Mr. Modi mentions Kathua, Unnao incidents at diaspora meet in London.
The rape of a little girl was a ‘crime against society’ but playing a ‘blame game’ was an even ‘bigger mistake’, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said at a diaspora event in central London on Wednesday.
‘Rape is rape,’ declared the Prime Minister, referring to the Kathua and Unnao incidents, insisting that the rape of ‘India’s young daughters’ could ‘never be accepted.’ ‘Who is responsible for this is a matter of concern to the country.’
Monday, April 30, 2018
Jharkhand: Newborn dies after 'doctors' cut his genitals to prove baby a girl
RANCHI: State health secretary Nidhi Khare on Thursday asked the Chatra civil surgeon to book two "doctors" in Itkhori block who allegedly cut off the genitals of a newborn boy leading to the child’s death.
The newborn died at Om Clinic on Tuesday night when eight-month pregnant Gudia Devi, a resident of of Itkhori’s Jai Prakash Nagar in Chatra district, about 110km from here, came for a check-up. Chatra police said in a bid to get more money from the patient, the "doctors" at the clinic said they would have to perform ultrasound test and caesarian to deliver the child. After conducting the "fake test" they told the parents that the child was female. But when Devi gave birth to a boy, the two "doctors" allegedly severed his genitals, told the mother that a deformed girl child was born and died soon after.
Unsatisfied with the answer, the parents lodged a complaint with the police on Wednesday morning. Police said by the time they reached the clinic, the "doctors" had gone missing. A case has been registered under Section 302 of IPC in this connection and started raids to nab the accused. Khare asked the Chatra civil surgeon to book the duo under the Clinical Establishments Act, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPDNT) Act and the Medical Practitioner Act. It is yet to be known whether the two were certified doctors or quacks.
"It is a terrible crime. I have asked the civil surgeon to take strict action in the case as per the rules of various acts," Khare said. She also said the government is taking up measures to end sex determination tests in the state within the next three months.
The newborn died at Om Clinic on Tuesday night when eight-month pregnant Gudia Devi, a resident of of Itkhori’s Jai Prakash Nagar in Chatra district, about 110km from here, came for a check-up. Chatra police said in a bid to get more money from the patient, the "doctors" at the clinic said they would have to perform ultrasound test and caesarian to deliver the child. After conducting the "fake test" they told the parents that the child was female. But when Devi gave birth to a boy, the two "doctors" allegedly severed his genitals, told the mother that a deformed girl child was born and died soon after.
Unsatisfied with the answer, the parents lodged a complaint with the police on Wednesday morning. Police said by the time they reached the clinic, the "doctors" had gone missing. A case has been registered under Section 302 of IPC in this connection and started raids to nab the accused. Khare asked the Chatra civil surgeon to book the duo under the Clinical Establishments Act, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPDNT) Act and the Medical Practitioner Act. It is yet to be known whether the two were certified doctors or quacks.
"It is a terrible crime. I have asked the civil surgeon to take strict action in the case as per the rules of various acts," Khare said. She also said the government is taking up measures to end sex determination tests in the state within the next three months.
Gorakhpur hospital deaths: No evidence of medical negligence against doctor, says Allahabad HC
In its detailed bail order, according to the Indian Express, Justice Yashwant Verma said: “…there is no material on record, which may establish medical negligence against the applicant individually. This quite apart from the fact that no inquiry was also undertaken or initiated.”
The children had suffocated to death after Baba Raghav Das Medical College and Hospital ran out of oxygen in August. Pushpa Sales, the company contracted to supply liquid oxygen, had cut off the supply after sending repeated reminders to the state-run hospital that its dues of approximately Rs 65 lakh needed to be paid.
The court, however, said Uttar Pradesh government’s affidavit did not attribute the deaths to a shortage of medical oxygen. “Learned AGA [additional government advocate] states that no aspect of the investigation remains outstanding,” said the court. “This clearly obviates the need for the continued custody of the applicant [Khan]. The applicant admittedly is a medical practitioner, a government employee with no prior criminal history.”
After the state government said the children died of encephalitis, the police arrested Khan for attempt to murder and graft. He was in charge of the acute encephalitis syndrome ward.
Khan was in prison for eight months, though his family had applied for bail several times. He finally got bail days after his family released a 10-page letter he wrote from jail, in which he claimed he was being made a scapegoat in the case.
Govt has struck at the very heart of judicial freedom: former CJI RM Lodha
Four former Chief Justices of India and another four former judges of the Supreme Court have expressed their concern over the current standoff between the Supreme Court and the Government and have questioned how CJI Dipak Misra has let the government stonewall the Collegium’s recommendations.
In fact, the government’s “segregation” of the recommendations — to reject the nomination of Justice K M Joseph, the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand to the Supreme Court, and to accept the elevation of advocate Indu Malhotra “strikes at the very heart of the independence of the judiciary,” former Chief Justice of India Justice R M Lodha said in New Delhi on Thursday.
“What governments do by segregating recommendations, is (to) throw plans of the Collegium for seniority or ensuring a certain succession of future Chief Justices out of the window. By simply sitting over the file for weeks and then picking one and not the other, a whole new succession comes into play. This is interference in the judiciary, apart from, of course, rejecting names that the government doesn’t find favourable.”
Justice Lodha added: “The Chief Justice of India, in such a situation, should immediately call a meeting of the collegium and take up the matter with the government. If the reiteration must be done, it must happen immediately.” Significantly, he underlined: “The Chief Justice cannot sit over the file either, indefinitely, as can’t the government.”
The Memorandum of Procedure, which lays out the terms of engagement between the Centre and the judiciary, “as is established and operational” does not talk of segregation but the “settled convention is that the government cannot segregate the names,” Justice Lodha said.
Justice Lodha should know.
It was during his tenure as Chief Justice that the current government segregated one out of four recommendations of the Lodha-led collegium. Recalling events in the summer of 2014, Justice Lodha said: “The Law Ministry, without my knowledge or consent, when I was out of the country, segregated four recommendations of the collegium and had certain problems with (the proposal to elevate) Gopal Subramanium and did not appoint him. This was very wrong. I wrote to the Law Minister on June 30, immediately upon my return that it was wrong and should not happen again in the future, that is, be done with any Chief Justice, henceforth.”
Justice Lodha explained how by withdrawing his name, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium “deprived the collegium and the court to take the matter to its logical conclusion.” Justice Lodha said the current episode sends the wrong signal. “It is not about seniority,” and “never before has it been only interpreted in this way.” In an apparent reference to the ruling by Justice K M Joseph striking down the Centre’s imposition of President’s rule in Uttarakhand in 2016, Justice Lodha said: “It is very clear why his elevation is facing resistance.”
When contacted, another former Chief Justice of India under this government, Justice T S Thakur, termed the situation and the events following the segregation and return of Justice K M Joseph’s name as “unfortunate.” Besides Justice Lodha and Justice Thakur, The Indian Express contacted two former Chief Justices and four other former judges of the Supreme Court. Speaking on the condition that they not be named, they were unanimous in their “serious concern” over Chief Justice Dipak Misra not initiating any conversation with the Centre over the manner in which it had sat on the collegium’s recommendations for over three months.
Former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court Justice A P Shah expressed his anxiety over the Thursday’s developments: “Bit by bit, the primacy of the collegium is being conceded…I am a bit surprised that the CJI said in open court that there was nothing wrong in the government returning the file. I doubt if he has consulted his colleagues in the collegium before making this statement.”
Said Justice Shah: “Clearly the reason (Justice Joseph’s file was rejected) is his judgment against the Centre in 2016. The points raised about his so-called seniority are not relevant and he is the most suitable person for the job. As far as representation from Kerala is concerned, Justice Kurian Joseph, the only other Kerala Judge will retire in a few months.”
Justice Shah criticised the CJI for “not taking up relevant issues with the government appropriately, nor insisting that the MoP be expedited.” He said that despite the “transgression demonstrated by the Executive, the Chief Justice is not even calling a meeting and is largely responsible for allowing the transgression.”
In fact, the government’s “segregation” of the recommendations — to reject the nomination of Justice K M Joseph, the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand to the Supreme Court, and to accept the elevation of advocate Indu Malhotra “strikes at the very heart of the independence of the judiciary,” former Chief Justice of India Justice R M Lodha said in New Delhi on Thursday.
“What governments do by segregating recommendations, is (to) throw plans of the Collegium for seniority or ensuring a certain succession of future Chief Justices out of the window. By simply sitting over the file for weeks and then picking one and not the other, a whole new succession comes into play. This is interference in the judiciary, apart from, of course, rejecting names that the government doesn’t find favourable.”
Justice Lodha added: “The Chief Justice of India, in such a situation, should immediately call a meeting of the collegium and take up the matter with the government. If the reiteration must be done, it must happen immediately.” Significantly, he underlined: “The Chief Justice cannot sit over the file either, indefinitely, as can’t the government.”
The Memorandum of Procedure, which lays out the terms of engagement between the Centre and the judiciary, “as is established and operational” does not talk of segregation but the “settled convention is that the government cannot segregate the names,” Justice Lodha said.
Justice Lodha should know.
It was during his tenure as Chief Justice that the current government segregated one out of four recommendations of the Lodha-led collegium. Recalling events in the summer of 2014, Justice Lodha said: “The Law Ministry, without my knowledge or consent, when I was out of the country, segregated four recommendations of the collegium and had certain problems with (the proposal to elevate) Gopal Subramanium and did not appoint him. This was very wrong. I wrote to the Law Minister on June 30, immediately upon my return that it was wrong and should not happen again in the future, that is, be done with any Chief Justice, henceforth.”
