out of Ashok Chavan’s closet. It has emerged that a piece of land in Bandra (East), meant for displaced residents, was usurped six months ago by bureaucrats and politicians close to the former Chief Minister. The four-acre plot, taken from the government for a small fraction of its market value, now houses Renuka Co-operative Housing Society, where the residents include several senior IAS officers, two of Chavan’s former secretaries, his brother-in-law Gulabrao Bhoyas, and State Information Commissioner Ramanand Tiwari.

Original news item: http://tinyurl.com/adarshbandra

The society consists of 2 BHK and 3 BHK flats, valued between Rs 2 and Rs 5 crore by local real-estate agents. They were, however, sold to Renuka’s privileged residents for Rs 20 to Rs 30 lakh. The move to take over this plot first began in 2004, but the owners started moving in only in May 2010. The entire project came up without any formal application before the BMC’s Improvement Committee to change the status of the plot from ‘dis-housed’ to ‘residential’.

This, at a time when the corporation desperately needs 25,000 houses to accommodate families affected due to projects such as BRIMSTOWAD (storm-water draining), road widening, nullah widening, and rehabilitation of slum-dwellers living near water pipelines. Construction began in 2004 on the plot measuring 1,389 sq metre. Violating Section 33 (1 & 2), a file was sent to the BMC seeking permission, but not forwarded to the Improvement Committee for approval. Despite no formal sanction from the corporation, and therefore no paper trail, the building was completed last year, and interior work was finished this summer.

“The state government has the right not to take a decision on changing the status of a plot on its own. At that time, Urban Development principal secretary Ramanand Tiwari played vital role in helping develop the society. The BMC got no wind of it,” said a senior civic official. Tiwari himself allegedly owns a flat in the building, but when contacted by Mumbai Mirror, denied that he had anything to do with the society. “If they say I own a house there, I will sue the society,” he said. BJP MLC Vinod Tawde, however, insisted that the former bureaucrat was one of the society’s members. “I have procured documents from the Registrar’s office, and Mr Tiwari’s name is very much there,” he claimed.

Other members of Renuka society include Nitin Kareer, Ashok Chavan’s chief secretary; Satish Sawant, personal assistant to the ex-CM; Shailesh Patil, son of former Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil; Vipin Gupchup, PA of Sushil Kumar Shinde; Ajay Bhushan Pande, the serving energy secretary; and Ramakant Asamar, a joint secretary in the State Revenue department.

Asamar confirmed he had a 3 BHK flat in Renuka. “But we’ve relocated a portion of the plot for dishoused people at another location. We’ve not done anything wrong,” he contended.

When contacted, retired IPS officer and social activist, Y P Singh, alleged that members of the Renuka society had not only illegally changed the reservation status of the plot but also shifted the direction of a nullah that passes nearby. “As per Section 22 of Maharashta Regional Town-Planning Act, reservations are created as per the requirement of the city and its development needs. An individual need of a private society cannot supersede the development of the city,” Singh said.

Rahul Shewale, chairman of the BMC’s standing committee, said they would immediately look into matter, and prepare a report seeking to reclaim the plot. “Without consulting us, houses meant for displaced people have been given to top politicians and bureaucrats at a throwaway price. All people involved should be booked and action should be taken against them,” he said.

“ADARSH-III”: GAYATRI CO-OP. SOC., SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE

29 senior IAS officials and junior bureaucrats grabbed government land consisting of five acres and formed the Gayatri Cooperative Housing Society. The vacant land belonged to the former Food Craft Institute (FCI), now Maharashtra State Institute Hotel Management and Catering (MSIHMAC), which is a state government institution. The land was allotted to the institution to construct a ladies hostel and sports complex. As the state government was reeling under financial crisis in 2004, funds for the building were withheld.

Original news item: http://tinyurl.com/adarshpune

The bureaucrats took advantage of a legal loophole that government land must be utilized within two years or the government would reclaim it back. They then came together with bureaucrats from the secretariat and, without the knowledge of the institution, took control of the land by dubious means. Though the bureaucrats managed to get an order in favor of the Gayatri Society floated by them, it was quashed by the then Divisional Commissioner P. D. Karandikar.

