Kejriwal’s sack Drama Pales Against ‘PM sacked Deputy PM’ case

(Edited Image Courtesy: delhi.gov.in)

Now that #AAPWalksTheTalk twitter party is over, we can dish out some sobering thoughts for Aam Adami Party (AAP) Supremo-cum-Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his fans.

The anti-bribery jubilation also has an embedded message for a section of the mainstream media, which projected Mr. Kejriwal's  “live” sacking of Food Minister Asim Ahmad Khan as “unprecedented” and refrained from asking critical questions to CM. 

First fact first. Mr. Kejriwal is not the first Chief Minister/Prime Minister to sack a minister. In March this year, tainted Tamil Nadu Agriculture Minister S.S Krishnamoorthy was not only sacked from the Cabinet but also stripped of all AIADMK party posts. He was later sent to judicial custody too. (http://bit.ly/1QfU66s)

Certain CMs in different States have sacked ministers of dubious reputation without flaunting corruption charges as that might later be trashed by the courts. Even the so-called “weakest” Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had goaded Union Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan of the alleged ‘jayanthi tax’ fame resign from UPA Cabinet in December 2013.

Way back in August 1948, PM Jawahar Lal Nehru had dropped (sacked according to one version) India's first Finance Minister R.K. Shanmukham Chetty for allegedly being soft towards certain business houses in pursuing taxation cases against them. Later, Mr. Nehru kept the finance portfolio with himself for about a month. (http://bit.ly/1jV9uem & http://bit.ly/1L5D61x )

 If these instances appear weak in theatrics which is Kejriwal’s trademark, let me take him and AAP's teenyboppers to a unique case of Prime Minister sacking Deputy Prime Minister on grave charges of misconduct: Late Mr. V.P. Singh had sacked the No.2 man, Late Chaudhary Devi Lal, in the National Front Government in August 1990.

At that time, private TV news channels had not cropped up. There was obviously no online social media. Mr. Singh had to thus sack Mr.Lal through an official release. And yet Mr. Singh's sacking of his Deputy PM was more credible and dramatic than Mr. Kejriwal's action.

PM had slapped three charges on Mr. Lal: 1) Quoting a forged letter in an interview with a weekly magazine. The letter was allegedly written by Mr. Singh in November 1987 to the President of India when he was a minister in Rajiv Gandhi Government, levelling charges against the then cabinet colleagues. 2) In the interview, Mr. Lal made serious, unsubstantiated allegations against his Cabinet colleagues. 3) He also made derogatory remarks against PM in the interview.

In a letter addressed to Mr. Lal on 1st August 1990, Mr. Singh stated: “For these acts of yours, of violations of all cannons of collective responsibility of the Cabinet, I have recommended to the President of India to drop you from the Council of Ministers.”

Consider now the second fact. In this case, Mr. Singh had given an opportunity to Mr. Lal to defend himself on these charges through a letter dated 29th July 1990. Mr. Lal failed to answer razor-sharp queries on the forged letter. Nor did he provide evidence to substantiate allegations against other ministers.

Mr. Kejriwal, on other hand, did not give an opportunity to Mr Khan to reply to the alleged case of bribery, which is based on a recorded telephonic conversation. This is evident from his initial reaction immmediately after a Press Conference. A daily quoted Mr. Khan as saying: “I have not heard the recording and am in a state of shock. The party said that till the inquiry is on, I should not be in office.”

The very next day, Mr. Khan trashed Kejriwal's charges at a Press conference. He attributed his sacking to AAP’s internal politics and an attempt to save some big gun within the party. He reportedly said: “I am the sacrificial goat”. He also resolved to expose the conspiracy against him in a few days.

 In playing a taped conversation in which Mr. Khan is allegedly seeking bribes at the Press Conference, Mr. Kejriwal not only showed contempt for the Law but also rationalized media lynching of suspects.

It is here pertinent to quote what the then Chairman of Law Commission Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, stated in its 200th report captioned ‘Trial by Media: Free Speech Vs. Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Amendments to the Contempt of Court Act, 1971)’ submitted in August 2006.

Mr. Rao observed: “According to our law, a suspect/accused is entitled to a fair procedure and is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty in a Court of law. None can be allowed to prejudge or prejudice his case by the time it goes to trial.”

If Mr. Khan drags Kejriwal Government to the court and wins a defamation suit, would Mr. Kejriwal resign as CM? Was this question raised in the feted Press conference?

Third, if Mr. Kejriwal is sincere in battling corruption at top echelons of power, why has he not made public all the files on corruption complaints in which some of his ministers are suspects, the latest case being that of alleged nepotism towards a firm owned by a kin of Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia?

Any clean head of a government would have no hesitation in suo moto disclosure of all files on all commercial deals. After all, transparency is the key to prevention of bribery.

Why has Mr. Kejriwal left the post of anti corruption ombudsman, Lokayukta, vacant for several months? Why has he dragged his feet over Jan Lokpal bill? Why has he not referred to CBI several cases of irregularities that happened during the previous Congress regime at Delhi? And what about the donations scam that rocked AAP on the eve of Delhi Assembly elections?

Fourth, Kejriwal deserves praise for outsmarting Prime Minister Narendra Modi in anti-corruption theatrics. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Modi/BJP would accept Kejriwal’s gauntlet and take decisive political steps in Lalitgate, VyapamGate, Rajasthan mining scam, etc.  

         #BeefPolitcs Rants Prove Activists’ Duplicity on Lynching by mobs

    

(Indian Civil Society should create such online museum on lynching by mobs in the country)

Is there a good or bad lynching by mob? Do media especially #ShrillNow TV channels and self-certified, #CivilSociety have different set of ethics on lynching debates?  Should there be different levels of concern over two types of death – one resulting from lynching and the other from court verdicts? 

These issues would stir the mind of any rationalist who values all human lives irrespective of the lynched person’s profile. These would equally disturb any citizen who wishfully prays for enforcement of the rule of the law in the country.  

The two triggers for these concerns are: hysterical response of certain sections of the intelligentsia over lynching of father-son duo in a village at Dadri in Uttar Pradesh (UP) and hanging of 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Yakub Memon. 

