Crime Pays in Holy Hindu Hoodlumland
Sid Harth
Keep criminals out
Despite all the high-minded posturing on the criminalisation of
politics, the line between law makers and law breakers in our country
has only become more tenuous. At last count, and according to
statistics gathered by the Election Commission, at least 40 MPs and 700
MLAs faced criminal charges including murder, dacoity, rape, theft and
extortion. Behind these statistics lies a conspiracy of silence about
the dubious antecedents of many candidates in the political fray; it is
this that gives them both the confidence and the legitimacy to ask for
the people's vote. The Delhi High Court's directive to the Election
Commission last week to make public information about a candidate's
criminal background is, therefore, a welcome initiative. It will
empower the voter by expanding her right to information. By stripping
those with criminal backgrounds of a vital fig leaf, it will hopefully
discourage them from insinuating themselves into the political process.
Over the years, many a legislative initiative to root out criminals
from politics has run aground on grey areas and loopholes in the legal
system, apart, of course, from the palpable lack of political will.
Nothing ever came of the Law Commission's proposal that those who have
been chargesheeted must be debarred from contesting. Or of the Vohra
Committee report which detailed the nexus between the criminal,
politician and the bureaucrat. Similarly, the much-touted Bill on
electoral reforms still remains only a pious promise; as the court has
pointed out, it is yet to be tabled in Parliament. This is because
there are vested interests across the political spectrum which feed
upon the criminal-politician nexus. The malaise runs deep; basically,
its roots lie in the decay of the political party as institution.
Shirking the effort to cultivate a base at the grassroots, the
political party has become parasitic on money and muscle power to
acquire and retain power. Having obtained hold over political
parties,cadres of organised crime then exert pressure on law-
enforcement agencies, dictate policies, and finally, field their men in
elections.
In this scenario, will the court's decision to provide the voter with
more information make the difference? There is reason for optimism to
be tempered with caution here. While it is true that making public the
dubious antecedents of candidates is a significant step towards
forearming the voter as she makes her choice, it will not be enough. In
the past, the voters have often cast their votes for corrupt or
criminal candidates despite knowing that they are criminal and/or
corrupt because of the absence of a real alternative, because the
choice has been a constricted one. When all parties field similarly
dubious candidates, the contest is restricted between twiddledee and
twiddledum. The enhancement of the information available to the voter,
therefore, cannot become the excuse to shift the entire onus of halting
the criminalisation of politics on her. For the political system to be
cleansed, the political party must also own up to its share of the
responsibility. Only then can it be ensured that democracy doesnot lose
when a candidate wins.
Copyright © 2000 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
http://www.the-hindu.com/fline/fl1722/17220990.htm
The law and its potency
The recent conviction of two major political personalities in
corruption cases offers lessons that could help institute long-overdue
reforms in the process of accountability.
A. G. NOORANI
"WITH us every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or
a collector of taxes, is under the same legal responsibility for every
act done without legal justification as any other citizen. The Law
Reports abound with cases in which officials have been brought before
the courts and made, in their personal capacity, liable to punishment
or to the payment of damages, for acts done in their official character
but in excess of their lawful authority. A colonial governor, a
Secretary of State, a military officer, and all subordinates, though
carrying out the commands of their official superiors are as
responsible for any act which the law does not authorise as is any
private and unofficial person." Dicey cited cases in support of his
reference t o each of these high officials in his classic on the Law of
the British Constitution. In the United States, Judge John J. Sirica
could comfortably stretch the arm of the law to reach a President in
office, Richard Nixon, in the Watergate affair.
Any legal system, based on the rule of law, which claims impartiality
and efficacy must fulfil four conditions. It must, first and foremost,
enable any citizen to set in motion the machinery of the law, civil and
criminal, without any impediment and quit e regardless of the wishes of
the men in power. In Britain, for instance, any citizen can prosecute
even the highest in office except in cases such as breaches of the
Official Secrets Act where the Attorney-General's consent is required.