Now Karandikar, who had ordered the land grabbed by bureaucrats to be returned to the institution, says, “I have unconfirmed information that the Government in Department of Higher & Technical Education (DTE) have informed the Revenue Department that the land in question is not likely to be utilized by them for expansion of the Hotel Management Institute (for want of budgetary provision). This would pave the way for floating another Co-op Housing Society on the same plot. Official information on this can be obtained by Research and Technical Institute application.”

ADDITIONAL INPUTS FROM THE AUTHOR SHAHID BURNEY, A SENIOR RTI STALWART:

Ramanand Tiwari's wife Sheela Tiwari, also an IAS officer, acquired a stake in this housing society, when Ramanand was secretary of Urban Development in 2004. List of society members acquired under RTI from Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society in Pune:

1. Satish Tripati - Mumbai

2. Rakesh Chandra Joshi, Mumbai

3- Subash Lalla (Chairman State Human Rights Commission), Mumbai

4. Sanjay Ubale, former Secretary GAD, Mumbai

5. Mahesh Pathak, Mumbai

6. Smt. Sheela Ramanand Tiwari, Mumbai (W/O Ramanand Tiwari)

7. Jawale HK, Mumbi

8. Vikas Deshmukh, Mumbai

9. Sanjay Radkar, Mumbai

10. Rajiv Nivatkar, Mumbai

11. Avinash Dhakne, Mumbai

12. S.G.Deshmukh, Pune

13. Anil Diggikar, former Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Commissioner, Pune

14. V. Radha, Secretary, Women and Child Development, Mumbai

15. Umakant Dangat, former Additional Collector, Pune

16. D.G. Rajurkar, former Deputy Municipal Commissioner, PMC, Pune,

17, Swati-Mhase-Patil, Pune

18. Suhas Diwase, former Resident Deputy Collector, Pune

19. Sharad Jadhav, Pune

20. Kavita Diwvedi, Pune,

21. Suraj Mandhare, Miraj, Sangli

22. Kishore More, Chief Promoter, former deputy collector and Private Secretary to

Minister of Tourism, Mumbai

23. Ajiyanka Padwal, former Additonal Collector, Pune,

24. Sampath Davkar, former deputy collector, Pune and OSD to Minister Patangrao Kadam

25. Smt. Deepali Khade, Pune

26. Vipin Gupchup, Pune

27. D.P. Metke

28. Ashok Mulchandani, Pimpri, Pune

29. Jungle Wagh

Names of former PMC Commissoner Nitin Kareer and Government Pleader Amar Mulchandani also figure in the government list. (Nitin Kareer is said to be instrumental in allotting government land in the Sasson General Hospital to controversial NGO Sofosh.)

In spite of the then Divisional Commissioner Bapu Karandikar directing the collector to return the government land back to the owners MSIHMAC, the IAS officers have not yet given up their claim and are creating obstruction in the handing over the land. All the 29 members had paid their share capital of Rs. 250.

Shahid Burney, who lives in Pune (094220 12831,seniorjourno@yahoo.com ), has a dossier of documents about Gayatri society, and also Indus Society which is mentioned below.

“ADARSH-IV”: INDUS CO-OP. SOC., WADALA

To purchase flats at exceptional concession rates, bureaucrats in the state secretariat bargained to clear files, adding their own people to the original list with the Finance Department. Indus was promoted by some IAS officers who were later joined by IPS officers, senior government servants and legislators from the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council. This resulted in the members’ list rising to 135 plus. The promoters applied for land at Wadala with the government giving its willingness to allot 13,000 square meters of land.

After the government agreed to the allotment of the land, it dawned on the promoters that the land was near the sea shore and was thus covered under the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification, making them eligible to use only 7,000 square meters, which was nearly half of the actual land allotted by the government. This compelled the promoters to reduce the membership to 92 and they provided this list to the Mumbai Collector, who further reduced it to about 70 members saying that most of the members were not eligible. As the land was reduced, the building could only accommodate 82 members for 1,000 square feet flats.

As the file began moving in all the secretariat departments, politicians also demanded a share in the society to clear the proposal.

Currently, it is thought that Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan, taking a lesson from the Adarsh housing scam, may delete names of some politicians and bureaucrats or delay the allotment of land to Indus Society.

Warm Regards,

Krish

Adarsh Scam: Send this letter to CM Prithviraj Chavan asking why no action yet?