In the latter case, civil society indulged in unprecedented theatrics to delay implementation of reconsidered Supreme Court verdict even as it kept mum on heinous instances of lynching during the same period. 

In both these cases, the common factor is that lynched/hanged persons belonged to a particular religion. This reflects the inherent bias of the media, civil society and vote bank-obsessed politicians for a particular segment of society. Both cases served as a perfect opportunity for dubious intellectuals to bash BJP in particular, and Sangh Parivar in general. 

And this bias becomes crystal clear if we compare shrill and repeated condemnation of deaths in these two instances with numerous cases of lynching. The latter type of tragedies often gets tucked away as fringe news on inside pages of most dailies. These are also under-reported by TV channels perhaps due to their lower prospects for boosting TRP ratings.  

Vocal civil society (as distinct from silent, hard-working, ground zero NGOs) has not even cared to issue namesake press releases or tweets condemning lynching in most of such cases. 

Consider a few cases which did not result in media and civil society outcry.

Two days prior to Dadri attack in which father died and son is battling for life, another person was beaten to death in a Kanpur village in UP on suspicion of his being a Pakistan terrorist. And last month, five innocent tribal women were stripped and lynched in a village on the outskirts of Ranchi in Jharkhand on suspicion of their being witches. As many as 49 tribals women were lynched in the State last year on charges of practising witchcraft. 

On 14th July 2015, six members of a tribal family including a three year-old were lynched on suspicion of practising witchcraft in Keonjhar district of Odisha. Did any of the celebrity critics of Yakub Memon commented on lynching of tribal family, leave aside filing a PIL in Supreme Court for protection of tribals?

On the 30th July, the day Memon was hanged for heinous crime, an alleged dalit rapist was freed from Police lock-up in Mathura in UP and lynched to death. Neither #ShrillNow channels nor human rights activists criticized this Kangaroo Court, which was similar to the one held in Diamapur in Nagaland in March 2015.

Coming back to defence of lynched tribal women, over 2500 tribal women were lynched after being dubbed as witches over 15 years, according to a study report in 2010.

Such cases are routinely reported, under-played or ignored because they are bereft of political punching opportunity. The only exception about activists’ indifference towards the rights of tribals is the case of Vedanta bauxite mining proposal. In this case, they had opportunity to repeatedly attack a corporate house perceived to be close to powers that be. 

The loud mouth anchor, whose TV channel advertises him as the only trusted journalist in the country, did not wonder whether India is a banana republic when it came to brutal lynching of tribal women.  

The banana republic contention is, however, valid in the case of lynching of women as alleged witches because the crime recurs in a dozen States in spite of enactment of anti-witch hunting laws by some States.  

The narcissist TV anchor hyped Dadri incident as Politics over beef. So did a few other media entities.  But none of them interpreted slaughter of innocent tribal women as politics of rituals or faith. It is quite possible that tribals perform certain rituals to propitiate their deity. Who decides which ritual is witchcraft and which ritual is paying obeisance to the Nature or gurus or demi-gods or the God? 

Let Prime Minister Narendra Modi stand up in defence of tribals rituals in his Mann Ki Baat. He should must political will to say tribal rituals are as important as the ones practiced by persons from all other faith. After all, he is the Prime Minister for all Indians and it is his duty to defend all religions as provided for by the Constitution.

Coming back to duplicity of media and civil society, they become hyper-active when it comes to another form of lynching called honour killing. Their livid response to honour killing is at its best when they target Khap Panchayats and the ruling political party’s failure to book them for breaking the law of the land. 

As for cow slaughter/beef-linked lynching, Sangh Parivar needs to do introspection as such cases are more pronounced when BJP is in power.  Recall the lynching of 5 dalit youths in Jhajjar in Haryana on allegations of cow slaughter in October 2002 when BJP-led NDA was holding the reign at the Centre. 

As many as 80 dalits from Gurgaon villages from which the lynched youths hailed   converted to Buddhism, Christianity and Islam as a protest against the lynching. 

According to a report datelined 28 October 2002 in Times of India, one Dalit, who embraced Islam, renamed himself as Saddam Hussein!

                   Is Modi keen to tone down his image as global fashion icon?

              (PM dressed in pinstriped suit greeting President Obama. Image Courtesy: PIB)

Once bitten, twice shy. This idiom seems to have gripped Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s persona, if his cautious approach to fashion-related gifts presented to him is taken as a cue. 

Mr. Modi has apparently become wary of using gifts even of insignificant value such as a Cuban shirt and a hat, leave aside expensive ones like gold and diamond made cufflink.

The Code of Conduct (CoC) for Union and State Ministers specified the norms for acceptance of gifts and their submission to Government treasury named Toshakhana. CoC also mentions the condition under which Toshakhana returns any gift valued below Rs 5000 to the recipient. The minister is given the option to buy a gift valued above this cut-off limit. 

Indian & foreign Media fancied Mr. Modi donning different hats on different occasions when he served as Gujarat Chief Minister. The news coverage reached a new high during June 2014 when the US media went gaga over Mr. Modi’s dressing sense. The Washington Post said: “The world has a new fashion icon. And no,  it’s not Valdimir Putin, despite his fitness regime – it’s India’s new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi.”

Times Magazine foresaw Mr Modi as “apparently the next big thing in Indian fashion.” Such adulation perhaps prompted him into donning a personalized, pinstriped expensive suit in January 2015 during US President Barack Obama’s visit to India. 

The Indian Media focused on Modi’s suit, which was drummed up as Rs 10-lakh gift from a Gujarati businessman.  This served as ammunition for the opposition parties. They took a dig at PM for wearing a suit with his name embroidered into golden pinstripes. 

The very next month, Mr. Modi tried to cast off the fashion icon label by facilitating auction of the pinstriped suit and other gifts. The proceeds of the auction were earmarked for Ganga clean-up mission. The controversy should have ended with the suit getting sold off at a whopping bid of Rs 4.31 crore. The Congress has, however, kept the issue live. 

Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi enlivened the controversy by describing Modi Government as “suit-boot ki sarkar” in Parliament during May. On another occasion, Mr. Gandhi said: "No PM in the country had ever donned a suit worth Rs 10 lakh. He's fast becoming a fashion icon ignoring the common man."

Against this background, a reality check on gifts presented to PM by various dignitaries is called for. 

Mr. Modi was gifted One Cuban shirt of “no commercial value” and two kurtas (shirts) valued at Rs 4000 that his office deposited in Toshakhana in April this year. Toshakhana returned these gifts back to the recipient. 

PM also deposited in Toshakhana a hat and two pieces of cloth during June 2015. These gifts of “no commercial value are yet to be collected by the recipient”, says an official comment on the Status of gifts. The “Yet to be collected” does not necessarily mean the recipient is willing to take back the gift.

Mr. Modi also submitted a packet of cloths valued at Rs 1500 to Toshakhana in June 2015. The gift is “Yet to be collected by the recipient” according to latest official update on Toshakhana. Same is the case with another packet of clothes (of no commercial value) that was deposited during the same period. 

He also deposited in Toshakhana two jackets valued at Rs 2500 each during June 2015. The official remark on these gifts is a standard one: “Yet to be collected by the recipient.”  Ditto is the case with a pair of Kurta Paijama valued at Rs 2500 that Mr. Modi deposited in Toshakhana during the same month.

As for fashion accessories, PM deposited a gift of Gold and diamond made cufflink valued at Rs 75,000 in Toshakhana during February.  He submitted a gift box containing a necklace and a pair of ear rings valued at Rs 35 lakh to Toshakhana in April 2015.

Mr. Modi deposited a pair of silver cufflink valued at Rs 2600 and another such pair valued at Rs 1600 in Toshakhana during October 2014. Both items carry the same trite comment- “Yet to be...”

Selfies-savvy and digitally enlightened PM has not yet decided whether to buy from Toshakhana LG mobile phone with box and accessories valued at Rs 15000, (b) Samsung Mobile without box and accessories worth Rs 25,000 and (c) LG Watch worth Rs 20,000. He deposited these gifts in Toshakana during June 2015 As put by the official comment, “Option of the recipient pending.”

According to CoC, “A Minister may receive gifts when he goes abroad or from foreign dignitaries in India. Such gifts fall into two categories. The first category will include gifts which are of symbolic nature, like a sword of honour, ceremonial robes etc. and which can be retained by the recipients. The second category of gifts would be those which are not of symbolic nature. If its value is less than Rs.5,000/- it can be retained by the Minister. If, however, there is any doubt about the estimated value of the gift, the matter should be referred to the Toshakhana for valuation. If the value of the gift, on assessment is found to be within the prescribed limit of Rs.5,000/- the gift will be returned to the Minister. If it exceeds Rs.5,000/- the recipient will have the option to purchase it from the Toshakhana by paying the difference between the value as assessed by the Toshakhana and Rs.5,000/-. Only gifts of household goods which are retained by the Toshakhana, such as carpets, paintings, furniture etc. exceeding Rs.5,000/- in value, will be kept in Rashtrapati Bhavan, Prime Minister’s House or Raj Bhavan as State property.” 

MPs & Journos Flaunt Their Poor Knowledge About Farmers' Suicides

(Image Courtesy: National Crimes Record Bureau)

Several Indian MPs and journalists have once again proved right Lord Macaulay's maxim--Half Knowledge is worse than ignorance. They did so by ranting over love affairs and impotency, which figure in the list of non-agrarian causes of farmers’ suicides.

These causes were mentioned by Agriculture Minister Radha Mohan Singh while answering a question in Rajya Sabha on Friday. The written reply also mentioned agrarian causes such as indebtedness, crop failure, drought, etc.

Certain TRP-obsessed Shrill TV channels and camera-friendly MPs chose to overlook or underplay these factors. They could not digest the fact that farmers, as members of society, can also be victims of impotency and failed love affairs. They conveniently forgot that honour killings are outcome of unapproved love affairs including extra-marital relationship.

What they would find now nauseating is the fact these very causes of farmers suicides have been mentioned several times in Parliament over the years without inviting any tantrums. And they have been reported by media without any fuss!

Was the parliamentary ruckus and media ridicule in the instant case driven by their proclivity to run down Modi Government at the slightest pretext?  Or was it another unintended tribute to Lord T.B. Macaulay, 18th Century British administrator? He introduced English-medium education and Indian Penal Code in the country.  

The Indian intelligentsia right from Prime Ministerial prospect Rahul Gandhi to obscure social media activists deplored Modi Government's insensitivity towards suicide committed by farmers.

Mr. Gandhi said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi should advise his ministers to visit villages to check the ground realty. The Samajwadi Party MP Naresh Agarwal reportedly demanded an apology from Mr. Singh for his “irresponsible” remarks. Another leading MP KC Tyagi described the reply as insult to farmers. One Nagendar Sharma tweeted: “Modi Govt breaking all record of absurdity: agriculture ministry now blames love affairs, drugs & impotency for farmers suicides.”

All leading TV channels and dailies reported the furore in Rajya Sabha over Mr. Singh's reply with shrill TV channels ridiculing the reply. One Channel quoted an MP threatening to file a privilege motion against the Minister for giving a wrong reply!

There is in fact a case for filing a privilege motion in the deemed Citizens' court against the intelligentsia for misleading the country time and again through their half-knowledge, ignorance and distortion of facts.

“Love affairs, barrenness/impotency” have figured in the long list of non-agrarian factors in the answer to Parliament questions for several years! These two factors that rattled Intelligentsia's conscience have been mentioned almost verbatim in the reply to Parliament questions posed during NDA and UPA regimes.

‘Love affair’ and ‘impotency’ were mentioned in at least seven questions raised during the tenure of UPA-II. And these two offending terms figured in the answer to six questions posed during first year of Modi Government before the seventh one triggered the storm.

All these years no one even squirmed over such non-agrarian factors that the Ministry sourced from “Accidental Deaths & Suicides in India” report of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). In some replies, they figure prominently in the open paragraph.

And the most derisive aspect of the brouhaha over impotency and love affairs is that they were reported by media in a sterile manner in August 2012.