In India, prior sanction of the government itself is required in order
to prosecute its Ministers and officials under Section 197 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, a faithful replica of Section 197 of the
colonial CrPC of 1898, and under Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act (PCA), 1988.
Even if the citizen surmounts this hurdle, his success will depend on
the integrity and efficiency of the investigating agencies, the State
police or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the
independence and competence of the prosecutor. Lastly , of course, as
the great jurist Ehrlich said, "there is no guarantee of justice except
the personality of the judge".
Does the Indian legal system meet these tests? It is necessary to face
them squarely in order to appreciate the significance of the two
convictions, on charges of corruption, on October 9 of the former Chief
Minister of Tamil Nadu and All India Anna Drav ida Munnetra Kazhagam
(AIADMK) supremo, Jayalalitha, in two cases relating to the TANSI land
deal (Jaya Publications and Sasi Enterprises) and on October 12 of
former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
(JMM) MPs' bribery cas e. On November 10, 1999, Kerala's former
Electricity Minister, R. Balakrishna Pillai, was convicted of
corruption in the Idamalayar project case (Frontline, December 10,
1999).
How did the arm of the law, enfeebled for long, reach out to
Jayalalitha and Narasimha Rao, after all? It is only if the record is
properly analysed that we shall be able to draw lessons to institute
reforms in the process of accountability which are lon g overdue.
In both cases it was judicial intervention at the instance of the
citizen, through public interest litigation, that led to the
conviction. In both, judicial integrity and independence was amply
demonstrated, albeit after a hiccup in the Jayalalitha case. But the
quality of investigation and prosecution in the Jayalalitha case was
far superior to that in the Narasimha Rao case. In his case, as many as
49 witnesses turned hostile and bar his Cabinet colleague, Buta Singh,
all others were acquitted. The tw o convictions therefore do not
warrant complacency. The crucial question is: Will the prosecutions
have been possible while the former Prime Minister and Chief Minister
were in power?
In 1992, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) presented a memorandum to
the Governor requesting sanction to prosecute Jayalalitha. The Hindu
reported on February 9, 1993 that "the Janata Party chief Dr.
Subramanian Swamy has sought Tamil Nadu Gover nor Bhishma Narain
Singh's permission under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
to prosecute Chief Minister Jayalalitha on some specific corruption
charges." On August 27, 1993, the president of the Tamil Nadu Congress
(I) Committee, Vazhapadi K. Ramamurthy, presented a memorandum on the
coal import deal. On March 16, 1994, a comprehensive memorandum of
charges was presented to Governor M. Channa Reddy by both parties. The
TANSI land deal figured in it in detail as it did in the memorandum sub
mitted by S. Ramadoss of the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) on April 24,
1995. Alandur Bharati filed a private complaint in the court.
Governor Channa Reddy accorded sanction to prosecute Jayalalitha, on a
petition presented by Subramanian Swamy in April 1995. The High Court
upheld the sanction. She went on appeal to the Supreme Court against
this. Cases were registered.
On July 9, 1996, a case was registered against Jayalalitha, Mohammad
Asif and three others. The charge-sheet was laid on November 15, 1996
under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Act of 1988.
In the related Sasi Enterprises case on a co mplaint from C. P.
Sosamma, IAS, Secretary to Government, Small Industries Department,
Chennai, a case was registered at the headquarters of the State Crime
Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, on July 9, 1996 and the
charge-sheet was filed on Octo ber 22, 1997, against Jayalalitha, N.
Sasikala and others on similar charges.
Jayalalitha filed six separate petitions in the High Court for grant of
anticipatory bail in respect of six different cases, the TANSI case
being one of them. All six were dismissed by Justice C. Shivappa of the
Madras High Court on December 8, 1996. The Judge found that she had a
case to answer and rejected charges of "political vendetta".