Dear friends,

It is over two weeks since Prithviraj Chavan’s swearing in as Chief Minister of Maharashtra. I think some of us had hopes that after he came, we would see action against culprits of Adarsh scam. However, till date, nothing has happened. Ramanand Tiwari is still the State Information Commissioner, no FIR has been registered, and things appear to be back to business-as-usual.

Send this letter to the CM to tell him that we are not fooled:http://tinyurl.com/AdarshCM1

This letter is also copy-pasted below.

Warmly,

Krish

_____________________

DRAFT OF LETTER TO CM PRITHVIRAJ CHAVAN

28 November 2010

To

Shri Prithviraj Chavan,

Chief Minister of Maharashtra,

Mantralaya, 6th Floor,

Madame Cama Road,

Mumbai 400032

Sub: Your Failure to Act against Adarsh Culprits shows Contempt of Citizens

Sir,

Congratulations on your new assignment as Chief Minister. Need we remind you that you are in this post because of the Adarsh scam? As an unfamiliar figure in the politics of this state, your only claim to legitimacy as CM in the common man’s eyes is your seeming willingness to punish the scamsters. Otherwise, what is the difference between you and your tainted predecessor?

Two days ago, Supreme Court Justice A K Ganguly reprimanded CBI for “beating around the bush” in the 2G Spectrum scam instead of interrogating Mr A Raja and filing FIR. In the case of Adarsh also, your government and CBI are beating around the bush. Mr Sushilkumar Shinde, Mr Vilasrao Deshmukh, Mr Ashok Chavan, Dr Suresh Joshi, Mr Ramanand Tiwari and Mr Jairaj Phatak have not been interrogated. Also, no FIR has been registered despite ample documentary evidence of criminal wrongdoings. There is no move to put these influential persons under judicial restraint to save evidence from being tampered, and witnesses being pressured.

Instead, the culprits’ positions of eminence in the State and at the Centre are intact. Mr Tiwari continues to be State Information Commissioner. Mr Phatak is Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj. Dr Joshi, who recently retired as Chief Information Commissioner of Maharashtra, is tipped to become advisor to YASHADA.

Sir, you were until very recently Minister of State (MOS) of Prime Minister’s office and of DOPT—the department in charge of CBI. And now you are Chief Minister of Maharashtra. No matter which way one looks at it, you are squarely responsible for the government’s extreme leniency in this matter.

We ask you to take immediate action to make amends.

Yours Sincerely,

(Your signature, name, address, phone number)

Copy to: 1. Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, South Block, New Delhi - 110001.

2. Mrs Sonia Gandhi, 10 Janpath, New Delhi - 110001.

--------------------------------------------------

Krishnaraj Rao

Video: Building a better India, one citizen at a time

Fellow citizens,

A clean, non-corrupt India is what we all want. But for this, many things need to change... including our mindset. See this video-presentation and reflect: http://tinyurl.com/wakeupindia

Liked the presentation? Become part of the great Indian awakening. Forward this to your friends and colleagues.

Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

Why is CBI, and not ACB, investigating Adarsh? A fresh development, some inconvenient questions

Mumbai, 16 Nov: Activist Santosh Daundkar and his lawyer Y P Singh today moved the Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade Court to direct Maharashtra Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to register a First Information Report (FIR) against former IAS officer Ramanand Tiwari (currently State Information Commissioner) and other key players in the Adarsh scam. This is because their complaint to ACB did not result in an FIR being registered till date. As per the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), FIR must be registered within 48 hours if cognizable offences are clearly made out in the complaint. The case will come up for hearing before the magistrate on December 1.

Y P Singh argues that CBI’s ongoing investigation is an effort to pull wool over citizens’ eyes and letting the main culprits slip away. “As per the CBI manual, where a larger number of State Government Officers and fewer Central Govt. officers are involved, the jurisdiction for investigating the offences rests with the State ACB. Also, why has no FIR been registered yet? Until FIR is registered, the law of the land does not empower any investigating agency to conduct meaningful investigations,” he says.

