Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Coal Gate: Supreme Court tells govt. to restore CBI's independent position
Mob thrashes officials in Uttar Pradesh
Geniuses and Idiots
Monday, April 29, 2013
An analysis of the Karnataka polls candidaesby ADR
Cancer doc’s plea to Mamata
The second oldest profession
Hollywood production lines rolled them out like turtles laying eggs.
What sticks in my mind are the immortal words uttered at peace conferences by the likes of Big Foot, Cochise, Crazy Horse, Geronimo, Sitting Bull and other Indian tribal chiefs, to the new arrivals to North America - "White Man speak with forked tongue".
It is true today as it was then.
Unfortunately, this could be said to apply to all politicians around the world.
It is said that 'looking for an honest politician is like looking for an honest burglar'.
Ronald Regan is quoted as saying "Politics is said to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a close resemblance to the first.
"If a politician isn't doing it to his wife, then he is doing it to his country" - Amy Grant.
And, from Aesop-- "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public life".
Peter.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
The Local Response to China's Anti-Corruption Drive
6 year old Rape victim has six other siblings
Friday, April 26, 2013
India protests detention of UP minister at Boston airport
Husband convicted of rape despite wife's consent for sex
CBI tells SC it shared coal blocks probe report
Thursday, April 25, 2013
DIDI’S SIN TAX Rs 500cr plan to refund poor victims
Calcutta, April 24: If those who commit the sin of smoking sin a bit more, it will pay for some of the alleged sins of Sudipta Sen.
Chief minister Mamata Banerjee today announced a Rs 500-crore relief fund for the worst-affected poor depositors of the Saradha Group, signalling a 10 per cent additional tax on tobacco products to raise the money and asking smokers to light up “a little more” to fill the mercy purse.
The announcement, considered a political water-cannon to douse public anger, stunned officials who are bracing for an administrative nightmare.
Some wondered how the government could refund the investors when Sebi, the capital markets watchdog, had asked Sen to pay back the money in three months. “Is it a bailout package for the poor or for Sen?” asked an incredulous official.
Mamata cited compassion for the downtrodden — a theme that was at play in Singur when plots could not be returned and after a hooch tragedy near Diamond Harbour. “Despite our acute financial constraints, we have decided to set up a relief fund of Rs 500 crore. This will be exclusively for those depositors who are really poor, downtrodden and those who are banking exclusively on the money they had deposited with the company,” she said.
It was not clear how Mamata arrived at the figure of Rs 500 crore as the extent of the defaults is not yet fully known. Sen has put his liability between Rs 300 and 400 crore, though others had spoken of Rs 1,200 crore.
“I seek apology from everyone for having to say that we have decided to increase 10 per cent tax on cigarettes and all kinds of tobacco products…. Despite this measure, Rs 500 crore cannot be arranged as the tax increase will give us only Rs 150 crore. We will arrange for the remaining sum somehow,” the chief minister said.
She added: “Apnara ei kodin ektu beshi korey khan, taholey taratari uthey ashbey (please smoke a little more these few days, then the amount can be raised quickly).”
Public health specialists were aghast. About 36 per cent of adults in Bengal consume some form of tobacco, in contrast to 35 per cent in India, and 14 per cent adults smoke in Bengal, against 9 per cent across India.
“A move to raise taxes on tobacco would be in favour of public health — as it’s intended to reduce consumption. But such a move should certainly not be accompanied by suggestions that people should use more tobacco,” said Monika Arora of Public Health Foundation of India, a research institution in New Delhi.
“If this was intended to be a serious message, it would tantamount to a violation of the 2003 law that prohibits any person from promoting tobacco for any purpose,” said Amit Yadav, a lawyer with Hriday, a Delhi-based NGO.
The chief minister cited the examples of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, where taxes on tobacco products add up to around 50 per cent. She said that even after the hike, the tax would be only 40 per cent in Bengal.
Slapping a “sin tax” on addictive and harmful products is not unusual if the objective is to discourage their consumption and fund welfare projects. But few could recall an instance where the proceeds were used to repay deposits collected illegally amid allegations of links to those in power.
A comparison could be the $700-billion bailout the US government offered in 2008 to banks that triggered the crisis by reckless lending. But the default in Bengal does not have the global implications the US meltdown had — barring the political uncertainties confronting Trinamul.
“Why is the government shouldering the responsibility of Sen? Is the government trying to pay the price of the party’s proximity to the Saradha Group?” asked a city-based economist.
According to him, the chief minister should take measures to ferret out the money the group had collected.
Saradha Realty’s balance sheet for the year to March 2011 shows it had collected an advance of Rs 78 crore on account of bookings against property. Another unexplained advance of Rs 79 crore is shown. Saradha Tours and Travels, the other company raising deposits, shows Rs 17 crore under this head as on March 2012. Government officials felt the figures were too low, compared with the mobilisation drive.
According to the chief minister, the Justice Shyamal Sen commission will determine the beneficiaries of the relief fund.
A senior minister said he would not be surprised if people started queuing up outside BDO offices. “This may set a precedent as people will ask the government to return the money if other companies default,” he added.
The above is from The Telegraph
There seems to be no limit to the thuggery of our politicians.
They loot the people, they loot the businessmen and when they are caught they raise more taxes to hide their thuggery.
Why can't Mamata Banerjee collect the money from the payment her ministers and her supporters have received from the Sarada group.
Why can't she confiscate all the properties Sudipta Sen and his friends and relatives amassed using the money of the investors.
Do the tax-payer have no say in how these corrupt politicians collect our tax?
Is there no limit?