Justice Lodha explained how by withdrawing his name, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium “deprived the collegium and the court to take the matter to its logical conclusion.” Justice Lodha said the current episode sends the wrong signal. “It is not about seniority,” and “never before has it been only interpreted in this way.” In an apparent reference to the ruling by Justice K M Joseph striking down the Centre’s imposition of President’s rule in Uttarakhand in 2016, Justice Lodha said: “It is very clear why his elevation is facing resistance.”
When contacted, another former Chief Justice of India under this government, Justice T S Thakur, termed the situation and the events following the segregation and return of Justice K M Joseph’s name as “unfortunate.” Besides Justice Lodha and Justice Thakur, The Indian Express contacted two former Chief Justices and four other former judges of the Supreme Court. Speaking on the condition that they not be named, they were unanimous in their “serious concern” over Chief Justice Dipak Misra not initiating any conversation with the Centre over the manner in which it had sat on the collegium’s recommendations for over three months.
Former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court Justice A P Shah expressed his anxiety over the Thursday’s developments: “Bit by bit, the primacy of the collegium is being conceded…I am a bit surprised that the CJI said in open court that there was nothing wrong in the government returning the file. I doubt if he has consulted his colleagues in the collegium before making this statement.”
Said Justice Shah: “Clearly the reason (Justice Joseph’s file was rejected) is his judgment against the Centre in 2016. The points raised about his so-called seniority are not relevant and he is the most suitable person for the job. As far as representation from Kerala is concerned, Justice Kurian Joseph, the only other Kerala Judge will retire in a few months.”
Justice Shah criticised the CJI for “not taking up relevant issues with the government appropriately, nor insisting that the MoP be expedited.” He said that despite the “transgression demonstrated by the Executive, the Chief Justice is not even calling a meeting and is largely responsible for allowing the transgression.”
Saturday, April 28, 2018
Why 2.8 Crore Indians Applied for 90,000 Jobs in Indian Railways
Mon, 16 Apr 2018
Table 1:
Table 2: Self-employed/Regular wage salaried/Contract/
Casual Workers according to Average Monthly Earnings (in %)
Table 2: Self-employed/Regular wage salaried/Contract/
Casual Workers according to Average Monthly Earnings (in %)
The Indian Railways recently got 2.8 crore applications for around 90,000 jobs it had advertised for.
This basically means that the ratio of number of applicants to the number of jobs stands at 311:1. Further, it means that 18.7% of India's youth workforce (people in the age group 18-29) applied for it. Or to put it a little more simplistically, every one in five individuals who are a part of India's youth workforce, applied for these jobs.
This is even without taking any education qualifications into account. If we do that (i.e. people who have at least passed the tenth standard or some such parameter), the proportion of India's youth workforce which applied for these jobs in the Indian Railways would go up even further.
If this is not an indication of India's massive jobs crisis, we don't know what is.
The argument being offered against this is that just because someone has applied for a government job, does not mean he or she is unemployed. Of course, this is a fair argument, but an incomplete one. Allow me to explain.
Let's us look at Table 1, a table we have used multiple times before.
 |
Table 1 clearly tells us that only 60.6% of India's workforce which is looking for a job all through the year, is able to find one. So, yes Indians may not be unemployed, but they are terribly underemployed. Hence, nearly 40% of Indians looking for a job all through the year are unable to find one. Or two in five Indians who are looking for a job all through the year are unable to find one.
Further, this underemployment translates into low levels of income, as can be seen from Table 2.
Casual Workers according to Average Monthly Earnings (in %)
 |
Table 2 shows us the income levels of India's workforce. As far as the self-employed and the contract workers are concerned, nearly two-thirds of them make up to Rs 7,500 per month or Rs 90,000 per year. In case of contract workers, more than 84% of contract workers earn up to Rs 7,500 per month or Rs 90,000 per year.
The per capita income in 2015-2016 was at Rs 1.07 lakh. This basically means that a bulk of India's non-salaried workforce, earns a significantly lower income than the per capita income.
The non-salaried workforce works largely in the informal sector, which forms a bulk of India's economy (as high as 92% as per one estimate). As the Economic Survey of 2015-2016, points out: "By most measures, informal sector jobs are much worse than formal sector ones-wages are, on average, more than 20 times higher in the formal sector."
Given these low levels of income primarily because of huge underemployment, so many people tend to apply for government jobs in general, and the recent vacancies in Indian Railways are no exception to this. People are looking for a regular and stable source of monthly income. They want to get rid of the irregularity of payment that they have to regularly deal with in the informal sector.
The Indian government is a good paymaster, especially at lower levels. As the Report of the Seventh Pay Commission points out: "To obtain a comparative picture of the salaries paid in the government with that in the private sector enterprises the Commission engaged the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad to conduct a study. According to the study the total emoluments of a General Helper, who is the lowest ranked employee in the government is Rs 22,579, more than two times the emoluments of a General Helper in the private sector organizations surveyed at Rs 8,000-9,500."
Hence, the IIM Ahmedabad study "on comparing job families between the government and private/public sector has brought out the fact that...at lower levels salaries are much lower in the private sector as compared to government jobs."
Further, this underemployment translates into low levels of income, as can be seen from Table 2.
Casual Workers according to Average Monthly Earnings (in %)
|
Table 2 shows us the income levels of India's workforce. As far as the self-employed and the contract workers are concerned, nearly two-thirds of them make up to Rs 7,500 per month or Rs 90,000 per year. In case of contract workers, more than 84% of contract workers earn up to Rs 7,500 per month or Rs 90,000 per year.
The per capita income in 2015-2016 was at Rs 1.07 lakh. This basically means that a bulk of India's non-salaried workforce, earns a significantly lower income than the per capita income.
The non-salaried workforce works largely in the informal sector, which forms a bulk of India's economy (as high as 92% as per one estimate). As the Economic Survey of 2015-2016, points out: "By most measures, informal sector jobs are much worse than formal sector ones-wages are, on average, more than 20 times higher in the formal sector."
Given these low levels of income primarily because of huge underemployment, so many people tend to apply for government jobs in general, and the recent vacancies in Indian Railways are no exception to this. People are looking for a regular and stable source of monthly income. They want to get rid of the irregularity of payment that they have to regularly deal with in the informal sector.
The Indian government is a good paymaster, especially at lower levels. As the Report of the Seventh Pay Commission points out: "To obtain a comparative picture of the salaries paid in the government with that in the private sector enterprises the Commission engaged the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad to conduct a study. According to the study the total emoluments of a General Helper, who is the lowest ranked employee in the government is Rs 22,579, more than two times the emoluments of a General Helper in the private sector organizations surveyed at Rs 8,000-9,500."
Hence, the IIM Ahmedabad study "on comparing job families between the government and private/public sector has brought out the fact that...at lower levels salaries are much lower in the private sector as compared to government jobs."
In this scenario, it isn't surprising that so many people apply for government jobs in India. The employment opportunities in the informal sector are irregular and simply don't pay enough. India's huge underemployment gets reflected in the number of people applying for government jobs.
And at the end of the day, underemployment is also a representation of unemployment and the huge jobs crisis that India is facing. There simply aren't enough jobs/employment opportunities which will keep individuals occupied for the full year, going around, for everyone who is a part of India's burgeoning workforce.
Indeed, that is something to worry about. And what is even worrying is that the Modi government is not worrying about this huge issue.
Regards,
Vivek Kaul
Editor, Vivek Kaul's Diary
Vivek Kaul
Editor, Vivek Kaul's Diary
Postscript: Dear Reader, you must be wondering why are we still using 2015-2016 data even in 2018-2019. The Labour Bureau carried out six household-based Annual Employment-Unemployment Surveys (EUS) between 2010 and 2016. Of these, reports of five rounds have been released till date. The last report was released in September 2016. The question is, why has the report for the sixth round of the Survey not been released till date.
Recently, in an answer to a question raised in Parliament, the government said, "On the recommendations of the Task Force on Employment, however, this survey has been discontinued." Basically, a survey that brought bad news in the form of huge underemployment that India has been facing, has been discontinued, and then the government goes around talking about lack of data.
Monday, April 23, 2018
Why is the Chief Justice of India being Impeached?
Times are tough for the chief justice of India. On 20 April, 64 members of parliament from seven opposition parties submitted a petition to Venkaiah Naidu, the vice president and chairman of the Rajya Sabha, seeking the removal of Dipak Misra as the chief justice. The move marks the first time in India’s judicial history that an attempt has been made to remove a sitting chief justice of the country. Concurrently, the Supreme Court is presently hearing a petition filed by Shanti Bhushan, a senior advocate and a former union law minister, concerning serious allegations about the allocation of cases by the chief justice and the registry. The petition notes that the manner of allocation clearly reflects “a pattern of favouritism, nepotism, and forum shopping.”
Misra assumed the office of chief justice in late August last year, and within three months, the differences between sections of the bar and the bench became evident, particularly during a hearing in a case concerning corruption allegations against two benches of the Supreme Court. Both benches included Misra. In his order dismissing the case—popularly termed the medical college bribery case—Misra stated that the chief justice “alone is the master of the roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute the Benches of the Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted.” Soon after, differences emerged within members of the bench as well—in January this year, four senior judges of the Supreme Court held an unprecedented press conference to register their concerns about the manner in which the court assigned cases “selectively to ‘benches of their preference’ without any rational basis.”
Shanti Bhushan’s petition is listed for hearing before a bench comprising AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, on 27 April. With the petition and the motion for Misra’s removal, the concerns over Misra’s allotment of cases have again come under the spotlight. The petition claims that while listing cases, the chief justice places “matters of general public importance and/or political sensitivity before only certain benches.” Kamini Jaiswal, an advocate in the Supreme Court, said the motion to remove Misra was “necessary.” “Things are moving from bad to worse,” she added. “I have been in the Supreme Court for over 30 years and I have never seen the Supreme Court so low.” The advocate Prashant Bhushan said, “One reason why the impeachment motion is important is because of the serious danger which emerges from the CJI being blackmailed by the government via the medical college bribery case.” He added, “The abuse of power by the CJI as the master of roster poses a serious threat to the democracy as the entire Supreme Court is being controlled by the government.”
