Janamejayan's Weblog

Ram Jethmaani openly admires Dr. Subramanian Swamy

janamejayan — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 04:25:46 +0000

SC verdict on Swamy’s plea: BJP welcomes judgment, Cong mum

janamejayan — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:58:06 +0000

New Delhi: Welcoming the Supreme Court judgment on Subramanian Swamy’s plea, BJP spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad said that the judgment is a slap on the UPA government.

Talking to the media he said that the judgment is serious indictment of the UPA government and the working of Prime Minister.

He said that this judgment will have a far reaching implication on the people fighting against corruption.

Meanwhile, Congress has refused to comment on the issue.

The party said that it is inappropriate to comment on the judgment without studying it.

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/NAT-TOP-sc-verdict-on-swamys-plea-bjp-welcomes-judgment-cong-mum-2807641.html

Interview: Janata Party’s President, Subramaniam Swamy

janamejayan — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:55:19 +0000

Officers in PMO let down Manmohan: Justice Singhvi

janamejayan — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:50:04 +0000

They ought to have told him about seriousness of allegations against A. Raja in 2G spectrum allocation

Delay on the part of the sanctioning authority (SA) in allowing prosecution of a corrupt public servant “thwarts a very valid social purpose, namely, the purpose of speedy trial with the requirement to bring the culprit to book,” the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday.

A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, in two different but concurring judgments, analysed the reasons for the inordinate delay in considering Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy’s representations to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, seeking sanction to prosecute the former Telecom Minister, A. Raja, in the 2G spectrum case.

Justice Ganguly said: “The delay which had taken place in the office of the PMO is unfortunate. The position of the Prime Minister in our democratic polity seems to have been summed up in the words of Shakespeare, ‘uneasy lies the head that wears a crown (Henry IV, Part 2, Act 3, Scene 1)’.”

Public confidence at stake

The judge said taking a decision with reasonable dispatch was of the essence in such a situation. In this case, the right of the SA, in either granting sanction for prosecution or refusing it, was coupled with a duty. “The SA must bear in mind that what is at stake is the public confidence in the maintenance of rule of law which is fundamental in the administration of justice.”

Justice Ganguly said: “Delay in granting sanction has spoilt many a valid prosecution and is adversely viewed in [the] public mind that in the name of considering a prayer for sanction, protection is given to a corrupt public official as a quid pro quo for services rendered by the public official in the past or maybe [to be rendered] in the future and the SA and the corrupt officials were or are partners in the same misdeeds.”

He said: “I may hasten to add that this may not be factual position in this [case] but the general demoralising effect of such a popular perception is profound and pernicious. If we look at Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, we find that no time limit is mentioned therein [for grant of sanction]. This has virtually armed the SA with unbridled power which has often resulted in protecting the guilty and perpetuating criminality and injustice in society.”

In his judgment, Justice Singhvi said: “The affidavit filed by V. Vidyawati, Director in the PMO, shows that the matter was placed before the Prime Minister on December 1, 2008, who directed the concerned officer to examine and apprise him of the facts of the case. Surprisingly, instead of complying with the direction given by the PM, the concerned officer sent the appellant’s representation to the DoT, which was headed by none other than Mr. A. Raja, against whom the appellant had made serious allegations of irregularities in the grant of licences. Then the matter was referred to the Ministry of Law and Justice for advice.”

Justice Singhvi said: “It is not possible to appreciate that even though the appellant repeatedly wrote letters to the PM highlighting the seriousness of the allegations made in his first representation and the fact that he had already supplied the facts and documents which could be made [the] basis for grant of sanction to prosecute Mr. Raja, the concerned officers in the PMO kept the matter pending” and then took shelter behind the fact that the CBI had registered the case and the investigation was pending.

Justice Singhvi said: “In our view, the officers in the PMO and the Ministry of Law and Justice were duty-bound to apprise the PM of the seriousness of the allegations made by the appellant and the judgments of this court including the directions contained in the judgment in Vineet Narain’s case as also the guidelines framed by the CVC [Central Vigilance Commission] so as to enable him to take appropriate decision in the matter. By the very nature of the office held by him, the PM is not expected to personally look into the minute details of each and every case placed before him and has to depend on his advisers and other officers. Unfortunately, those who were expected to give proper advice to the PM and place full facts and the legal position before him failed to do so. We have no doubt that had the PM had been apprised of the true factual and legal position regarding the representation made by the appellant, he would surely have taken an appropriate decision and would not have allowed the matter to linger for a period of more than one year.”

Growing menace

Justice Ganguly expressed concern over the growing menace of corruption. “Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular version [of the Constitution].”

Justice Ganguly said: “Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. Time and again this court has expressed its dismay and shock at the ever-growing tentacles of corruption in our society.” But the situation had not improved much.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2848384.ece

Delhi HC grants anticipatory bail to Swamy

janamejayan — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:47:45 +0000

30.1.2012 (UNI) Delhi High Court today granted anticipatory bail to Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy for writing a controversial article in a newspaper allegedly inciting communal hatred.

Granting the anticipatory bail to Swamy, Justice M L Mehta said, ‘In the event of arrest, he shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 and a surety of like amount’.

The court also took an undertaking from Mr Swamy that he will not write such articles in future.

Appreciating Mr Swamy for giving an unequivocal undertaking that he will obey the restrictions imposed on him the court said, ‘Though writing an article based on a book is a fundamental right of a citizen but this right has to be observed with certain reasonable restrictions which have to be taken care of.’ In response to court’s observation that India is a secular country and emotions of every section of the society have to be respected, Mr Swamy said, ‘I have Muslim relatives. I have Christian relatives. I have a Parsi wife.’ Mr Swamy had approached the HC for anticipatory bail as he apprehended that the government might arrest him as he has exposed the 2G scam and also named Home Minister P Chidambaram to be involved in it.