I appeal to some legal luminaries to take u the issue in the high court.
This additional tax is most unfair although I admit I do not smoke.
It is the principle of the way they are doing it to hide their sins.
An Irish Family Tradition
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
No policeman can act without my orders: UP Minister
On road to bliss with Mahavira
The case that saved Indian democracy
A March 2013 picture of Kesavananda Bharati.
The judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, whose 40th anniversary falls today, was crucial in upholding the supremacy of the Constitution and preventing authoritarian rule by a single party
Exactly forty years ago, on April 24, 1973, Chief Justice Sikri and 12 judges of the Supreme Court assembled to deliver the most important judgment in its history. The case of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala had been heard for 68 days, the arguments commencing on October 31, 1972, and ending on March 23, 1973. The hard work and scholarship that had gone into the preparation of this case was breathtaking. Literally hundreds of cases had been cited and the then Attorney-General had made a comparative chart analysing the provisions of the Constitutions of 71 different countries!
Core question
All this effort was to answer just one main question: was the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution unlimited? In other words, could Parliament alter, amend, abrogate any part of the Constitution even to the extent of taking away all fundamental rights?
Article 368, on a plain reading, did not contain any limitation on the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution. There was nothing that prevented Parliament from taking away a citizen’s right to freedom of speech or his religious freedom. But the repeated amendments made to the Constitution raised a doubt: was there any inherent or implied limitation on the amending power of Parliament?
The 703-page judgment revealed a sharply divided court and, by a wafer-thin majority of 7:6, it was held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution so long as it did not alter or amend “the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.” This was the inherent and implied limitation on the amending power of Parliament. This basic structure doctrine, as future events showed, saved Indian democracy and Kesavananda Bharati will always occupy a hallowed place in our constitutional history.
Supreme Court v Indira Gandhi
It is supremely ironical that the basic structure theory was first introduced by Justice Mudholkar eight years earlier by referring to a 1963 decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Chief Justice Cornelius — yes, Pakistan had a Christian Chief Justice and, later, a Hindu justice as well — had held that the President of Pakistan could not alter the “fundamental features” of their Constitution.
The Kesavananda Bharati case was the culmination of a serious conflict between the judiciary and the government, then headed by Mrs Indira Gandhi. In 1967, the Supreme Court took an extreme view, in the Golak Nath case, that Parliament could not amend or alter any fundamental right. Two years later, Indira Gandhi nationalised 14 major banks and the paltry compensation was made payable in bonds that matured after 10 years! This was struck down by the Supreme Court, although it upheld the right of Parliament to nationalise banks and other industries. A year later, in 1970, Mrs Gandhi abolished the Privy Purses. This was a constitutional betrayal of the solemn assurance given by Sardar Patel to all the erstwhile rulers. This was also struck down by the Supreme Court. Ironically, the abolition of the Privy Purses was challenged by the late Madhavrao Scindia, who later joined the Congress Party.
Smarting under three successive adverse rulings, which had all been argued by N.A. Palkhivala, Indira Gandhi was determined to cut the Supreme Court and the High Courts to size and she introduced a series of constitutional amendments that nullified the Golak Nath, Bank Nationalisation and Privy Purses judgments. In a nutshell, these amendments gave Parliament uncontrolled power to alter or even abolish any fundamental right.
These drastic amendments were challenged by Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a math in Kerala, and several coal, sugar and running companies. On the other side, was not only the Union of India but almost all the States which had also intervened. This case had serious political overtones with several heated exchanges between N.A. Palkhivala for the petitioners and H.M. Seervai and Niren De, who appeared for the State of Kerala and the Union of India respectively.
The infamous Emergency was declared in 1975 and, by then, eight new judges had been appointed to the Supreme Court. A shocking attempt was made by Chief Justice Ray to review the Kesavananda Bharati decision by constituting another Bench of 13 judges. In what is regarded as the finest advocacy that was heard in the Supreme Court, Palkhivala made an impassioned plea for not disturbing the earlier view. In a major embarrassment to Ray, it was revealed that no one had filed a review petition. How was this Bench then constituted? The other judges strongly opposed this impropriety and the 13-judge Bench was dissolved after two days of arguments. The tragic review was over but it did irreversible damage to the reputation of Chief Justice A.N. Ray.
Constitutional rights saved
If the majority of the Supreme Court had held (as six judges indeed did) that Parliament could alter any part of the Constitution, India would most certainly have degenerated into a totalitarian State or had one-party rule. At any rate, the Constitution would have lost its supremacy. Even Seervai later admitted that the basic structure theory preserved Indian democracy. One has to only examine the amendments that were made during the Emergency. The 39th Amendment prohibited any challenge to the election of the President, Vice-President, Speaker and Prime Minister, irrespective of the electoral malpractice. This was a clear attempt to nullify the adverse Allahabad High Court ruling against Indira Gandhi. The 41st Amendment prohibited any case, civil or criminal, being filed against the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister or the Governors, not only during their term of office but forever. Thus, if a person was a governor for just one day, he acquired immunity from any legal proceedings for life. If Parliament were indeed supreme, these shocking amendments would have become part of the Constitution.
Thanks to Kesavananda Bharati, Palkhivala and the seven judges who were in the majority, India continues to be the world’s largest democracy. The souls of Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar and all the founding fathers of our Constitution can really rest in peace.
(Arvind P. Datar, the writer of the above article, is a senior advocate of the Madras High Court.)
The above is taken from the Hindu of 24.04.2013.
It gives in a nutshell a very famous case in the history of India.
I wanted to show our readers the true face of the Congress leaders on whom the present leaders swear.