In his petition, Shanti Bhushan seeks to allay these fears by requesting directions from the court regarding an adherence to certain rules of procedure while allocating cases. The petition argues that the “master of roster” cannot be an “unguided and unbridled discretionary power, exercised arbitrarily by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India by hand-picking benches of select Judges or by assigning cases to particular Judges.” It further states that the authority of the chief justice as the “master of roster is not an absolute, arbitrary, singular power” and that it “must necessarily be exercised by him in consultation with the senior judges of the Supreme Court.” The petition also lists a series of cases that it alleges “reflects and establishes the gross abuse of powers.” Ten such cases from the petition, and the allegations relating to them, are listed below:
1) In the medical college bribery cases
In October last year, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, an organisation working on issues of judicial reform, moved the Supreme Court seeking a probe by a special investigation team into a corruption scandal emerging out of a medical college in Lucknow. The corruption allegations levelled in the petition cast an aspersion on the highest offices of the Supreme Court. On 8 November, the counsel for CJAR mentioned the matter before the bench led by Jasti Chelameswar, the senior-most judge after Misra, who listed the case for hearing on 10 November. According to Shanti Bhushan’s petition, “During lunch the petitioner’s counsel was informed that in the light of an order by the Chief Justice,” the case had been transferred to another bench.
On the next hearing, the case was listed before a bench led by AK Sikri. The petition notes, “The same afternoon the matter was suddenly heard by a Constitution Bench headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and junior judges hand picked by him.” The CJI pronounced the order, which emphasised that the chief justice was the master of the roster, that any order contravening the CJI’s administrative power was null and void, and that the CJAR petition would be heard by a new bench constituted by Misra. The case was then referred to a bench headed by RK Agarwal, and finally dismissed on 1 December with costs of Rs 25 lakh imposed on CJAR.
2) In a case involving a challenge to the appointment of the special director of the Central Bureau of Investigation
On 13 November last year, the judge Navin Sinha recused himself from the bench hearing a petition challenging the appointment of Rakesh Asthana, a Gujarat cadre IPS officer, as the special director of the CBI. Bhushan’s petition notes that on that day, the bench, which was led by Ranjan Gogoi, passed an order stating: “List the matter on Friday i.e. 17th November, 2017 before a bench without Hon’ble Mr Justice Navin Sinha.”
On the next date of hearing, the matter was listed before the judges RK Agarwal and Abhay Manohar Sapre. According to Bhushan’s petition, Gogoi was not sitting with Sinha on 17 November, and accordingly, the case “ought to have been listed before the Bench presided by Hon’bleMr Justice Gogoi.” The petition quotes the Supreme Court’s “Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure 2017,” which states: “A case directed not to be listed before a particular Judge constituting the first coram shall be listed before the Judge constituting the second coram in a different composition, ifavailable.”
Bhushan’s petition claims that the listing of the case before Agarwal and Sapre was “in complete contravention of Supreme Court Handbook on Practice and Procedure.” The petition further argues, “The exercise by the concerned Registry officials in this regard was clearly an abuse of discretion and suffered from malice in law besides being arbitrary.”
3) In an appeal in the 2G case
According to Bhushan’s petition, the case was listed for hearing on 6 November last year, but subsequently deleted from the list. It was then listed before the chief justice’s court, but on 13 November, two judges of the bench—AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud—recused themselves from the hearing. The petition states that the case was then listed before the bench presided by Arun Mishra “even though other Benches of senior Hon’ble Judges were available.”
4) In the petitions seeking an investigation into the suspicious death of Judge Loya
Upon being mentioned before the chief justice’s bench on 11 January this year, Bhushan’s petition notes, two petitions seeking an investigation into Loya’s death “were surprisingly ordered to be listed” before the bench led by Arun Mishra on the next day. It is pertinent to note that it is on the day of the Loya hearings that the four senior judges of the Supreme Court had held the press conference, during which Justice Gogoi had informed the media that the four judges had approached the chief justice with concerns about the listing of the Loya petitions.
The case was subsequently listed on 16 January, and then mentioned on 19 January before the chief justice’s bench, and it was ordered that the petitions would be listed before an “appropriate Bench as per roster.” According to Bhushan’s petition, “it does not appear that any other Court Roster was published or if it was at all in existence.” It continues, “PILs were being heard by several courts in the apex court. Yet, on 22nd January 2018 the matter was listed before Court No.1 which heard the matter.”
5) In a case involving the member of parliament and Congress leader Shashi Tharoor
Bhushan’s petition also lists as one of the examples a petition filed by the BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking an investigation into the death of Tharoor’s late wife Sunanda Pushkar. The case was listed for hearing on 29 January this year before a bench led by Arun Mishra. According to Bhushan’s petition, on that date, the case was adjourned for arguments on the maintainability of the petition. But on the next date of hearing, Mishra’s bench issued notice to the Delhi Police while “keeping the question of maintainability open.”
6) In the case concerning the story by the news portal The Wire on the assets of Jay Amitbhai Shah
Bhushan’s petition states that this case was “also listed before Court No.1 while several other courts have been authorized to hear criminal matters under the Roster.”
7) In the Aadhaar cases:
The batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Aadhaar programme was initially being heard by a three-judge bench presided by Justice Chelameswar. The bench had referred the case to a constitution bench in August 2015. Subsequently, the former chief justice JS Khehar constituted a five-judge bench to hear the case on 18 July last year, which comprised him, Chelameswar, Chandrachud, SA Bobde and Abdul Nazeer.
The case was then referred to a nine-judge bench on the issue of whether the right to privacy was a fundamental right. This bench, also constituted by Khehar, included the judges Chelameswar, Bobde and Nazeer. Soon after the judgment on the right to privacy, Khehar retired as the chief justice and Dipak Misra assumed office. Bhushan’s petition notes that the Aadhaar bench subsequently “came to be reconstituted and does not comprise of Hon’ble Justice Chelameswar, Hon’ble Justice Bobde and Hon’ble Justice Nazeer.” The five-judge bench presently hearing the Aadhaar cases comprises Misra, Chandrachud, Khanwilkar, Sikri and Ashok Bhushan.
8) In a petition challenging the appointment of BJP Spokesperson Sambit Patra as an independent director of the Oil and Natural Gas Company
According to Bhushan’s petition, the case was listed before a bench comprising RK Aggarwal and AM Sapre on 8 January this year, when “one of the judges recused” himself from the hearing. The petition states that “the matter was thereafter listed before Justice A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan.” The case is presently ongoing.
9) In a case seeking an explanation from the centre regarding the delay in finalising the memorandum of procedure for appointment of judges
On 27 October last year, while hearing a petition filed by a lawyer RP Luthra challenging appointments to the higher judiciary in the absence of a revised memorandum of procedure, a bench comprising UU Lalit and AK Goel sought responses from the central government on the delay in finalising the procedure. Bhushan’s petition states that the case was then listed for its next hearing on 14 November that year. But in a surprise move, the case was listed before a new bench of Justices Misra, Sikri and Amitava Roy, on 8 November. On that date, as noted in Bhushan’s petition, “the three-judge bench headed by CJI recalled the 27 October order.”
10) In a case concerning the right to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act
According to Bhushan’s petition, in 2014, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had ruled that a compensation amount in lieu of acquired land would not be treated as paid until it was deposited, and that the failure to deposit such an amount would result in the lapse of the acquisition. In February this year, another three-judge bench led by Arun Mishra held the 2014 judgment to be incorrect, or “per incuriam.” Simultaneously, another three-judge bench headed by Justice Madan Lokur was hearing a similar case on the question of compensation for land acquisition.
Bhushan’s petition states that on 21 February, the bench headed by Lokur listed its case for its next hearing on 7 March. The bench further directed that other benches hearing cases on similar issues of law should defer a hearing until a larger bench rules on the issue of whether a three-judge bench can render a decision passed by another three-judge bench as per incuriam. Bhushan’s petition notes that on “the very next day,” two similar matters were “listed before two different two judge benches of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Goel.” The petition further notes that both Mishra and Goel were “part of the judgment” that held the 2014 judgment as incorrect.
On that date of hearing, both benches headed by Mishra and Goel referred their cases to Chief Justice Dipak Misra, who in turn listed the cases for hearing on 6 March—the date before the scheduled hearing of the case before Justice Lokur. According to Bhushan’s petition, Misra listed the cases “before a 5 judge bench presided by himself” to consider the correctness of all the issues arising out of these cases.
Misra assumed the office of chief justice in late August last year, and within three months, the differences between sections of the bar and the bench became evident, particularly during a hearing in a case concerning corruption allegations against two benches of the Supreme Court. Both benches included Misra. In his order dismissing the case—popularly termed the medical college bribery case—Misra stated that the chief justice “alone is the master of the roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute the Benches of the Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted.” Soon after, differences emerged within members of the bench as well—in January this year, four senior judges of the Supreme Court held an unprecedented press conference to register their concerns about the manner in which the court assigned cases “selectively to ‘benches of their preference’ without any rational basis.”
Shanti Bhushan’s petition is listed for hearing before a bench comprising AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, on 27 April. With the petition and the motion for Misra’s removal, the concerns over Misra’s allotment of cases have again come under the spotlight. The petition claims that while listing cases, the chief justice places “matters of general public importance and/or political sensitivity before only certain benches.” Kamini Jaiswal, an advocate in the Supreme Court, said the motion to remove Misra was “necessary.” “Things are moving from bad to worse,” she added. “I have been in the Supreme Court for over 30 years and I have never seen the Supreme Court so low.” The advocate Prashant Bhushan said, “One reason why the impeachment motion is important is because of the serious danger which emerges from the CJI being blackmailed by the government via the medical college bribery case.” He added, “The abuse of power by the CJI as the master of roster poses a serious threat to the democracy as the entire Supreme Court is being controlled by the government.”