The crucial question in this case is what would have happened to the
evidently well founded memos in the two TANSI cases if the Governor had
refused to accord his sanction to prosecute? The Bhartatiya Janata
Party government has appointed party figures s uch as Sunder Singh
Bhandari, Bhai Mahavir and Suraj Bhan as Governors.
The Supreme Court laid down the law in the cases concerning the former
Chief Minister of Maharashtra, A.R. Antulay. Cognizance of an offence
can be taken upon a private complaint (A.R. Antulay vs Ramdas S. Nayak
& Ors. (1984) 25 CC p.500). The court note d (on page 508): "It is a
well recognised principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set
or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting
or creating an offence indicates to the contrary" (emphasis added,
throughout). Indian law provides sweeping exceptions not only in
Section 19 of the PCA, 1988. Section 197 of the CrPC raises the hurdle
of sanction in respect of any criminal offence committed by any "public
servant" which is alleged to have been committed by him "w hile acting
or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty". The
sanction is to be given by the authority which has the power to remove
him; probably the one at whose behest the offence was committed.
The Supreme Court has ruled that in the case of a Chief Minister, it is
the Governor who is competent to accord the sanction; not on the advice
of his Council of Ministers, but in his discretion (State of
Maharashtra vs Ramdas S. Nayak & Ors. (198 2) 2 SCC 463). Grant or
refusal of sanction is open to judicial review. Jayalalitha's appeal
sought to overrun this ruling.
It is time that the sanctions provisions are challenged in and struck
down by the courts as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
which embodies the fundamental right to "equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws". This is n ot a case of a reasonable
classification which bears a reasonable relation to the object to be
achieved. It is palpably unreasonable in both respects. The courts have
ample power to punish vexatious or frivolous complaints. The need to
protect honest pub lic servants will surely weigh with the courts. As
against this are the impediment it creates and the violation of the
basics of "criminal jurisprudence" which the Supreme Court noted. Nor
can the court which hears the challenge overlook the fact that no other
democracy has sanctions provisions.
It is a fundamental principle of law that as in the case of any
statutory body, the police force cannot be directed how to exercise its
discretion in investigating cases by anybody, including the government.
The law was stated by Lord Denning in the clas sic case of R. vs
Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968; 2 Q.B. 118): "I have no
hesitation, however, in holding that, like every constable in the land,
he should be and is, independent of the executive. He is not subject to
the orders of the Sec retary of State... I hold it to be the duty of
the Commissioner of Police, as it is of every chief constable, to
enforce the law of the land. He must take steps so to post his men that
crimes may be detected; and that honest citizens may go about their a
ffairs in peace. He must decide whether or not suspected persons are to
be prosecuted; and, if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it is
brought; but in all these things, he is not the servant of anyone, save
of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must,
or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must,
or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police
authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on
him. He is answer able to the law and to the law alone." The police can
be compelled to do its duty by a writ of mandamus, he added.
This principle was also laid down by the Calcutta High Court in
the "gherao case" (Jay Engineering Works Ltd. & Ors. vs The State of
West Bengal & Ors. (AIR 1968 Calcutta 407). In India this principle has
been flouted systematically. There existed the notorious Single
Directive which required the CBI to obtain "the prior sanction of the
Secretary to the Ministry" even before embarking on an "enquiry", a
stage preliminary to investigation proper. Prosecution comes last. The
process of accountabili ty was thus aborted at its birth.
One case illustrates the situation. It was a change in the stewardship
of the Ministry of Surface Transport that left the CBI free to file a
first information report in the Bombay Port Trust case in 1996.