The media that carried news stories including Indian Express (http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/2.90-lakh-farmers-committed-suicide-during-19952011-govt/995981/),  Economic Times (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-31/news/33521331_1_agrarian-reasons-bankruptcy-or-sudden-change-change-in-economic-status) and Outlook Magazine (http://www.outlookindia.com/news/printitem.aspx?773784).

The news stories were developed from the reply given by UPA regime's Minister of State for Agriculture Harish Rawat (presently Uttrakhand CM) in response to a question dated 31 August 2012. (http://164.100.47.5/qsearch/QResult.aspx).

Did Mr. Gandhi snub Mr. Rawat for mentioning two offending causes in his reply?

Parliament questions in which impotency and love affairs figured in replies during the UPA regime include: 1)Answer given by Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar in response to a question numbered 147 and dated 16th August 2013. In the very first paragraph of written reply, Mr. Pawar stated: “Number of suicides of farmers since 1999, yearwise and Statewise, as compiled annually by National Crime Records Bureau is at Annexure I. Causes of suicides include family problems, illness, drug abuse/addiction, unemployment, property dispute, bankruptcy or sudden change in economic status, poverty, professional/career problem, love affair,  barrenness/impotency, cancellation/non-settlement of marriage, dowry dispute, fall in social reputation, causes not known, etc.”

Ten days prior to this, Mr. Pawar had given the same verbatim reply in the very first sense of response to the question numbered 24 put in Lok Sabha on 6th August 2013. 

The Minister of State for Agriculture Tariq Anwar stated the same non-agrarian factors (including the offending ‘love affair’ and ‘impotency’) in the very first paragraph of his reply to question numbered 2964 raised in Rajya Sabha on 21st February 2014. 

It is not only NCRB that has recorded non-agrarian factors as the additional causes for farmers’ suicides.  Expert Committees and studies have delved into these issues.

Answering a question numbered 483 in Rajya Sabha on 1st March 2013, Mr Anwar stated: “The Expert Group on Agricultural Indebtedness pointed out, interalia, that suicide is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, the risk factors can be either neurobiological or socioeconomic and root cause is not indebtedness alone, which is just a symptom.”

The underlying message of this uncalled for ruckus is that all stakeholders of shoot-and-scoot journalism should do their home work before speaking. 

Kejriwal amasses monumental deficit in battling corruption

(Edited Image Courtesy: Transparency International)