In his petition, Shanti Bhushan seeks to allay these fears by requesting directions from the court regarding an adherence to certain rules of procedure while allocating cases. The petition argues that the “master of roster” cannot be an “unguided and unbridled discretionary power, exercised arbitrarily by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India by hand-picking benches of select Judges or by assigning cases to particular Judges.” It further states that the authority of the chief justice as the “master of roster is not an absolute, arbitrary, singular power” and that it “must necessarily be exercised by him in consultation with the senior judges of the Supreme Court.” The petition also lists a series of cases that it alleges “reflects and establishes the gross abuse of powers.” Ten such cases from the petition, and the allegations relating to them, are listed below:
1) In the medical college bribery cases
In October last year, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, an organisation working on issues of judicial reform, moved the Supreme Court seeking a probe by a special investigation team into a corruption scandal emerging out of a medical college in Lucknow. The corruption allegations levelled in the petition cast an aspersion on the highest offices of the Supreme Court. On 8 November, the counsel for CJAR mentioned the matter before the bench led by Jasti Chelameswar, the senior-most judge after Misra, who listed the case for hearing on 10 November. According to Shanti Bhushan’s petition, “During lunch the petitioner’s counsel was informed that in the light of an order by the Chief Justice,” the case had been transferred to another bench.
On the next hearing, the case was listed before a bench led by AK Sikri. The petition notes, “The same afternoon the matter was suddenly heard by a Constitution Bench headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and junior judges hand picked by him.” The CJI pronounced the order, which emphasised that the chief justice was the master of the roster, that any order contravening the CJI’s administrative power was null and void, and that the CJAR petition would be heard by a new bench constituted by Misra. The case was then referred to a bench headed by RK Agarwal, and finally dismissed on 1 December with costs of Rs 25 lakh imposed on CJAR.
2) In a case involving a challenge to the appointment of the special director of the Central Bureau of Investigation
On 13 November last year, the judge Navin Sinha recused himself from the bench hearing a petition challenging the appointment of Rakesh Asthana, a Gujarat cadre IPS officer, as the special director of the CBI. Bhushan’s petition notes that on that day, the bench, which was led by Ranjan Gogoi, passed an order stating: “List the matter on Friday i.e. 17th November, 2017 before a bench without Hon’ble Mr Justice Navin Sinha.”
On the next date of hearing, the matter was listed before the judges RK Agarwal and Abhay Manohar Sapre. According to Bhushan’s petition, Gogoi was not sitting with Sinha on 17 November, and accordingly, the case “ought to have been listed before the Bench presided by Hon’bleMr Justice Gogoi.” The petition quotes the Supreme Court’s “Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure 2017,” which states: “A case directed not to be listed before a particular Judge constituting the first coram shall be listed before the Judge constituting the second coram in a different composition, ifavailable.”
Bhushan’s petition claims that the listing of the case before Agarwal and Sapre was “in complete contravention of Supreme Court Handbook on Practice and Procedure.” The petition further argues, “The exercise by the concerned Registry officials in this regard was clearly an abuse of discretion and suffered from malice in law besides being arbitrary.”
3) In an appeal in the 2G case
According to Bhushan’s petition, the case was listed for hearing on 6 November last year, but subsequently deleted from the list. It was then listed before the chief justice’s court, but on 13 November, two judges of the bench—AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud—recused themselves from the hearing. The petition states that the case was then listed before the bench presided by Arun Mishra “even though other Benches of senior Hon’ble Judges were available.”
4) In the petitions seeking an investigation into the suspicious death of Judge Loya
Upon being mentioned before the chief justice’s bench on 11 January this year, Bhushan’s petition notes, two petitions seeking an investigation into Loya’s death “were surprisingly ordered to be listed” before the bench led by Arun Mishra on the next day. It is pertinent to note that it is on the day of the Loya hearings that the four senior judges of the Supreme Court had held the press conference, during which Justice Gogoi had informed the media that the four judges had approached the chief justice with concerns about the listing of the Loya petitions.
The case was subsequently listed on 16 January, and then mentioned on 19 January before the chief justice’s bench, and it was ordered that the petitions would be listed before an “appropriate Bench as per roster.” According to Bhushan’s petition, “it does not appear that any other Court Roster was published or if it was at all in existence.” It continues, “PILs were being heard by several courts in the apex court. Yet, on 22nd January 2018 the matter was listed before Court No.1 which heard the matter.”
5) In a case involving the member of parliament and Congress leader Shashi Tharoor
Bhushan’s petition also lists as one of the examples a petition filed by the BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking an investigation into the death of Tharoor’s late wife Sunanda Pushkar. The case was listed for hearing on 29 January this year before a bench led by Arun Mishra. According to Bhushan’s petition, on that date, the case was adjourned for arguments on the maintainability of the petition. But on the next date of hearing, Mishra’s bench issued notice to the Delhi Police while “keeping the question of maintainability open.”
6) In the case concerning the story by the news portal The Wire on the assets of Jay Amitbhai Shah
Bhushan’s petition states that this case was “also listed before Court No.1 while several other courts have been authorized to hear criminal matters under the Roster.”
7) In the Aadhaar cases:
The batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Aadhaar programme was initially being heard by a three-judge bench presided by Justice Chelameswar. The bench had referred the case to a constitution bench in August 2015. Subsequently, the former chief justice JS Khehar constituted a five-judge bench to hear the case on 18 July last year, which comprised him, Chelameswar, Chandrachud, SA Bobde and Abdul Nazeer.
The case was then referred to a nine-judge bench on the issue of whether the right to privacy was a fundamental right. This bench, also constituted by Khehar, included the judges Chelameswar, Bobde and Nazeer. Soon after the judgment on the right to privacy, Khehar retired as the chief justice and Dipak Misra assumed office. Bhushan’s petition notes that the Aadhaar bench subsequently “came to be reconstituted and does not comprise of Hon’ble Justice Chelameswar, Hon’ble Justice Bobde and Hon’ble Justice Nazeer.” The five-judge bench presently hearing the Aadhaar cases comprises Misra, Chandrachud, Khanwilkar, Sikri and Ashok Bhushan.
8) In a petition challenging the appointment of BJP Spokesperson Sambit Patra as an independent director of the Oil and Natural Gas Company
According to Bhushan’s petition, the case was listed before a bench comprising RK Aggarwal and AM Sapre on 8 January this year, when “one of the judges recused” himself from the hearing. The petition states that “the matter was thereafter listed before Justice A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan.” The case is presently ongoing.
9) In a case seeking an explanation from the centre regarding the delay in finalising the memorandum of procedure for appointment of judges
On 27 October last year, while hearing a petition filed by a lawyer RP Luthra challenging appointments to the higher judiciary in the absence of a revised memorandum of procedure, a bench comprising UU Lalit and AK Goel sought responses from the central government on the delay in finalising the procedure. Bhushan’s petition states that the case was then listed for its next hearing on 14 November that year. But in a surprise move, the case was listed before a new bench of Justices Misra, Sikri and Amitava Roy, on 8 November. On that date, as noted in Bhushan’s petition, “the three-judge bench headed by CJI recalled the 27 October order.”
10) In a case concerning the right to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act
According to Bhushan’s petition, in 2014, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had ruled that a compensation amount in lieu of acquired land would not be treated as paid until it was deposited, and that the failure to deposit such an amount would result in the lapse of the acquisition. In February this year, another three-judge bench led by Arun Mishra held the 2014 judgment to be incorrect, or “per incuriam.” Simultaneously, another three-judge bench headed by Justice Madan Lokur was hearing a similar case on the question of compensation for land acquisition.
Bhushan’s petition states that on 21 February, the bench headed by Lokur listed its case for its next hearing on 7 March. The bench further directed that other benches hearing cases on similar issues of law should defer a hearing until a larger bench rules on the issue of whether a three-judge bench can render a decision passed by another three-judge bench as per incuriam. Bhushan’s petition notes that on “the very next day,” two similar matters were “listed before two different two judge benches of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Goel.” The petition further notes that both Mishra and Goel were “part of the judgment” that held the 2014 judgment as incorrect.
On that date of hearing, both benches headed by Mishra and Goel referred their cases to Chief Justice Dipak Misra, who in turn listed the cases for hearing on 6 March—the date before the scheduled hearing of the case before Justice Lokur. According to Bhushan’s petition, Misra listed the cases “before a 5 judge bench presided by himself” to consider the correctness of all the issues arising out of these cases.
Sunday, April 22, 2018
Can you believe these are Delhi Government Schools?
After decades of neglect, Delhi’s government schools are finally turning the page with much-needed improvements to facilities and teaching methods. But problems such as staff shortage and a broken primary education system refuse to go away easily
Delhi’s bustling IP Extension has a familiar skyline — a linear arrangement of ageing residential complexes. A gleaming new building in their midst catches the eye. Until recently, the Rajkiya Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya in West Vinod Nagar was, much like the other 1,000-odd Delhi government schools, characterised only by its unremarkableness. The sprawling new brown-and-cream building in its place is as a pleasant revelation.
Tell her that, and principal Manju Shammi straightens up a wee bit more in her chair. The school’s metamorphosis is a matter of special pride for her. It was, in fact, her vision that saw the school being picked for a pilot project along with 53 others in Delhi. Within two years, the infrastructure has been overhauled and there have been systemic interventions as well. The existing 87 classrooms are in various stages of renovation. Seventy-six new rooms have been sanctioned, of which 49 are already functional in the new primary block.