The CBI charged that Kiran Chaudhary, general secretary of the Delhi
Pradesh Congress Committee, had entered into a criminal conspiracy with
the Bombay Port Trust (BPT) Chairman, Dinesh Afzalpurkar, and its Vice-
Chairman, B. P. Pandey, in order to defrau d the BPT by getting prime
trust property in Bombay leased out to her in 1993 for a pittance
compared to the prevailing market rates. Government instructions and
guidelines were flouted, it was alleged. Choudhary is the daughter-in-
law of Haryana Chief M inister Bansi Lal. But, more relevantly, she was
close to the then Minister for Surface Transport, Jagdish Tytler. He
flatly refused to permit the CBI to file an FIR and asked the Minister
of State for Personnel in charge of the CBI, Margaret Alva, to cl ose
the file. Following a Cabinet reshuffle, the portfolio went to
Chandrasekara Murthy. The matter then went to the Prime Minister's
Office, which permitted the CBI to lodge the FIR. If this is how the
CBI can be pushed around in a matter in which a Pr ime Minister is not
involved, what assurance of fair play is there if he were involved?
States are free to withdraw their consent to the CBI to probe into
cases in their territories, under Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 which, incredibly, still serves as the CBI's
charter. There are two exceptions to this. One protects pending cases.
A Chief Minister may not revoke consent while a probe is on. (Kazi
hendup Dorji vs CBI (1994) Supp (2) SCC 116).
The other derives from the court's authority to direct any police
force, the CBI included, to investigate into an offence regardless of
the wishes of the government, State or Central (State of West Bengal &
Ors. vs Sampat Lal & Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 3 17).
The CBI's wilful inaction in the Bofors, HDW, Airbus and St. Kitts
cases brought its name into the mud though no fault of the band of
upright officials who served it. The memoirs of its former Joint
Director N. K. Singh, The Plain Truth, reveal th at the blame lay with
the Prime Minister and a particular CBI chief who sought to please him.
The Jain diaries brought matters to a head. They were seized on May 3,
1991 but were not referred to in the charge-sheets filed in March 1992
against two Kashmiris. On October 4, 1993, Vineet Narain moved the
Supreme Court, which took its own time.
During the investigations, Amod Kant, a Deputy Inspector-General in the
CBI, was shunted out in April 1995. So was his superior, B.R. Lal, a
Joint Director. The Director of Enforcement and the Deputy Director in
the office of the Director-General of Inve stigation in the Income-Tax
Department were also transferred. In September 1995 a correspondent
noted that "the Rao Government has shunted out all officers who were in
anyway connected with the (hawala) case one by one and on one pretext
or the other." ( Indian Express, September 27, 1995)
On March 1, 1996, the Supreme Court made this unprecedented order in
the hawala case: "To eliminate any impression of bias and avoid erosion
of credibility of the investigations being made by the CBI and
reasonable impression of lack of fairness and obje ctivity therein, it
is directed that the CBI would not take any instructions from, report
to, or furnish any particulars thereof to any authority personally
interested in or likely to be affected by the outcome of the
investigations into any accusation. The direction applies even in
relation to any authority which exercises administrative control over
the CBI by virtue of the office he holds, without any exception." The
CBI was directly under Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao's control
(Vineet Narain vs. Union of India, (1998)/ I SCC 225, on page 239).
The court explained that it was not concerned with the merits of the
case; only with the enforcement of the rule of law and the "inertia" of
the CBI. It had registered a case against the Jains on March 4, 1995.
Prodded by the court, to which it was made to report its investigations
in camera, the CBI filed charge-sheets against a host of leading
politicians some of whom had to resign from Narasimha Rao's Cabinet on
the eve of the 1996 general election.
N.K. Singh writes: "I had occasion to go through the FIR on the basis
of which such a large number of charge-sheets were filed, and was
astonished. The initial damage was done when the agency failed to take
any action on the diaries for about four yea rs. When the Supreme Court
intervened, it panicked and in the process went berserk... This dealt a
severe blow on the crusade against corruption, because all those who
have been discharged may not really be innocent, particularly in cases
in which th ere was corroboration in the form of corresponding entries
in other documents, or facts showing expenditure of the amount
allegedly paid" (N. K. Singh, The Politics of Crime and Corruption,
page 171).