‘All parties together in corruption: Arvind Kejriwal’. So ran the headline for the PTI story datelined 17th August 2012 published in Economic Times and certain other publications.
At that time, Mr. Kejriwal had not formed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). He loved playing the role of anti-graft crusader. He is now struggling to retain this carefully-crafted image in the eyes of Aam Aadmi.
 After regaining power in Delhi in February, he, as Chief Minister, has failed to act in suspected/alleged cases of major corruption. And to deflect the public attention from his flop-show, Mr. Kejriwal is now resorting to gimmicks. A case in point is the outsourcing of manpower for Delhi Government’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) from Bihar Government.
He is also dragging his feet over his hobbyhorse, Delhi Jan Lokpal Bill, which has not even been introduced in the State Assembly till today.  He has thus not kept his word to introduce the Bill in the in the first session of re-constituted assembly.
He has also not exercised the existing option for the interregnum, i.e., facilitating appointment of Delhi Lokayukta. This post is lying vacant since October 2013, leading to massive pile-up of cases requiring investigation. It has already triggered a public interest litigation that has led Delhi High Court to admonish his Government to act fast on this subject.
Lokpal or Lokayukta, Kejriwal is caught is a situation similar to one faced by a novice riding the tiger. The ombudsman, whatever be its legal basis, is likely to unmask him by taking up potential cases involving his party and MLAs. A notable case that no anti-corruption watchdog can over is the dubious Rs 2-crores donation that his party received from four shell companies.
Mr. Kejriwal is thus haunted with the risk of the public throwing back at him, the same charge that swept him to power - All parties (AAP included) are together in corruption.
And there is notable circumstantial evidence to drive home this imminent prospect. Before listing the evidence, hear what Mr. Kejriwal stated in that story and how it is applicable to him today.
Referring to CAG reports on coal blocks, power and Delhi airport, Mr. Kejriwal stated: “We have just one question. Prime Minister, please tell us, where should we go to register an FIR on the basis of these reports. All the agencies are under the Prime Minister’s control and that is why we demand Lokpal.”
He continued: “We say all parties are involved in this (corruption) and no one wants to pass the Lokpal Bill. All parties are involved in this loot of natural resources. The states have benefitted the private companies in their respective states.”
He added: “If Jan Lokpal was there then on the basis of this report, we would have complained and in six months, the probe would have been completed. In one year, the case would have been completed and the accused would have been sent to jail in 18 months,” he said.
What would be Kejriwal’s reply if mainstream media were to toss these very questions to him on issues that he has ducked.
Barring the FIR-filing in KG basin gas price hike in January 2014 under his first stint as Delhi CM, Mr. Kejriwal has not ordered any probe on the basis of other CAG reports and serious charges available in public domain. He has not yet produced any outcome on gas pricing which is otherwise a Central Government’s subject, except for ranting against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). Not even ACB’s probe report which should have been completed in six months as per his own norm!
There has thus been only sound and fury in AAP’s battle against graft with focus on necessity-driven petty bribes and virtually zero-action on greed-driven big-ticket graft.
Mr. Kejriwal is today haunted by his own silence on irregularities in areas such as commonwealth games scam including misuse of funds earmarked for Scheduled Castes. Many irregularities have been highlighted by CAG reports on Delhi including three latest ones presented in Parliament in August 2014.  Like much-maligned Dr. Manmohan Singh, Mr. Kejriwal is practicing Maun Vrat on irregularities that have the potential to blow into major corruption scandals if probed independently.
This is best illustrated by GMR-controlled Delhi International Airport Private Limited (DIAL), which operates the Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGIA). It was privatized by the UPA with a formal support agreement with the Delhi Government. This agreement, coupled with the CAG report, offers a perfect reason for Mr. Kejriwal to order a probe as we would discuss later. 
A month before forming AAP in November 2012, Mr. Kejriwal claimed that he was gathering evidence of politician-business nexus against GMR Infrastructure, DLF and India Bull group of companies.
As put by a story datelined 17th October 2012, “He has accused the companies of having investments by politicians and is seeking information from the public about these firms.”
Mr. Kejriwal has maintained deafening silence on this self-authorized probe since then, even though tonnes of information are available in the public domain.  Take first the CAG report on Implementation of Public Private Partnership (at) IGIA presented in Parliament in August 2012. CAG’s findings were articulated and corroborated by Public Accounts Committee during February 2014.
In the report, CAG concluded: “It was noted that the concept of upfront fee was used to lease out an additional land of 190.19 acres for a paltry one-time payment of Rs 6.19 crores. Other Government offices like Director General of Civil Aviation and Bureau of Aviation Security were given a much harsher treatment when 7.60 acres of land was leased out to them at a license fee of Rs 2.41 crores per annum.”
CAG explained: “Out of a total land area of 5106 acres of IGIA, AAI (Airport Authority of India) initially leased out 4608.9 acres for development of the airport. An additional 190.19 acres of land was leased to DIAL, thus bringing the total demised premises at 4799.09 acres.”
CAG’s 2nd charge: Ministry of Civil Aviation and later AERA (Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India) allowed DIAL to collect Development Fees amounting to Rs 3415.35 crores. The order of Ministry in February 2009 allowing this was in contravention of the OMDA, AAI Act and the AERA Act. Contrary to the provisions of OMDA (Operation, Management and Development Agreement), DIAL was allowed to use the amount collected as Development Fees to meet the project costs. In fact, only 19 per cent of the project cost came from equity, approximately 42 per cent came from debt. The remaining project costs were met from security deposits and Development Fees.
CAG stated: “Allowing these post contractual benefits violated the tendering process by which the JV partner was selected.”
CAG’s another charge: “Many observations in the present report would indicate that whenever DIAL raised an issue regarding revenue to accrue to it or expenditure to be debited to Government in contravention of the provisions of OMDA, the Ministry and AAI interpreted the provisions always in favour of the operators and against the interest of the Government.”
Apart from CAG report, Kejriwal Government has had another valid ground to order anti-corruption probe in privatization of Delhi airport. This by virtue of it being successor to Congress-led Government that signed an agreement dated 26th April 2006.
This agreement named ‘State Government Support Agreement (SGSA)’ between Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GONCT) and DIAL provides for all kind of assistance that the former would be required to provide the latter in development, operation and management of the airport.
And DIAL is exuding confidence in its empowerment to get work done from Delhi Government. In its offering memorandum dated 27th  January 2015 issued to international investors, DIAL says: “Under the terms of the SGSA, the GONCT agreed to use its best endeavors to, among others, (a) clear land required for the provision of aeronautical services at the Airport of any squatters occupying such land, (b) provide additional land necessary for the provision of aeronautical services at the Airport, (c) upgrade, modernize and maintain existing access roads to and from the Airport, namely National Highway 8, as well as make reasonable endeavors to develop additional modes of public transport to and from the Airport, (d) provide sufficient utility services to the Airport, (e) maintain cleanliness in the area surrounding the Airport and prevent any interference from animals or birds in such areas, and (f) provide us with all consents, licenses, approvals, permits and other authorizations or permissions required from GONCT under applicable law that we properly apply for in order to perform our obligations under the OMDA.”
The agreement’s clause relating to eviction of squatters conflicts with AAP’s solemn electoral promise that “slums will not be demolished under any circumstances.”
Why has Mr. Kejriwal not ordered review of all such contracts that were signed by Congress Party solely to serve the interest of the private companies?  Why has he not smelled rat in such contracts?
Turn now to CAG report on GONCT’s revenue and social and economic sectors (PSUs) presented in Parliament in August 2014 when the State Assembly was in suspended animation. The report has listed instances of revenue leakages running into several hundred crores of rupees. The leakages/revenue loss has been caused by short levy of taxes or failure to collect taxes and due to attempts to favour private companies.
Has Mr. Kejriwal asked ACB to probe such glaring irregularities mentioned in this CAG reports on Delhi? Information on this count is hard to come by in the public domain. 
Aam Aadmi is thus baffled by Mr. Kejriwal’s strategy to selectively target a few firms especially the ones promoted by Ambani brothers and maintain stoic silence in other instances. AAP is generous in issuing statements against Ambanis’ companies.
A case in point is the release dated 12th December 2014 targeting Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL). It says: “The reported opinion of the government’s top law officer, Attorney General, Mr Mukul Rohatgi advising the government to pay Rs 1800 crores to a subsidiary company of Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) for terminating the contract of Delhi airport metro with the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) is a blatant attempt to help this company at the cost of public money and is nothing short of a multi-crores rupee scam.”
All this muck ultimately recoils into one issue: Has Mr. Kejriwal got hooked to the great Indian politics’ rope trick – Roar like a lion against corruption on public platforms and utter Meow Meow in privacy?

Loudmouths have Erred over PM’s 5-Star Activists Remark

                                                  (Edited Image-Courtesy: PIB)

The ruckus over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's observations as to whether public perceptions and five-star activists were driving court verdicts is an instance of dreaded shoot and scoot journalism. It is a classical case of half knowledge in action at certain TV news channels. 

There was nothing new in his comment that kept the Opposition and the mainstream media busy haranguing against PM for almost two days.  Mr. Modi merely paraphrased what different chief justices of India (CJIs), Supreme Court judges, high courts and other legal entities have stated over the years.

Mr. Modi’s predecessor, Dr. Manmohan Singh, had also voiced concern over certain aspects of judicial activism and public interest litigations (PILs). He had also done some plain-speaking on encroachment of the Executive turf by judicial activism in his speeches during his two tenures as Prime Minister. Did Loudmouths cry hoarse over Dr. Singh’s observations that would be elaborated later? 