‘World class’ is a term Shammi frequently uses while giving a tour of the building. Physical education classes are underway for senior girls in the new covered courtyard. Some pause to wish the principal. Shammi points to the panelled false ceiling, diffused lights, clean and tiled washrooms, large cans of handwash, water coolers — all newly added at the school. All classrooms have new blue desks and seats. The fans and lights work. But the school’s overarching pride is the 25m swimming pool still under construction. “Can you imagine a government school with a swimming pool?” asks Birender Gupta, the school’s estate manager, who recently moved his children to this school from the private institution they were attending in Bihar. Parents like him are on the rise, says Shammi. “This year we’ve received more enquiries from parents whose children are in private schools,” she says. Education is free in government schools up to Std VIII and the fee is ₹20 a month thereafter.
Stressing that the changes are not just cosmetic, Shammi says the appointment of the estate manager, for instance, is an unprecedented one for government schools. “Earlier, from getting leaky taps fixed to checking cleanliness, everything was the principal’s job,” she says. An estate manager, hired on contract, will allow the teachers to focus on teaching. “He arrives an hour before schooltime and ensures that electricity and water supply are in order, the classrooms and washrooms are clean.”
The school started nursery classes this year. The specially designed classroom is twice the size of a regular one. It’s crafts hour when we enter. Perched on the shiny new blue benches, the nursery kids are hunched over mounds of dough, engrossed in pressing them into shapes. A few days ahead of Diwali, teacher Noorjehan is telling her KG class to steer clear of crackers.
The changes in the school are not lost on its students. “My school was not very good,” Shivani Dhyani, a Std II student, does not mince words. “But now we drink chilled water. There are good desks. In fact, I don’t feel like leaving school,” she adds. Her classmate Phoolbanu chimes in, “Teachers are taking special effort. I never used the washrooms earlier, but now they are clean. Earlier, we stood in the sun for the assembly, now we have a covered auditorium.”
Students in the higher classes remark happily that from sitting on durries in barely clean classrooms, they have moved into well-ventilated spaces. Ritika of Std X says, “Teachers were not very serious earlier. But now they are, and classes happen on time.”
As construction work is still underway, Shammi is anxious about the children’s personal safety and security. All visitors are duly registered and the workers carry identity cards. Outside the school’s gates, hordes of parents, mostly from West Vinod Nagar, wait to fetch nursery and KG children. Three of Reshma Khatun’s grandchildren study here. As she awaits the youngest, she says, “What was this school earlier... a dumpyard... A lot has changed, of late.”
****
After decades of neglect, Delhi’s government schools are finally turning the page. The Delhi government has, for three years running, allocated a large chunk of its budget to education. Driving in this point, education minister Manish Sisodia said about the budget for 2017-18, “The allocation of 24 per cent... is the highest among all States.” An expenditure of ₹11,300 crore has been proposed for the education sector in the current financial year.
The rejig, which began with the infrastructure, subsequently spread to teacher training and pedagogy. The physical fixes, relatively easier, are beginning to show. It all began over two years ago with a few schools getting selected for a pilot project initiated by the Delhi government. The selections were based on the vision spelt out for each school by its principal. Apart from infrastructure, teacher shortage and quality of education figured among the top concerns.
Two years on, the pilot projects have served as a blueprint. Atishi Marlena, advisor to the education minister, says all the 1,029 government schools in Delhi are now being overhauled.
The biggest struggle so far has been in bringing about changes in the teaching methods. As a large segment of the secondary school students were found to be non-readers, the government launched its Chunauti (Challenge) programme. With the stated aim of teaching children according to their learning level, students from Std VI to VIII were categorised as non-readers, slow readers and proficient readers ( neo nishtha, nishtha and pratibha, respectively). However, this move to label children swiftly provoked criticism.
Marlena argues that they had little choice in the matter. A majority of the students in Delhi’s government schools come from an underprivileged background. “More than 50 per cent are first-generation learners,” claims Marlena. But the education system — books, syllabus and teaching methods — is not tailored to meet the needs of first-generation learners. “They will need to be taught differently. By pretending that this reality does not exist we’re just widening the gap further,” she contends.
Delhi’s distinct governance structure adds to the complexity. Primary education is under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Government schoolteachers grumble that children arriving from MCD schools in Std VI are mostly non-readers. “Most cannot read, write or add. Catching up with that gap at that level is difficult,” Marlena explains. Instead of benignly neglecting weak students in a heterogeneous classroom, Chunauti engages with them upfront, she declares.
Despite the initial misgivings of many parents, Shammi too backs the initiative. “We have to identify children who are facing problems.” A year into the programme now, she says it is bearing results. “When children see that other students in class have similar problems, they become more confident. The teacher takes special care to teach at their level. Neo-nishtha gets the best teacher.”
At the Government Girls’ Senior Secondary School in Shakarpur, commonly called the School Block, students of Std VI B flock around their teacher with papers in hand. Rajani Baluni, the teacher development coordinator(TDC), explains that weekly tests are underway for neo-nishtha students. Attentive tending has helped the children move to the next level.
Located bang in the middle of Shakarpur’s narrow market lane, the school was known by a different moniker until recently. As Rehana of Std XI tells it, “It was just the subzi mandi wala (vegetable market) school.” She and her friends used to be embarrassed about it, but not any more. Principal Reeta Kathuria, who admits she hadn’t heard much about the school before joining it four years ago, describes its transformation from the dumping ground it had turned into for the nearby vegetable market to what it is now. To end encroachments, the first thing she did on taking charge was to firm up the compound wall and clear the compound of waste. “Eight trucks of waste were removed. We refilled with soil and raised a garden,” she says. They called it Radhika Kunj.
****
Another of the chosen pilot schools, today it is coated with the grime and dust of renovation. Inherent disadvantages — high-tension wire passing nearby and severe space constraints — mean the school cannot expand. But it now has a new look and new equipment. Rehana’s class has new desks, and is brightly lit and clean. “Ever since it became a pilot school, the impression about it has changed,” she says.
Classes in creative writing, dance, theatre and fine arts have been introduced in the pilot schools. For this, the Delhi government’s cultural wing, Sahitya Kala Parishad has engaged with multiple organisations. When we visit, the cultural hour is in full swing at School Block. Music auditions are on for the upcoming annual day. Supriya of Std VIII coyly sings “ Tum mere humsafar” as her teacher tunes the harmonium. She halts after a few lines and declares she does not remember the rest. In the class next door, the furniture has been pushed to the corners. Girls are standing in line and their theatre instructor is testing them with a few mind games. In the third room, girls draw immaculate Warli figures on cards.
At the creative writing class, Jaishree Sethi is reading a piece written by a small group of students. Baluni has put Sethi in charge of some of the most challenging students. “I had children who had trouble reading and writing even in Std VIII and IX,” Sethi says. Children who could manage to write had difficulty imbibing concepts. “If I was talking to them about theatre, it would take me two hours to explain the concept of theatre, the director etc.” She was introducing them to a world they were not familiar with. “Most of them are first-generation learners.”
She goads them to work on ideas and put them into words. Baluni recalls a breakthrough they made last year. Five children wrote poems in Hindi and recited them on stage. Unused to any kind of cultural activity before this, this was a big leap for them. “They were overwhelmed, so was I,” remembers Baluni.
Sethi has her task cut out when it comes to building the children’s confidence. “I cannot change them overnight, I get to work with them for six months, four hours a week.” She hopes that a child who has learned to think and express herself, will also fare better in an exam. Most of all, she is thrilled that creative writing, long seen as an activity exclusive to private schools, is available to students of government schools.
Baluni’s role as a TDC — a link between teachers, students, the principal and the department — is again a new feature. A teacher for the past 25 years, she had often felt that the system had failed committed teachers earlier. Not anymore. “The platform we get for capacity-building never existed before,” she says. She documents her interactions with teachers on their teaching practices, the difficulties they encounter, as well as their suggestions. She and her peers in other schools later discuss their experiences and feedback at the workshops held for them.
Much like School Block, the Government Girls Senior Secondary School Shakti Nagar 2 is short on space. The school’s reception area opens into a busy lane in north Delhi. “But we’ve had 100 per cent result for class XII,” says its principal, Indu Kaushik. As a pilot school, it now has a new second floor. “We’ll have laboratories and an audiovisual room on the top floor,” adds Kaushik.
Kaushik and Meera Sharma, a senior teacher, say the new system has facilitated greater interaction with parents.“Response to the parent-teacher meetings has improved.” Both Kaushik and Sharma agree that the process will take time to bear results. Chunauti, they believe, is putting too much on a teacher’s already full plate. They suggest hiring specialised teachers for the neo-nishtha segment. They blame the no-detention policy, which forces schools to promote all students to the next higher class until Std VIII, for bringing a lot of non-readers into the senior level. They want systemic changes initiated at the primary level.
At the Government Boys’ Senior Secondary School, Shakti Nagar 1, principal Rakesh Kumar Sorot happens to be helming his alma mater, which is also one of the older schools in the State. Inaugurated in 1957, the building is now undergoing its first-ever renovation on this scale.
It has a large compound and an eco garden occupies a prominent space in front. After being selected as a pilot school, it has added 32 new rooms. The refurbished multipurpose hall has over a dozen air-conditioners and other state-of-the-art facilities. Of the six smart classes sanctioned, two are already functional.
The renovated school has instilled a sense of ownership among the boys, says Sorot, who often catches them standing and staring at it in admiration. Some of them wanted to bring their parents and show them around. “Most of the students come from resettlement colonies and slums. Frankly, though, the gap between government and private schools is closing. I would say we’re getting better than private schools,” says Sorot.