On December 18, 1997, the Supreme Court delivered its final judgment in
which it struck down the Single Directive as being invalid and issued a
set of directives one of which was that the Central Vigilance
Commission be given statutory status (Vineet Narain & Ors. vs. Union of
India (1998) 1 SCC 226). This opened an avenue as promising as that of
public interest litigation, which was opened 20 years ago and paved the
way for this. This precedent, set early in 1996, was followed in the
Indian Bank case by the Supreme Court, in the Bihar fodder scam case by
the Patna High Court, and in the JMM case by the Delhi High Court.
But while the Court can drive the proverbial horse to the pond, it can
hardly force it to drink.
The CBI can be compelled to discard its "inertia" and act. It cannot be
compelled to act impartially or efficiently. Arun Jaitley said in The
Statesman's Annual Debate in 1998: "The accused in the Jain hawala case
were let off not by the judiciary but by the investigation agencies
which did not do a good job" (The Statesman, September 17, 1998).
The JMM case in which Narasimha Rao was convicted must be viewed in
this context. His bacon was saved on July 28, 1993 when the no-
confidence motion was defeated. Jandhama Paksh, a Hindi weekly from
Kota in Rajasthan, exposed the affairs on Februa ry 28, 1994. Ravinder
Kumar, president of the Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, lodged a complaint with
the CBI on February 1, 1996 but citing its inaction, moved the Delhi
High Court on February 22. The petition, settled by the noted lawyer
P.N. Lekhi, was admira bly detailed.
The CBI registered four cases under Section 13(2) read with Section 13
(1) (d) (iii) of the 1988 Act against Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon
Marandi and Shailendra Mahato, members of Parliament belonging to the
JMM. Subsequently, in pursuance of an order by the Delhi High Court
another case was registered against V.C. Shukla, Satish Sharma, R.K.
Dhawan, Lalit Suri and others. After completing the investigation, the
CBI submitted three charge-sheets dated 30-10-1996, 9-12-1996 and 22-1-
1997 in the Court of Special Judge, New Delhi.
In the first charge-sheet it was alleged that these persons and other
unknown persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to defeat the "no-
confidence motion" by resorting to bribery and in pursuance thereof
four members of Parliament belonging to the JMM accepted illegal
gratification to vote against the motion and because of their votes and
some other votes the government survived.
The second charge-sheet was in the nature of a supplementary charge-
sheet wherein it was stated that investigation had further revealed
that V. Rajeshwara Rao, N.M. Revanna, Ramalinga Reddy, M. Veerappa
Moily, D.K. Adikeshavulu and M. Thimmegowda were al so party to the
criminal conspiracy and that they had arranged funds and bribed the
four JMM MPs. In the third charge-sheet dated January 22, 1997, it was
stated that further investigation had been carried on and as a result
the identity of the remaining accused persons had been established and
that they were Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan Lal,
Abhay Pratap Singh, Anadicharan Das, Haji Gulam Mohd. Khan and late
G.C. Munda. It was stated that even after securing the support of four
JMM MPs, the Congress(I) government still required the support of some
more MPs and that with this objective the Congress(I) was making
efforts to win the support of some other MPs, including MPs belonging
to the Janata Dal (Ajit Singh Group).
Bhajan Lal and others were cited as conspirators. Allegedly Bhajan Lal
arranged funds and paid bribes to Ajit Singh and seven MPs of the
breakaway Janata Dal (Ajit) as bribe to defeat the no-confidence
motion. One of the four MPs of the JMM, Shailendra M ahato, was given
pardon and gave evidence as approver.
The trial court framed charges against all the accused. They moved the
High Court, contending that the MPs were not public servants and, in
any case, had immunity from prosecution for anything said or done in
Parliament by virtue of Article 105(2) of the Constitution. The High
Court rejected both contentions on September 12, 1997. Three days later
the trial court framed charges against Narasimha Rao and 19 others.