Even the appellation ‘five star activists’ for foreign funded NGOs is an old hat. Mr. Modi has been using this term for more than a decade. He perhaps spun this label in London while addressing a meeting in London on 18th August 2003. 

Mr. Modi’s observations appear muted compared to what certain legal luminaries have stated boldly, honestly and emphatically to stem the growing rot within the judiciary. PM’s speech should have thus served as agenda for a serious debate on the nexus between judicial-NGO-media activism that has thrived largely due to governance-cum-legislative deficit. 

The critics distorted PM's balanced speech out of context. Why they overlooked judiciary’s loud introspection over judicial populism & corruption over the years?

The Loudmouths from the Opposition parties and the TV channels who accused Mr. Modi of the Contempt of the Court thus owe an apology to the nation for lowering the dignity of PM’s office and for vitiating public discourse. 

Before recalling mind-boggling observations made by eminent CJIs and other judges, we need to recapitulate what PM said while addressing the Joint Conference of Chief Justices of States and Chief Justices of High Courts on 5th April.

As the Government often does not issue the English translation of the text of PM’s speeches delivered in Hindi, we have to rely on news reports published by reputed dailies. 

According to a news report in one national daily, Modi said, “It is never too difficult to deliver justice within the boundaries of the law and Constitution. But it is very difficult to find the truth between perception and reality. It must be pondered over whether five-star activists are driving the judiciary today… if havoc is created to drive the judiciary. It has become difficult to deliver justice in an atmosphere of perception.”

Another national quoted PM as saying “The judiciary is not as fearless today as it used to be ten years back. Are five-star activists not driving the judiciary? Are they not attempting to do so? Judges fear what the reaction of five-star activists would be when they render justice as per law and as per Constitution.”

The same daily also quoted Mr. Modi as saying: “It is not difficult to dispense justice as per Constitution and law. But while doing so, judges must differentiate between perception (created by social activists) and fact.”

Turn now soul-stirring observations made by legal luminaries about the decay within the judiciary over the last 15 years. 

The issue of perception-driven verdict was aptly elaborated by the then CJI S.H. Kapadia in January 2012 while presiding over the Nani Palkhivala Memorial Trust Lecture.

Justice Kapadia reportedly observed: “Apart from independence from politics, the judiciary also needs independence from popular interest.” 

He averred: “If an order is not in favour of a particular group, then the judge faces a backlash. An atmosphere is created whereby pressure is exerted on the judge.”

Way back in July 1998, Press Council of India chairman and former Supreme Court judge P B Sawant expressed disquiet over the populism cult and corruption in the judiciary. 

Addressing the high court bar association in Nagpur, Justice Sawant said, “These two are very disturbing developments.” He said corruption was happening at “some place at all levels” and even if one or two judges were corrupt, it marred the image of the entire judiciary.

According to UNI report published by rediff.com, he stated that the populist trend among certain judges was more damaging than corruption. In the garb of judicial activism, things were done to humour the public opinion.

As put by the news report, “Justice Sawant said that instead of playing to the gallery, a judge should be ready to take the podium and ‘swim against the tide’. But in the garb of judicial activism, these judges were laying down wrong laws and precedents. He said populist judgments adversely affected the entire society.”

A wacky instance of such perception-driven verdict is Supreme Court’s ruling extending the definition of fundamental right to life to the right to sleep (in a public place) in February 2012.  This interpretation of the Constitution was done by a SC bench while ruling that Delhi Police had violated this right while acting against a sleeping crowd at Baba Ramdev’ Rally in Delhi under a suo-moto case. 

This led Justice Kapadia into doing some plain-speaking on judicial activism. In his lecture on ‘Jurisprudence of Constitutional Structure’ in August 2012, he stated that judges should not govern the country. They should not frame policies. They should apply “enforceability” test on the verdicts such defining right to sleep as a fundament right. 

He also reprimanded the civil society activists for questioning Parliament’s authority to frame laws and by draping themselves with “we the people” authority. 

Justice Kapadia is not the first CJI to articulate the need for judiciary exercising self restraint on judicial activism.

Way back in 1999, CJI Dr. A.S. Anand stated: “With a view to see that judicial activism does not become ‘judicial adventurism’ and lead a Judge going in pursuits of his own notions of justice, ignoring the limits of law, the bounds of his jurisdiction and the binding precedents, the courts must act with proper restraint and self-discipline.”

Inaugurating the golden Jubilee Celebrations of Rajasthan High Court, Justice Dr. Anand added: “The danger of the judiciary creating a multiplicity of rights without possibility of adequate enforcement is a real one. It must be guarded against. The judiciary should not become an institution of mere form bereft of substance.”

As put by Jusice Dr. Anand in his speech, which is available at Eastern Book Company’s website, “There are real limits to what the judicial process should attempt to accomplish and the judiciary should resist the temptation to cross those limits. The decisions of the courts should be within the zone of juridical legitimacy.”

According to a news report in a business daily published in March 2015, Madras High Court has ruled that judicial activism cannot encroach on other organs of democracy.

It is here also pertinent to quote a comprehensive analysis of judicial activism penned by ex-Solicitor-General of India T.R. Andhyarujina in the Hindu dated 6th August 2012.  

Listing several instances of the judiciary interfering in purely policy and routine governance issues, Mr Andhyarujina pointed out that the Supreme Court has made an order even in a military operation. 

He added: “In 1993, the Court issued orders on the conduct of military operations in Hazratbal, Kashmir where the military had as a matter of strategy restricted the food supplies to hostages. The Court ordered that the provision of food of 1,200 calorific value should be supplied to hostages.”

Commenting on this, an Army General wrote: “For the first time in history, a Court of Law was asked to pronounce judgment on the conduct of an ongoing military operation. Its verdict materially affected the course of operation.”

This shocking case might have perhaps rankled in Dr. Manmohan Singh’s mind in August 2006 when he identified one of the challenges faced by the society as: “the judiciary-executive relationships and the legislative tools that can be used to tackle the menace of terrorism while respecting human rights.”

Speaking at the Golden Jubilee of the Indian Law Institute, Dr. Singh also shared his unease about the quality of public debate. He observed: “In a functioning democracy like ours public debate is an important mechanism for facilitating the formulation of both laws and policies. They influence the interpretation of law and influence legislation.”