A year ago, he and other heads of pilot schools were sent to Cambridge University. There they acquainted themselves with the popular activity-based teaching methods. On returning, he discussed it with his teachers and they now try to incorporate it in their interactions with students. The principals of government schools also meet every month to share best teaching practices. The meetings, earlier restricted to the principals of pilot schools, have now expanded to include heads of all schools. “We also share common problems and try to find solutions,” says Sorot. “Earlier, we had no incentives. So sincerity was missing. Now we have the infrastructure, smart classes and outcome-based workshops. Some school heads have been sent to the Indian Institute of Management for training.” An added boost for him is the interest shown by the local legislator, who participates in all of the school’s activities, including the student management committee (SMC) meetings.
That attention, in turn, means a demand for greater accountability from the teachers. They are watched hawk-eyed by the department of education. They receive a handful of circulars almost every day. “It takes days to implement those. At times, we end up taking work home,” says Sorot.
****
A recent circular cancelling leave for teachers of senior classes until end-February had raised quite a furore. News reports said the move was prompted by the need to help students prepare well for the upcoming examinations. However, the general secretary of Delhi Government School Teachers Association, Ajay Veer Yadav, says such measures smack of dictatorship. “Teachers are eligible for eight casual leave and 10 earned leave,” he points out. The preoccupation with exam results is putting too much pressure on teachers, he adds. “As it is, each teacher is doing the work of two.”
Marlena concedes the circular is “draconian”, but lays the blame on Delhi’s massive shortage of teachers. “The biggest crisis in the education system are the 9,500 vacancies,” she says.
According to Yadav, regular staff make up only about half of the State’s school teaching force. Of the over 60,000 teaching posts in schools, 15,000 are handled by guest lecturers, and close to 10,000 are lying vacant. “Nothing has been done to fix this. New guest lecturers have not been chosen,” he says.
The row over teacher recruitment has reached the Delhi High Court. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board examinations, the recruitment test for teachers, have been stalled since 2014, as the State government and Lieutenant-Governor (L-G) differ on the issue of regularising existing guest lecturers. “If we conduct recruitment now, those guest teachers will never get regularised. The L-G has been refusing our proposals,” says Marlena. In September, the Delhi HC stayed the appointment of new guest teachers.
****
Any call to overhaul Delhi’s education system frequently comes up against the tussle over the no-detention policy — a vital part of the Right to Education Act.
Says Kiran Bhatty, senior fellow at Centre for Policy Research, “The no-detention policy exists for a very good reason, and raising questions about it is unfair.” She further argues that it is short-sighted to blame the policy for all the ills in the education system. Corrective measures, she suggests, should instead focus on improving the quality of education in MCD schools.
Contending that teachers are the least-empowered players in the system, she warns against the dangers of threatening them with punitive measures. “Punitive measures should be effected from the administrative level — the top,” she says. She lauds the ongoing infrastructural makeover efforts as an exercise in instilling self-worth among students. Agrees Marlena, “I realise how important it is. Children had also so far considered swanky schools the privilege of the rich.”
Countering Yadav’s assertion that many schools in the Capital still function out of tin sheds, Marlena says the efforts will soon cover even those schools. “Eight thousand new classrooms were made in the first phase. We are in the process of sanctioning 13,000 more rooms in the second,” she says, adding that 29 new schools are also being constructed. That still leaves a huge deficit from the promised 500 new schools. “Land belongs to the Delhi Development Authority. They were willing to provide us land for ₹4 crore per acre,” Marlena says. Consequently, the government was forced to scrape out land from its own properties and that was enough for just 29 new schools across the Capital.
As a system churns, its key players — teachers and students — pray that there should be no dire reversals. For teachers such as Seema Varma who have experienced the apathy that had hitherto characterised the system, a relapse would be nothing short of heartbreak. “Frankly, I fear it is going back to what it was. It is important to sustain the motivation and energy that’s now part of the system,” the teacher pleads.
Kathua victim’s lawyer Deepika Rajawat’s response to Zee News program
Full text of Kathua victim’s lawyer Deepika Singh Rajawat slamming false statements allegedly made on a Zee News program anchored by Sudhir Chaudhary; she also said her Twitter handle has been hacked
My attention has been drawn to a news broadcast on Zee TV (on the programme DNA) dated April 17, 2018, in which a false statement has been made by one Mr Bhatti to the anchor Mr Sudhir Chaudhary, that I have spent the last few days in JNU. I categorically deny that I have ever set foot in JNU. The statement is false to the knowledge of Mr Bhatti and is calculated to malign me.
The said Mr Bhatti has also implied that vast amounts of money has also been collected in the name of the Kathua victim, and speculated whether the money has actually reached the victim or her family. When read in the context of the reference to me, there’s an innuendo that I could have received money. I wish to make it clear that I have not accepted any money from any source for my legal representation in defence of the Kathua victim. My entire legal team—including Mr Sunil Fernandes, Advocate-on-Record, Ms Indira Jaising, Senior Counsel, and Lawyers Collective in Delhi —has provided legal services pro bono, and has made a clear declaration that they are providing legal services free of charge.
I also wish to give notice to the public that my attention was drawn this afternoon to a Twitter account bearing the name “Deepika Singh” with the Twitter handle @DeepikaSRajawat carrying the banner photograph of the Kathua victim. I wish to give notice that the said account has been hacked in order to reactivate it, and I am hereby lodging a complaint with the Cyber Cell of Delhi Police, with reference to the said hacking. Although the said Twitter account was created by me some years ago, it has not been operated by me since then at all. ALL the tweets that appear on the said account (@DeepikaSRajawat) at present have not been put out by me and I request you not to be misled into believing that I have posted the tweets. Since some of the tweets have the exact content as posted by me on my Facebook account, it’s evident that data from my Facebook account has been stolen and used on Twitter by unknown persons without my knowledge and consent. It is apparent that this is a case of identity theft and I am being impersonated, which, by itself, is a crime.
The only Twitter account that is genuine and that I have been operating myself is @DeepikaSinghR15. I have deactivated even @DeepikaSinghR15. I am not on Twitter anymore.I am also lodging a complaint with Twitter to deactivate/suspend @DeepikaSRajawat and other lookalike accounts, passing themselves off as my accounts.
The photograph of the Kathua victim has been put on the banner with the mala-fide intent of lodging a criminal complaint against me. It has further come to my knowledge that such a complaint has been lodged by one Mr Vibhor Anand claiming to be an advocate, at the police station of Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
I am overwhelmed by the support I have received from well-meaning people from across the country cutting across caste, community and religion, expressing solidarity and support for the victim of the Kathua rape, and demanding free and fair trial.
Crime has no religion. Similarly, justice is blind to caste, community and religion. I have full faith in the judiciary of this country, and I am sure that justice will be done. I am not deterred by the fake and false propaganda spread against me and I will continue to do my professional duty without fear or favour.
Deepika Singh Rajawat
Advocate, Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Former AAP adviser Raghav Chadha repays Rs 2.50 salary to Rajnath Singh as 'token of remorse'
A day after the Centre cancelled the appointments of nine advisers to the Delhi government, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) functionary and former adviser to deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, Raghav Chadha, on Wednesday sent a demand draft worth Rs 2.50 that was drawn as salary for his 75-day tenure along with a letter to Union home minister Rajnath Singh.
"I was offered an honorarium of Rs 1 per month and over my time there earned a princely sum of Rs 2.50. On the directions by the Ministry of Home Affairs... I accept my retrospective sacking from the position held for a period of 75 days, two years ago. My intention, like that of others on the list, was to work for something that was bigger than the individual, to work for the people of Delhi," Chadha wrote in the letter laced with sarcasm.
"Please accept enclosed a Demand Draft of Rs 2.50 in favour of Ministry of Home Affairs that I earned in my capacity as adviser as a token of my remorse," he added and cited the examples of the appointments of BJP leaders Sambit Patra, Shazia Ilmi and a godman from MP to plum posts in ONGC, Engineers India Limited and in the MP government through their skill set were not in the same domain.
Not consulted on AAP order & Gujarat polls, both hurt panel’s image, says EC’s legal veteran
The Election Commission’s veteran legal troubleshooter, S K Mendiratta, who has worked with the EC for over five decades, was not consulted on two of its most controversial decisions in the last one year — disqualification of 20 Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLAs for holding “office of profit” and delinking the announcement of Gujarat elections from Himachal Pradesh.
Both decisions were taken when A K Joti was Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and invited strident criticism. In the AAP case, the Delhi High Court ruled that it was against natural justice and in the Gujarat election schedule case, the Opposition said that the Commission had favoured the BJP government by giving it a longer window to campaign.
Speaking to The Indian Express on Wednesday at Idea Exchange, an interaction with the newsroom, (detailed transcript will be published on Sunday) Mendiratta, who left EC last month, said, “I was (working) on contract with them (EC). I have given them my opinion whenever it was sought. In this case (office-of-profit complaint against AAP), they did not feel the necessity of seeking my opinion. So I (have) just kept away.”
Mendiratta added he was “disappointed” that his opinion was not sought and that the two decisions may have dented the Commission’s image. “Public perception is main strength of the Election Commission. We have to see that the public perception (of EC) does not go down. The way some people have come up to me and discussed things. (it seems) these two or three decisions may have created some dent in the fair name of the Election Commission. I would not like to mince words,” he added.
The EC was indicted by the Delhi High Court for not following due process before finding 20 AAP legislators guilty of holding “office of profit.” The court set aside their disqualification on the ground that EC’s opinion was “bad in law” and violated “principles of natural justice”.
Interestingly, Mendiratta confirmed he was associated with the AAP case until the poll panel’s order of June 23, 2017, which had promised further hearing on the matter. Nasim Zaidi was the CEC then. The EC, however, did not hold any oral hearings after that and, straightaway, tendered its opinion to the President on January 19 this year.