CIVIL SOCIETY ASKS SOME INCONVENIENT QUESTIONS:

A. HAS CBI REGISTERED AN FIR? IF SO, ARE SUSHIL KUMAR SHINDE, VILASRAO DESHMUKH AND ASHOK CHAVAN NAMED AS THE ACCUSED? One wonders whether by asking CBI to handle investigations, the Prime Minister is attempting to shield them. CBI is directly under Personnel Ministry/DOPT, which is a portfolio held by Dr Manmohan Singh himself. Also, until becoming the Chief Minister, Prithviraj Chavan was Minister of State for Persmin/DOPT.

B. IS CBI OUTSIDE ITS PROPER JURISDICTION? Look at CBI’s website (http://cbi.nic.in/aboutus/cbiroles.php) which says, “The following broad categories of criminal cases are handled by the CBI: Cases of corruption and fraud committed by public servants of all Central Govt. Departments, Central Public Sector Undertakings and Central Financial Institutions.” Under the subhead, ‘Jurisdiction of CBI vis-a-vis State Police’, it says, “Law and Order is a State subject and the basic jurisdiction to investigate crime lies with State Police. Besides, due to limited resources, CBI would not be able to investigate crimes of all kind. CBI may investigate: Cases which are essentially against Central Govt. employees or concerning affairs of the Central Govt; Cases in which the financial interests of the Central Government are involved; Cases relating to the breaches of Central Laws with the enforcement of which the Government of India is mainly concerned; Cases having interstate and international ramifications and involving several official agencies where, from all angles, it is considered necessary that a single investigating agency should be in charge of the investigation.”

BY CONTRAST, THE JURISDICTION OF ACB MAHARASHTRA IS BEYOND QUESTION. ACB’s website (http://acbmaharashtra.org/ ) states, “The Anti-Corruption Bureau has jurisdiction over the State of Maharashtra. Police Officers attached to the Bureau are competent to investigate cases against all public servants, irrespective of the fact whether the public servant concerned is under the control of the Central Government or of the State Government... However, there is a separate agency (i.e. the Central Bureau of Investigation) to deal with cases against Central Government Servants. Hence, to avoid duplication of work, the officers of the Bureau make enquiries and investigations into complaints only against servants of the State Government, of the statutory Corporations of Bodies set up and financed by the State Government...”

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ( http://www.box.net/shared/x9a6utkf9g) defines the term “public servants” in the broadest possible way as “any person in the pay of the government”. Even ministers and legislators are “public servants” under this definition. ACB derives its mandate under this Act.

C. CBI IS UNDER SUPERINTENDENCE OF CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION (CVC), WHICH HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER POLITICIANS. As per the CVC Act notified on 12.09.2003, the superintendence over CBI relating to investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, vests in Central Vigilance Commission. Even if we ignore the fact that the current CVC Mr P J Thomas is himself a tainted bureaucrat, how does one cope with the fact that CVC does not have jurisdiction over politicians, and that it merely forwards complaints against bureaucrats to the respective department heads to investigate and report back? These are critical deficiencies that have been pointed out by Karnataka Lokayukta Justice Santosh Hegde, former CVC P Shankar, senior Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan and others.

Admittedly, the involvement of defense land and defense personnel – a central subject -- provides a fig-leaf of justification for CBI’s involvement. The question that we are asking Dr Manmohan Singh is: Mr Prime Minister, are you misusing your direct power over CBI for shielding your cabinet colleagues Sushil Kumar Shinde and Vilasrao Deshmukh?

Krish

98215 88114

Mumbai Mirror: A new way to ‘stamp’ out Adarsh corruption

Activists putting stickers with photos of CM, netas on South Mumbai pavements for people to kick, spit on them

Has the Adarsh CHS scam left you angry and frustrated? A bunch of activists are offering the more disgruntled amongst you the chance to express that anger by stepping on, spitting and kicking those involved in the scam. Over 1,000 stickers with photographs of the tainted politicians and bureaucrats have been printed and will be plastered on South Mumbai pavements.

Each sticker comes with the messages: “I stole your land in the name of war widows,” “Spit on my face” and “Walk on my face”. The protesters, led by RTI activist Krishnaraj Rao claim, once pasted, these stickers which cost the protestors Rs 5 apiece, will not come off easily.

For complete news pl visit:

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/2/2010110620101106033548758daf4ecbf/A-new-way-to-%E2%80%98stamp%E2%80%99-out-Adarsh-corruption.html