Inaugurating a conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts on ‘Administration of Justice on Fast Track,’ in April 2007, Dr. Singh stated public interest litigations (PILs) have great utility in initiating corrective action but these cannot become vehicles for settling political scores. “We need standards and benchmarks for screening so that only genuine PILs with a justiciable cause of action based on judicially manageable standards are taken up. This will also ensure consistency in judicial pronouncements”. He suggested that the Supreme Court could take a lead in framing rules in this regard.

Inaugurating the Commonwealth Law Conference in February 2011, Dr. Singh said: “it has to be ensured that the nonnegotiable premise of the constitutional scheme – defined as the basic structure of the constitution is not subordinated to political impulses of the moment or to the will of transient majorities. Also while the power of judicial review must be used to enforce accountability, it must never be used to erode the legitimate role assigned to the other branches of government.”

As for appellation ‘fire star activists’, it aptly captures the spirit voluble NGOs who frequently fly abroad to attend lavish international conferences on environmental and human rights agenda as defined by the West. Some of them NGOs also finance the visits of journalists to conferences or sites to further their agenda in public discourse! 

All NGOs and civil society activists are not paragons of virtue. Many of them aggressively push narrow and distorted agenda to appease their foreign donors. They are averse to showing a holistic understanding of rights of one section versus rights of the other section and arriving at a balanced resolution of complex issues. They don’t factor in constitutional duties of the citizens in their agenda.  Above all, dubious NGOs are reluctant to making their operations 100 percent transparent and filing income tax returns. Some of the dubious ones circumvent black-listing by floating new NGOs.

With this ground reality, Loudmouths should introspect whether they are highly biased against Mr. Modi. They must make amends to improve the quality of public discourse which Dr. Singh considers as vital for ensuring transparency in decision-making process in the country.

Indian Budget’s ‘Jan Dhan to Jan Suraksha’ initiative is much ado about nothing

                                                  (Edited image courtesy- rsby.gov.in)