Asked if he was consulted by the Commission for the June 23 order, he said, “I was (consulted) in this case up to the last order, where it was decided that they have held an office. Thereafter, I have not been associated with that matter.”
The 79-year-old was the poll watchdog’s legal troubleshooter for 53 years and has advised the Commission on almost all matters of legal importance. Although he retired from service in 1997, Mendiratta was retained by the Commission, on contractual basis, for another two decades for his formidable knowledge in electoral law and his experience defending the same, on behalf of the EC, in courts.
He has worked with all CECs, except the first (Sukumar Sen), and has been associated with almost all high-profile decisions taken by the poll panel, including its decision on the first split in the Congress party in 1969, introduction of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in elections and disqualification of actor and Samajwadi Party leader Jaya Bachchan from Rajya Sabha for hold an “office of profit.” He was the Commission’s go-to person for defending reforms introduced by T N Seshan in the ‘90s in the Supreme Court.
Asked why he thought the EC didn’t consult him before making a final decision in the “office of profit’ complaint against AAP, he said: “If they do not feel like asking for my opinion, it’s ultimately their decision. Whether they should consult somebody is up to them.”
Asked if he agreed with Delhi High Court’s observation that EC’s opinion in the matter violated principles of natural justice, he said, “It’s no longer for me to say. The High Court itself has said that they (AAP MLAs) should have been called and given an opportunity to explain. Why they (the Commission) did not (give them that opportunity), I don’t know…I cannot sit in judgment over the Commission’s judgment. They (EC) have accepted High Court’s order.”
Mendiratta has stopped going to EC from April 1 and attributed the decision to his age. “There is some limit up to which you can exert your body. I am already 79. I need some rest. This isn’t a sudden decision,” he said. The Commission, too, hasn’t extended his contract, which ended on March 31
When asked if there is anything that worries him about the EC as he leaves after 53 years, he said, “My (only) worry is that we have come to a stage where we are enjoying a (good) reputation and that reputation has to be maintained. We have to keep that flag flying high.”
Both decisions were taken when A K Joti was Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and invited strident criticism. In the AAP case, the Delhi High Court ruled that it was against natural justice and in the Gujarat election schedule case, the Opposition said that the Commission had favoured the BJP government by giving it a longer window to campaign.
Speaking to The Indian Express on Wednesday at Idea Exchange, an interaction with the newsroom, (detailed transcript will be published on Sunday) Mendiratta, who left EC last month, said, “I was (working) on contract with them (EC). I have given them my opinion whenever it was sought. In this case (office-of-profit complaint against AAP), they did not feel the necessity of seeking my opinion. So I (have) just kept away.”
Mendiratta added he was “disappointed” that his opinion was not sought and that the two decisions may have dented the Commission’s image. “Public perception is main strength of the Election Commission. We have to see that the public perception (of EC) does not go down. The way some people have come up to me and discussed things. (it seems) these two or three decisions may have created some dent in the fair name of the Election Commission. I would not like to mince words,” he added.
The EC was indicted by the Delhi High Court for not following due process before finding 20 AAP legislators guilty of holding “office of profit.” The court set aside their disqualification on the ground that EC’s opinion was “bad in law” and violated “principles of natural justice”.
Interestingly, Mendiratta confirmed he was associated with the AAP case until the poll panel’s order of June 23, 2017, which had promised further hearing on the matter. Nasim Zaidi was the CEC then. The EC, however, did not hold any oral hearings after that and, straightaway, tendered its opinion to the President on January 19 this year.
Asked if he was consulted by the Commission for the June 23 order, he said, “I was (consulted) in this case up to the last order, where it was decided that they have held an office. Thereafter, I have not been associated with that matter.”
The 79-year-old was the poll watchdog’s legal troubleshooter for 53 years and has advised the Commission on almost all matters of legal importance. Although he retired from service in 1997, Mendiratta was retained by the Commission, on contractual basis, for another two decades for his formidable knowledge in electoral law and his experience defending the same, on behalf of the EC, in courts.
He has worked with all CECs, except the first (Sukumar Sen), and has been associated with almost all high-profile decisions taken by the poll panel, including its decision on the first split in the Congress party in 1969, introduction of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in elections and disqualification of actor and Samajwadi Party leader Jaya Bachchan from Rajya Sabha for hold an “office of profit.” He was the Commission’s go-to person for defending reforms introduced by T N Seshan in the ‘90s in the Supreme Court.
Asked why he thought the EC didn’t consult him before making a final decision in the “office of profit’ complaint against AAP, he said: “If they do not feel like asking for my opinion, it’s ultimately their decision. Whether they should consult somebody is up to them.”
Asked if he agreed with Delhi High Court’s observation that EC’s opinion in the matter violated principles of natural justice, he said, “It’s no longer for me to say. The High Court itself has said that they (AAP MLAs) should have been called and given an opportunity to explain. Why they (the Commission) did not (give them that opportunity), I don’t know…I cannot sit in judgment over the Commission’s judgment. They (EC) have accepted High Court’s order.”
Mendiratta has stopped going to EC from April 1 and attributed the decision to his age. “There is some limit up to which you can exert your body. I am already 79. I need some rest. This isn’t a sudden decision,” he said. The Commission, too, hasn’t extended his contract, which ended on March 31
When asked if there is anything that worries him about the EC as he leaves after 53 years, he said, “My (only) worry is that we have come to a stage where we are enjoying a (good) reputation and that reputation has to be maintained. We have to keep that flag flying high.”
Centre sacks nine advisors to Delhi govt: BJP's tyrannical treatment of AAP makes mockery of PM's claims of 'New India'
Dismemberment. Vivisection. Bleeding by a Thousand Cuts. Hacked. Mutilation. All these words are synonymous and are often associated with gory imagery: One involving some form of violence perpetrated. However, all these words are also the embodiment of the peculiar brand of ‘political violence’ that BJP-led central government has been perpetrating on Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s government in Delhi for the past 3 years.
The raging tempest between the elected state government in Delhi and the central government hit a veritable rock-bottom when, on Tuesday, Delhi lieutenant-governor Anil Baijal, on orders of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), sacked 9 advisors of the Delhi government who had, allegedly, been appointed by the AAP to unsanctioned posts.
This is not the first time the central government has acted out of spiteful political vendetta. Be it the motivated hounding of Rajendra Kumar, former principal secretary to the Delhi chief minister, in whose case CBI failed repeatedly, in court, to produce conclusive evidence. Or when Baijal appointed a super-quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation (quango) of retired bureaucrats to inspect over 400 files and brought the Delhi government to a virtual standstill. Or when the IAS Association of Delhi, aided and abetted by the powers that be, went on strike and instead of focussing on governance, resorted to acting as the permanent Opposition in residence by stalling work and deploying dilatory tactics.
Understanding political appointees to executive
Since time immemorial, the world over (including in India), during elections, every political party has a core team of professionals, drawn from a variety of fields — journalism, academia, business — who not only support but work on the campaign, raise money, and help in managing elections. Once the party wins and forms the government, a large number of such professionals are assimilated into the new administration. Those selected help implement the executive head of the government’s policy agenda and manage the day-to-day operations of important schemes and departments.
The contention that this politicises policy-making is unfounded and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. It is the unhindered privilege of the elected government to appoint people who resonate with its ideology and is an essential feature of representative democracy.
Political appointees work to translate the political vision of the party into tangible frameworks and more often than not, also act as a cogent bridge between the expectations of the political party and the laws, rules and procedures followed by a stolid and status-quoist bureaucracy.
Research shows that political appointees play a crucial role in overcoming bureaucratic lassitude and this can dramatically improve the implementation of critical development programmes. Would it then be right to construe such appointments as an act of politicising policymaking?
The situation
First, Baijal's order to remove 9 advisors is on shaky legal ground as the appointments were approved by his predecessor Najeeb Jung.
Second, four of the advisors mentioned in the order have already resigned from the government a long time ago. In fact and funnily enough, one of the advisors mentioned in the list was only appointed for a month, in 2016, and that too at a measly remuneration of ₹1 per month.
Third, all the people mentioned in the order are exemplary experts in their own domain — be it academia or journalism — and their daily inputs to the chief minister and his council have provided unquantifiable impetus to the governance reforms in Delhi.
Even in the BJP-led central government, lateral entries have been made straight into the executive, such as Officer on Special Duty (OSD) and advisors to the prime minister and his Cabinet, in the NITI Aayog, UID, etc. These decisions have met with little or no debate and near universal endorsement.
It is then both duplicitous and baffling that skilled advisors, aligned with the AAP, were sacked unilaterally by the central government citing specious rules.
This tyrannical treatment of AAP by BJP will go down in the annals of history as a case of sour grapes, abuse of power and misuse of constitutional authority, unlike anything seen before. Perhaps this is the “New India” that our Hon’ble Prime Minister Narendra Modi talks about? One where the term “co-operative federalism” is a mere witticism meant for morning headlines.
The author works with the AAP and Delhi government on key issues.
The raging tempest between the elected state government in Delhi and the central government hit a veritable rock-bottom when, on Tuesday, Delhi lieutenant-governor Anil Baijal, on orders of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), sacked 9 advisors of the Delhi government who had, allegedly, been appointed by the AAP to unsanctioned posts.
This is not the first time the central government has acted out of spiteful political vendetta. Be it the motivated hounding of Rajendra Kumar, former principal secretary to the Delhi chief minister, in whose case CBI failed repeatedly, in court, to produce conclusive evidence. Or when Baijal appointed a super-quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation (quango) of retired bureaucrats to inspect over 400 files and brought the Delhi government to a virtual standstill. Or when the IAS Association of Delhi, aided and abetted by the powers that be, went on strike and instead of focussing on governance, resorted to acting as the permanent Opposition in residence by stalling work and deploying dilatory tactics.