On April 17, 1998 came a ruling by the Supreme Court which astonished
all. It held that MPs are "public servants" and therefore liable to
prosecution under the PCA, 1988. But it upheld the plea of their
immunity from prosecution by a narrow majority of t hree to two. The
present Chief Justice of India, Justice Dr. A. S. Anand, was in the
minority. (P.V. Narasimha Rao Vs State (CBI) (1998) 4 SCC 626). The
alleged bribe-takers were thus granted immunity by this bizarre ruling.
The acquittal, on October 12, 2000, of all the accused save Narasimha
Rao and Buta Singh has caused much surprise. The Hindustan Times of
September 30 reported that in March 2000, Special Public Prosecutor
R.M. Tewari gave a clean chit to all the accused who were eventually
acquitted:
"Mr. Tewari had informed the court that the agency had clinching
evidence for the conviction of Rao and Singh but lacked 'sufficient
evidence' on record against the other accused. In the case of Satish
Sharma, the synopsis had stated that except for a pa ssing reference
made by approver Shailendra Mahato, there was no incriminating evidence
against him.
"With regard to the other accused the agency had either stated that
there was no evidence corroborating any material versions or any
evidence to substantiate the charges." Thus, the CBI had given a clean
chit to Satish Sharma, Rajeshwar Rao, Adikeshavulu , Thimmegowda,
Veerappa Moily, Revanna, Ramalinga Reddy, Ajit Singh and Bhajan Lal.
The defence lawyers were surprised by the CBI move since it had not
come up with any fresh evidence in the intervening period while the
probe was on.
Realising that they may have committed a faux pas the CBI changed its
stand and submitted the fresh synopsis. "It was misconstrued and taken
in a narrow sense by some defence lawyers who lost no chance to make a
pointed reference to it in their respectiv e arguments that there is no
evidence against the other nine accused, though it is not the case." It
proceeded to argue that all were guilty. But the damage had been done.
All one can say is that this was unfortunate in so sensitive a case.
The ac quittals have caused surprise. The result is that the bribe-
takers got protection thanks to the Supreme Court's rulings; the
alleged bribe-providers and distributors went scot free. The organiser
of the show and the beneficiary got convicted. No aspersio ns were, or
are here, cast on Tewari.
To strike a balance, while the Supreme Court's path-breaking ruling
does enable the citizen to move the court against offenders in power,
he and the Court have to depend on the investigative agencies to
deliver the result. And the performance of these ag encies - the CBI
and the State police - is not always convincing.
The Second Report of the National Police Commission, submitted in
August 1979, recommended institutional safeguards to protect the police
against pressure from political, executive or other extraneous sources,
notably an independent State Security Commission (page 31). The Report
has been ignored studiously.
The legal system will grow on the precedents set. On October 14, the
Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court directed the CBI to initiate
investigations into charges against the former Chief Justice of the
Bombay High Court, A.M. Bhattacharjee, who had re signed following
disclosures. The order was made on a petition filed by the Sikkim
Citizen Forum (The Statesman, October 15).
A not insignificant gain is Special Judge Ajit Bharihoke's ruling that
while MPs' acceptance of bribe may not be indictable as an offence,
they enjoy no such immunity, as "public servants", for possessing
assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. It is most
unfortunate that there was delay in moving the Supreme Court to review
its judgment on MPs' immunity and more so the Court's rejection of the
petition on this ground. That ruling cries for its reversal.
The judiciary has acquitted itself creditably on the whole. However, it
was most unfortunate that Justice S. Thangaraj discharged Jayalalitha
on January 13, 2000 from the cases in the circumstances in which he
did. The Supreme Court was constrained to or der it to "stand erased".