The Finance Minister Arun Jaitley’s announcement of three insurance schemes for the poor is a classical case of old wine in new bottle. It is pertinently more a case of oversight of plethora of existing schemes and similar announcements made by his predecessors including two stalwarts from Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government.
Instead of consolidating diverse social security schemes, Mr. Jaitley added three more to the existing basket of social security schemes.
One can group Government-funded Social security insurance schemes into three categories – health insurance, life insurance and pension insurance.
As many as 10 statutory insurance schemes from each of these categories are already operating under the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act 2008. These include Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY), Aam Aadmi Bima Yojna (AABY), National Family Benefit Scheme and Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme (IGNOAPS).
The flagship scheme RSBY has ironically got a raw deal in the 2015-16 Budget through name change as well as massive cut in funds allocation.  
Moreover, in his anxiety to play the social welfare card to outwit UPA, Mr. Jaitley overlooked the urgency for the much-delayed bank and non-banking deposit insurance reforms. These are urgently needed to shore up public savings and to strengthen the stability of the non-performing assets-strained financial system.
To decode social security-centric political rhetoric in the country, start with Mr. Jaitley’s budget speech. He stated: “A large proportion of India’s population is without insurance of any kind - health, accidental or life. Worryingly, as our young population ages, it is also going to be pension-less.
“Encouraged by the success of the Pradhan Mantri Jan DhanYojana, I propose to work towards creating a universal social security system for all Indians, specially the poor and the underprivileged.
“The soon-to-be-launched Pradhan Mantri Suraksha BimaYojna will cover accidental death risk of Rs 2 lakh for a premium of just Rs12 per year. Similarly, we will also launch the Atal Pension Yojana, which will provide a defined pension, depending on the contribution, and its period. To encourage people to join this scheme, the Government will contribute 50% of the beneficiaries’ premium limited to Rs1,000 each year, for five years, in the new accounts opened before 31st December, 2015.”
Mr. Jaitley continued: “The third Social Security Scheme that I wish to announce is the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana which covers both natural and accidental death risk of Rs 2 lakhs. The premium will be Rs 330 per year, or less than one rupee per day, for the age group 18-50.”
A reader would get a familiar ring after comparing Mr. Jaitley’s announcements with the ones made by Jaswant Singh in his budget speech for 2003-04.
Mr. Singh stated: “For a large majority of our less advantaged citizens, easy access to good health services is just not there. In order to correct this and offer health protection, of some choice, the public sector general insurance companies have been encouraged to design a community-based universal health insurance scheme (UHIS) during 2003-04.
Under this scheme, a premium equivalent to Re.1 per day (or Rs.365 per year) for an individual, Rs.1.50 per day for a family of five, and Rs.2 per day for a family of seven, will entitle eligibility to get reimbursement of medical expenses up to Rs.30,000 towards hospitalisation, a cover for death due to accident for Rs.25,000, and compensation due to loss of earning at the rate of Rs.50 per day up to a maximum of 15 days. To make the scheme affordable to BPL families, the Government has decided to contribute Rs.100 per year towards their annual premium. Full details will be publicized shortly.”
He added: “I request Hon’ble Members to give this scheme the widest possible coverage in their constituencies. The benefits Sir, are real.”
He also announced insurance pension scheme named Varishtha Pension Bima Yojana for any citizen about the age of 55 years, apart from bring all powerloom workers under the Special Insurance Scheme, which will provide them insurance cover against death, accident and disability.
Mr. Singh’s predecessor Yashwant Sinha, had, similarly, announced Janashree Bima Yojana for the poor.
In his budget speech for 2000-01, Mr. Sinha stated: “More than one third of our population still lives below the poverty line. There is an imperative need to extend some social security cover to the poorest sections of our society. I have decided to introduce a new scheme of group insurance, “Janashree Bima Yojana”, under which beneficiaries will have insurance cover of Rs.20,000 in case of natural death, Rs.50,000 in case of accidental death or total permanent disability and Rs.25,000 for partial permanent disability due to accident.”
He added: “This scheme will lay a firm foundation for insurance cover to the poorest in our country.”
In January 2013, the firm foundation got knocked when Janashree Bima Yojana was merged with AABY. The latter scheme was announced by P. Chidambaram in his budget speech for 2007-08.
In the budget speech for subsequent year 2008-09, Mr. Chidambaram stated: “The Unorganised Sector Workers' Social Security Bill, 2007 is before Parliament. In anticipation of the Bill being made into law, Government has introduced three schemes that are designed to provide social security to workers in the unorganised sector in a phased manner.
 These are: AABY, RSBY and IGNOAPS. The last one was enlarged with effect from November 19, 2007 to include all persons over 65 years falling under the BPL category.
Of all schemes launched with political élan over the years, the one that is popular and has received recognition is RSBY. It covers Below Poverty Line population. Its ambit is now lately being widened to cover informal sector workers such street vendors, domestic workers and the workers who have worked for more than 15 days under MGNREGS.
According to an official RSBY evaluation committee, the scheme is being implemented in 24 states in India today, with a total of 3.75 crore card holders, providing coverage to a total of 11.25 crore beneficiaries at an average premium of approximately Rs. 400. A total of 25 lakh beneficiaries have availed hospitalization services at an average claim payout of approximately Rs. 5000 in 2013-14.
RSBY is smart card-based cashless health insurance scheme. The Centre pays 75% of the cost (premium) of the scheme with the balance 25% borne by the States. The Centre’s share of the cost is 90% in case of Jammu & Kashmir and North Eastern States. It provides annual hospitalization cover up to Rs. 30,000 for a family of five members through health insurance companies. A family has to pay only Rs 30 as registration fee to get the RSBY smart card.
It is not clear what has prompted Modi Government to rename RSBY as Social Security for Unorganised Sector Workers and prune down drastically the allocation of funds.
According to the Expenditure Budget Volume 2 of the 2015-16 Budget, “Erstwhile RSBY is now divided into two distinct components namely social security card for unorganized workers and provision for health services. As per the Government decision, the card would be provided by Ministry of Labour and Employment and health services would be provided by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.” 
The total allocation of funds for RSBY in 2015-16 budget is Rs 130 crore. Of this Rs. 30 crore is provided under Labour Ministry and the balance Rs 100 crore under Health Ministry. 
The revised allocation for this scheme for 2014-15 is Rs 20 crore under the former ministry and nil under the latter ministry. UPA Government had spent Rs 887.55 crore on this scheme 2013-14. 
The Budget stance on RSBY is at various strong backing and recent initiatives, notwithstanding the scheme’s deficiencies.
RSBY committee, for instance, in its draft final report submitted in September 2014 concluded: “Given that RSBY is a very significant intervention in the field of healthcare and if that intervention is to achieve positive results, it should be governed by norms which promote good health practices. The writing on the wall is clear enough. But do we have the will to act upon it that remains to be seen.”
The High Level Expert Group (HLEG) Report on Universal Health Coverage for India also pitched for upgradation of RSBY in its report released in November 2011.
HLEG recommended: “All government funded insurance schemes should, over time, be integrated with the UHC system. All health insurance cards should, in due course, be replaced by National Health Entitlement Cards. The technical and other capacities developed by the Ministry of Labour for the RSBY should be leveraged as the core of UHC operations – and transferred to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.”
Mr. Jaitley has steered cleared of visionary recommendations of HLEG that cover all aspects of healthcare including targeted increase in allocations for health sector in the annual budgets.
There also several non-statutory insurance schemes which provide for compensation to accident victims. The Department of Commerce, for instance, operates Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (PAIS) for growers who cultivate plantations. Similarly, The Kisan Credit Card issued by public sector banks is bundled with PAIS, health insurance and assets insurance.
As regards the health insurance schemes conceived and implemented by the States, the notable ones are Karantaka’s Vajpayee Arogya Shree scheme, Andhra’s and Telangana’s Rajiv Aarogyasri Community Health Insurance Scheme and Tamilnadu Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme.
States also are implementing several other social security insurance schemes with or without any linkage with insurance. Haryana’s list of social security schemes, for instance, include Old Age Samman Allowance Scheme and one for Dwarfs and Eunuch. Under the 2nd scheme, Dwarfs and Eunuch are given allowance @ Rs 500/- per month per beneficiary.
The bewildering range of insurance and non-insurance linked social security schemes in fact calls for serious study on their consolidation to optimize their cost as well as benefits.
As regards statutory bank deposits insurance limit, it has remained unchanged since May 1993 at Rs 1 lakh per deposit. This is the maximum amount a bank would pay to a depositor in case of its liquidation irrespective of the size of actual deposit.
RBI subsidiary, Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC),   provides deposits insurance by regularly collecting a tiny premium from the specified banks for the deposits of all types.
When the UPA was at the helm, Finance Ministry had approved DICGC’s proposal for increase in the deposit insurance coverage limit from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 2 lakh.
In a reply to question raised in Rajya Sabha in March 2013, the Ministry also disclosed that it had approved DICGC’s proposal to introduce risk-based premium for deposit insurance.
The approval was given with an advice to DICGC “to move to fully risk-based premium over a period of 3 years to moderate hike in the premium.”
This proposal has not been implemented till today as can be confirmed by visiting the websites of DICGC, RBI and the commercial banks. 
A DICGC official, when contacted, pointed out that the deposit insurance cover can be hiked only when the Government amends DICGC Act and issues fresh rules. No gazette notification has been issued so far to implement approved DICGC proposals.
The middle class expected Mr. Jaitley to shed light on this crucial issue. The saving class expects him to unveil a proposal to extend insurance cover to all deposits collected by all entities from the public. He should have unveiled proposal to enact a depositors’ protection law on the lines of the ones enacted by 14States.
It here pertinent to quote report of the Working Group on ‘Resolution Regime for Financial Institutions’submitted in January 2014, “The deposit insurance framework existing at present has remained unchanged for a long time (as pointed out by several committees in the past). The Group recommends that along with setting up of a resolution framework, reforms in deposit insurance may also be taken up to bring the system on the lines expected by international benchmarks, viz., Core Principles for Deposit Insurance Systems.”