Understanding political appointees to executive
Since time immemorial, the world over (including in India), during elections, every political party has a core team of professionals, drawn from a variety of fields — journalism, academia, business — who not only support but work on the campaign, raise money, and help in managing elections. Once the party wins and forms the government, a large number of such professionals are assimilated into the new administration. Those selected help implement the executive head of the government’s policy agenda and manage the day-to-day operations of important schemes and departments.
The contention that this politicises policy-making is unfounded and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. It is the unhindered privilege of the elected government to appoint people who resonate with its ideology and is an essential feature of representative democracy.
Political appointees work to translate the political vision of the party into tangible frameworks and more often than not, also act as a cogent bridge between the expectations of the political party and the laws, rules and procedures followed by a stolid and status-quoist bureaucracy.
Research shows that political appointees play a crucial role in overcoming bureaucratic lassitude and this can dramatically improve the implementation of critical development programmes. Would it then be right to construe such appointments as an act of politicising policymaking?
The situation
First, Baijal's order to remove 9 advisors is on shaky legal ground as the appointments were approved by his predecessor Najeeb Jung.
Second, four of the advisors mentioned in the order have already resigned from the government a long time ago. In fact and funnily enough, one of the advisors mentioned in the list was only appointed for a month, in 2016, and that too at a measly remuneration of ₹1 per month.
Third, all the people mentioned in the order are exemplary experts in their own domain — be it academia or journalism — and their daily inputs to the chief minister and his council have provided unquantifiable impetus to the governance reforms in Delhi.
Even in the BJP-led central government, lateral entries have been made straight into the executive, such as Officer on Special Duty (OSD) and advisors to the prime minister and his Cabinet, in the NITI Aayog, UID, etc. These decisions have met with little or no debate and near universal endorsement.
It is then both duplicitous and baffling that skilled advisors, aligned with the AAP, were sacked unilaterally by the central government citing specious rules.
This tyrannical treatment of AAP by BJP will go down in the annals of history as a case of sour grapes, abuse of power and misuse of constitutional authority, unlike anything seen before. Perhaps this is the “New India” that our Hon’ble Prime Minister Narendra Modi talks about? One where the term “co-operative federalism” is a mere witticism meant for morning headlines.
The author works with the AAP and Delhi government on key issues.
Friday, April 20, 2018
[National Election Watch news] Crimes against women declared by sitting MPs & MLAs: In past 5 yrs, 26 given ticket with self-declared rape charges; Maharashtra tops the chart with 12 MPs/ MLAs with cases on crimes against women
Press Release
19th April, 2018
Analysis of MPs/MLAs with Declared Cases Related to Crimes against Women
Dear friends,
Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch have analyzed 4845 out of 4896 election affidavits of current MPs and MLAs. It includes 768 out of 776 affidavits of MPs and 4077 out of 4120 MLAs from all the states of India.
For complete report with details of IPC sections related to crimes against women declared by sitting Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha MPs and Members of Legislative Assemblies, please refer to: https://adrindia.org/content/analysis-mpsmlas-declared-cases-related-crimes-against-women-1
Summary and Highlights
Out of 1580(33%) MPs/ MLAs analysed with declared criminal cases, 48 have declared cases related to crimes against women.
Among these 48 MPs/MLAs with declared cases related to Crimes s against women, 45 are MLAs and 3 are MPs.
327 candidates analysed who had declared cases related to crimes against women, were given tickets by recognized political parties.
118 independent candidates analysed with declared cases related to crimes against women had contested for Lok/Rajya and state assembles’ elections in last 5 years.
Among these candidates, 40 candidates were given tickets by parties for Lok Sabha / Rajya Sabha elections. Various recognized parties have given tickets to 287 candidates with cases related to crimes against women for state assemblies’ elections.
In the last 5 years, 18 independent candidates with declared cases related to crimes against women contested in the Lok Sabha/ Rajya Elections. Similarly, 100 independent candidates with declared cases related to crimes against women contested in the state assemblies’ elections.
Among the states, Maharashtra has the highest number of MPs/ MLAs i.e. 12, followed by West Bengal with 11 , Odisha and Andhra Pradesh each with 5 MPs/MLAs who have declared cases related crimes against women.
· Among the states in the last 5 years, Maharashtra has the highest number of candidates i.e. 65, followed by Bihar with 62 and West Bengal with 52 candidates who were given tickets by political parties even though they have declared cases related to crimes against women in their affidavits.
· Among various recognized parties, BJP has the highest number of MPs/ MLAs i.e. 12, followed by SHS (Shiv Sena) with 7 and AITC (All India Trinamool Congress) with 6 MPs/MLAs who have declared cases related crimes against women.
· Among the major parties in the last 5 years, 47 candidates with declared cases related to crimes against women were given tickets by BJP. The second highest number of candidates, i.e. 35 who had declared cases related to crimes against women were given tickets by BSP, followed by 24 candidates from INC who had declared cases related to crimes against women who had contested for Lok/Rajya Sabha and State Assemblies Elections in last 5 years.
· Following are 3 MLAs who have declared have declared cases related to rape :
Gonuguntla Suryanarayana from TDP who has won from Dharmavaram constituency in Andhra Pradesh (2014)
Jethabhai G.Ahir from BJP who has won from Shehra constituency in Gujarat (2017)
Gulab Yadav from RJD who has won from Jhanjharpur constituency in Bihar(2015)
· In the last 5 years, recognized parties have given tickets to 26 candidates who had declared cases related to rape.
· In the last 5 years, 14 independent candidates with declared cases related to rape have contested for Lok/Rajya Sabha and State assemblies’ elections.
Recommendations of ADR
All major political parties give tickets to candidates with cases of crimes against women especially rape and therefore hindering the safety and dignity of women as citizens. These are serious cases where charges have been framed and cognizance have been taken by the courts. Hence, political parties have been in a way abetting to circumstances that lead to such events that they so easily but vehemently condemn in Parliament’. ADR and NEW strongly recommends that:
· Candidates with a serious criminal background should be debarred from contesting elections.
· Political parties should disclose the criteria on which candidates are given tickets.
· Cases against MPs and MLAs should be fast tracked and decided upon in a time bound manner.
19th April, 2018
Analysis of MPs/MLAs with Declared Cases Related to Crimes against Women
Dear friends,
Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch have analyzed 4845 out of 4896 election affidavits of current MPs and MLAs. It includes 768 out of 776 affidavits of MPs and 4077 out of 4120 MLAs from all the states of India.
For complete report with details of IPC sections related to crimes against women declared by sitting Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha MPs and Members of Legislative Assemblies, please refer to: https://adrindia.org/content/analysis-mpsmlas-declared-cases-related-crimes-against-women-1
Summary and Highlights
Out of 1580(33%) MPs/ MLAs analysed with declared criminal cases, 48 have declared cases related to crimes against women.
Among these 48 MPs/MLAs with declared cases related to Crimes s against women, 45 are MLAs and 3 are MPs.
327 candidates analysed who had declared cases related to crimes against women, were given tickets by recognized political parties.
118 independent candidates analysed with declared cases related to crimes against women had contested for Lok/Rajya and state assembles’ elections in last 5 years.
Among these candidates, 40 candidates were given tickets by parties for Lok Sabha / Rajya Sabha elections. Various recognized parties have given tickets to 287 candidates with cases related to crimes against women for state assemblies’ elections.
In the last 5 years, 18 independent candidates with declared cases related to crimes against women contested in the Lok Sabha/ Rajya Elections. Similarly, 100 independent candidates with declared cases related to crimes against women contested in the state assemblies’ elections.
Among the states, Maharashtra has the highest number of MPs/ MLAs i.e. 12, followed by West Bengal with 11 , Odisha and Andhra Pradesh each with 5 MPs/MLAs who have declared cases related crimes against women.
· Among the states in the last 5 years, Maharashtra has the highest number of candidates i.e. 65, followed by Bihar with 62 and West Bengal with 52 candidates who were given tickets by political parties even though they have declared cases related to crimes against women in their affidavits.
· Among various recognized parties, BJP has the highest number of MPs/ MLAs i.e. 12, followed by SHS (Shiv Sena) with 7 and AITC (All India Trinamool Congress) with 6 MPs/MLAs who have declared cases related crimes against women.
· Among the major parties in the last 5 years, 47 candidates with declared cases related to crimes against women were given tickets by BJP. The second highest number of candidates, i.e. 35 who had declared cases related to crimes against women were given tickets by BSP, followed by 24 candidates from INC who had declared cases related to crimes against women who had contested for Lok/Rajya Sabha and State Assemblies Elections in last 5 years.
· Following are 3 MLAs who have declared have declared cases related to rape :
Gonuguntla Suryanarayana from TDP who has won from Dharmavaram constituency in Andhra Pradesh (2014)
Jethabhai G.Ahir from BJP who has won from Shehra constituency in Gujarat (2017)
Gulab Yadav from RJD who has won from Jhanjharpur constituency in Bihar(2015)
· In the last 5 years, recognized parties have given tickets to 26 candidates who had declared cases related to rape.
· In the last 5 years, 14 independent candidates with declared cases related to rape have contested for Lok/Rajya Sabha and State assemblies’ elections.
Recommendations of ADR
All major political parties give tickets to candidates with cases of crimes against women especially rape and therefore hindering the safety and dignity of women as citizens. These are serious cases where charges have been framed and cognizance have been taken by the courts. Hence, political parties have been in a way abetting to circumstances that lead to such events that they so easily but vehemently condemn in Parliament’. ADR and NEW strongly recommends that:
· Candidates with a serious criminal background should be debarred from contesting elections.
· Political parties should disclose the criteria on which candidates are given tickets.
· Cases against MPs and MLAs should be fast tracked and decided upon in a time bound manner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)