In Britain the first Labour government fell in 1924 because it withdrew
a prosecution on political reasons. The Cabinet minutes of August 6,
1924 recorded: "No public prosecution of a political character should
be undertaken without the prior sanction of the Cabinet being
obtained." It was rescinded later. In India the prosecution machinery
is entirely under the control of State governments. Courts can strike
down improper withdrawal of cases. They can no more compel prosecutors
to do their duty than th ey can the police. In both cases, unless basic
institutional reforms are instituted, the process of accountability
will perform like Dr. Johnson's woman preacher: He told Boswell on July
31, 1763, "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his
hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done
at all." The surprise which greeted the two convictions provides a
revealing public judgment on the Indian legal system.
http://news.zeenext.com/links/articles.asp?aid=5659
Child labour is alive and kicking
By Saritha Tanmay
New Delhi: Various judgments imposing ban on exploitation of labour and
bringing an end to the practice of child labour apart, the ground
reality continues to remain unchanged.
Despite repeated mandates by the Supreme Court and also some High
Courts to make the social legislations meaningful, the government seems
to be in no hurry to ameliorate the lot of teeming men, women and
children languishing in abject poverty and striving to survive in acute
unhygienic surroundings and hazardous places of work.
Default could mean Rs 20,000 for employer: As a step forward some years
ago, the Supreme Court ordered setting up a corpus fund with Rs 25,000
contribution from the employer of each child. It had also said that
every offending employer would have to pay Rs 20,000 compensation for
violating the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.
In an attempt to break the shackles from an estimated 44 to 100 million
children forced into labour in hazardous industries, the court also
sought to ban, what it described as “all India evil”. It directed the
government to ensure compulsory education of the child. “We have the
fond hope that the closing years of the 20th century would see us
keeping the promise made to our children by our Constitution about a
half-century ago,” said the court.
Poet Tagore’s words are relevant: It also recalled poet laureate
Rabindra Nath Tagore`s words and said: “Let the child of the 21st
century find himself into that heaven of freedom of which our poet
laureate Rabindranath Tagore has spoken in Gitanjali.”
At the initiative of environmentalist lawyer M.C. Mehta, the court
framed a scheme which envisages that every offending employer must pay
a compensation to each child under the Act to be deposited in a Child
Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund.
Compensate with a job or pay Rs 5,000: It also asked the State to see
that an adult member of the working child`s family gets a job in lieu
of the child. In case this was not possible, a sum of Rs 5,000 should
be contributed to the fund for each child, the scheme said.
Earlier, a three-member legal experts’ committee comprising Supreme
Court Bar Association president R.K. Jain, Indira Jaising and K.C. Dua
had inspected the hazardous industries at Sivakasi, the hometown of
fire works industries. The panel`s report identifies nine major
industries as hazardous.
Five most hazardous industries: They are: Match-making at Sivakasi in
Tamil Nadu, diamond polishing at Surat in Gujarat, precious stone
polishing in Jaipur, Rajasthan, Ferozabad`s glass industry, brass ware
industry in Moradabad, UP, hand-made carpet industry in UP`s Mirzapur
and Bhadohi, Aligarh`s lock-making industry, slate industry at Marakpur
in Andhra Pradesh and Mandsaur in Madhya Pradesh.
The court said the income generated from the corpus would be used to
assure the child`s education in a suitable institution with a view to
making him a better citizen. Noting that generation of new employment
for a large number of adults would “strain” the State`s resources, the
court said it was not issuing any direction to do it
presently. “Instead, we leave the matter to be sorted out by the
appropriate government,” the court had said while imposing lot of hopes
in the government. It is an irony that the government has belied the
hopes.
Compensation to guardian: In case alternative employment is not
possible, the parent or guardian of the child concerned would be paid a
monthly income earned on the corpus of Rs 25,000. “The employment given
or payment made would cease to be operative if the child is not sent by
the parents or guardian for education,” is a condition precedent
envisaged in the scheme.
On discontinuation of the employment, the child`s education would be
assured in a suitable institution with a view to make him a “better
citizen”. Though the Union Labour secretary was expected to inform the
court within a year about compliance of its directions, there has been
complete silence on the issue.
http://news.zeenext.com/links/articles.asp?aid=5691&sid=NAT
Administration looting money in Jharkhand: Ministers
Dhanbad (Bihar), Nov 5: Union Ministers of States Babulal Marandi and
Rita Verma on Sunday sought Union Home Minister L.K. Advani's
intervention to stop "looting of public money by administration" in the
Jharkhand region.
Marandi (Forest and Environment) and Verma (Rural Development), in a
joint fax message to Advani, alleged that soon after the declaration by
the Government that the region would become a State from Nov 15, local
administration people were siphoning off funds from various development
projects.
Marandi and Verma also requested Advani to bring an end to the “growing
incidents of extremist violence", for which they accused the ruling
RJD. — PTI
http://www.deccan.com/itop1.htm
Ad firms drop (in)Famous Five, CBI demands list of Azhar assets
<itop1.htm>
New Delhi, Nov. 5: Not only has the BCCI announced a ban on them,
further ignominy might be in store for the guilty players. Of the five
named cricketers, Mohammad Azharuddin, Ajay Jadeja, Nayan Mongia, Ajay
Sharma and Manoj Prabhakar, the first three were popular models for a
host of consumer products. But the companies concerned might decide to
terminate their contracts prematurely.
In fact, the buzz word in advertising agency circles is that the
decision has already been taken to end the contracts of these superstar
cricketers and replace them with other celebrities.K Pawan, a
coordinator with the International Management Group that handles the
contracts of major cricketers, confirmed this. He said, “The contracts
with all the accused players will be prematurely terminated.”
He added, “We handle people like Azharuddin, Jadeja and Mongia and most
of their contracts still have a bit of time to go. But, seeing the
current situation, it is likely that all the contracts will expire.”
This not only spells bad news for cricketers, but also for IMG. The
only two cricketers IMG will be left with now are senior team discards
Debashish Mohanty and Hrishikesh Kanitkar.
“Tissot has decided to drop Azhar and so have a host of other brands.
Most of our other ads have also dropped cricketers and are using other
celebrities,” said an HTA executive. Jadeja has been a favourite with
advertisers for a long time now.
But his contracts with Kingfisher and Castrol will also be terminated
as a result of his name figuring in the CBI report. A marketing
executive with Castrol, Mumbai confirmed this, saying, “Though I am not
in a position to say this, it is confirmed that the management does not
want to continue with Jadeja.”The accounts of Kingfisher and Tissot
(the watch brand endorsed by Azharuddin) are handled by Hindustan
Thompson Associates (HTA).
M Kingshuk, a client-servicing executive on the Tissot account,
confirmed that Azharuddin has been dropped from their commercials.
Kingshuk said, “Tissot has decided to drop Azhar and so have a host of
other brands across the country. Most of our other ads, which use
cricketers, have also dropped cricketers and are using other
celebrities now.”HTA also handles Pepsi’s advertising in India and
cricket heroes have been a favourite with Pepsi down the years.
Jadeja and Azharuddin are both under contract with Pepsi. However, Udit
Sen, copywriter for the Pepsi account, says the two are likely to be
dropped now. Sen says, “See, when a brand chooses a person to model its
product, it does it to project a certain image. Now that all these guys
have been named, Pepsi can’t risk using them.”
The CBI has asked the Income Tax authorities to provide details of the
assets of two cricketers — Mohammed Azharuddin and Ajay Sharma —
against whom the agency has not ruled out the possibility of
prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act as they were “public
servants.”Agency sources said the CBI had written a letter to the IT
Department asking them to provide details of the assets of these two
players. The sleuths of the special crime branch were also working on
other leads available with them, the sources said. Special director G
Achari, who was overall incharge of the investigations into the match-
fixing scandal, had said earlier “we will pursue the case against the
two players under the PCA and we will not allow the matter to
rest.” “We are gathering more evidence against these two players and
are waiting for more inputs from Income Tax authorities,” he had said.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.