Mr Swamy’s bail plea was opposed by the Delhi Police on the grounds that he cannot be granted bail till the case against him in a lower court was decided.

The High Court had on January 13 granted interim protection to Swamy till January 30 and issued notice to police to file their reply.

Delhi Police had on October 3 registered a case of spreading enmity between communities against Mr Swamy for his remarks suggesting revoking of voting rights of Muslims.

The Crime Branch registered a case under Section 153A (spreading enmity between communities) of Indian Penal Code for his newspaper article in July.

The Harvard-educated economic scholar, Swamy in an article in a newspaper had suggested that Indian Hindus collectively respond to terror acts.

He had written, ‘We need a collective mindset as Hindus to stand against the Islamic terrorist. If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society) which is Hindustan.

‘Others, who refuse to acknowledge this, or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration, can remain in India but should not have voting rights.’ The court, however, said no case of communal disharmony has been reported in the country after publication of the alleged inflammatory article. UNI

http://www.indlawnews.com/Newsdisplay.aspx?26bf23a3-88eb-4c63-8a84-56aedc955129

2G: Swamy’s plea against PMO accepted

janamejayan — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:31:32 +0000

2G scam: Subramanian Swamy mocks Salman Khurshid, Kapil Sibal

janamejayan — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:15:45 +0000

Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy said, “The court order clearly says that any private person can approach the PM. Therefore Sibal and Salman need to go back to law college and learn the law again.”

NEW DELHI: Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy on Tuesday mocked at cabinet ministers Kapil Sibal and Salman Khurshid, both lawyers, after the Supreme Court upheld his plea on prosecution of the corrupt.

He targeted law minister Khurshid and communications minister Sibal over their comments on his decision to approach the Prime Minister directly to seek the sanction to prosecute the then cabinet minister A Raja.

“The court order clearly says that any private person can approach the PM. Therefore Sibal and Salman need to go back to law college and learn the law again.”

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/2G-scam-Subramanian-Swamy-mocks-Salman-Khurshid-Kapil-Sibal/articleshow/11702040.cms

Corruption is a threat to democracy: Supreme Court

janamejayan — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:09:42 +0000

NEW DELHI: Expressing concern over corruption plaguing public life, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said the malady poses a “grave” danger to the country’s democracy.

“Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law,” Justice A K Ganguly said while delivering the verdict on the issue of granting sanction to prosecute former Telecom Minister A Raja in the 2G spectrum allocation scam.

“The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular and democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end,” he said.

He further elaborated that anti-corruption law has to be interpreted in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption.

“Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption,” he said.

He said the right of private citizen to file a complaint against a corrupt public servant is a constitutional right and competent authority must be taking action on those complaints.

“The right of private citizen to file a complaint against a corrupt public servant must be equated with his right to access the Court in order to set the criminal law in motion against a corrupt public official. This right of access, a constitutional right should not be burdened with unreasonable fetters,” he said while pointing out that the government has not given sanction to prosecute 126 alleged corrupt officials.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/corruption-is-a-threat-to-democracy-supreme-court/articleshow/11702482.cms

India’s dubious Secularists

janamejayan — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:39:20 +0000

By S Gurumurthy
30 Jan 2012 11:12:00 PM IST

Maqbool Fida Husain and Salman Rushdie are a telling comparison and contrast to capture the true character of secular India. Both are Muslims by birth. Both were born in colonial India’s Bombay Presidency. Husain, some 32 years when Rushdie was a child, died last year. Husain was an artist. Rushdie is a writer. Both had become famous, globally — Husain through his paintings and Rushdie through his writings. Husain lived all his life in India before he exiled and became a Qatari in 2006. But Rushdie lives in the UK as a British citizen. While Rushdie excited the highly sensitive Muslims to turn against him, Husain managed to irritate the not-so-sensitive Hindus. Take Husain first.
This is how Husain annoyed the soft Hindus. He used his fertile imagination and painting skills to undress all well-dressed Hindu gods, goddesses, depict them naked and used his popularity to market them. He drew a naked Goddess Lakshmi sitting on Lord Ganesha’s head. He painted Durga in sexual union with a tiger. He portrayed a naked Goddess Saraswati holding a veena. He painted a naked Parvati with her son Ganesha. He depicted a naked Hanuman, seeing a naked Sita sitting on the thigh of naked Ravana. He painted a naked Bharatmata twice — once in the shape of India with names of the states of India on her naked body, alongside a naked sadhu in the Bay of Bengal. But his art on Muslims was a telling contrast. He drew a fully clad Muslim king alongside a naked Brahmin. He completely covered, even with purdah, the Muslim women he drew, which of course included his mother and daughter. He fully attired the Muslim poets he painted.
Some Hindus, who saw his perverted art demeaning the Hindu divinities, began protesting at his exhibitions and filing criminal cases. Seeing mounting protests and cases, Husain moved out of India. The government of India, judiciary, political parties and, of course, the media, all rushed to defend Husain’s right to freedom — his right to offend Hindus and demean their gods. There were protests against Husain. But no one issued an order to kill him. No one was injured, no one was hurt and none was killed. Yet, the protests were labelled by ‘seculars’ as ‘saffron terror’.
Now come to Rushdie, a contrast. His life is living hell since he wrote his controversial book The Satanic Verses. Though living, he has, by now, died a million times since February 4, 1989 when Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fiat (fatwa) to Muslims to kill him. But, why should Khomeini order the killing of a fellow Muslim? With almost a generation gone since 1988 when Rushdie wrote the infamous book, it is time to recall some history. Rushdie’s book was about a disputed tradition in Islam. According to it, Mohammed (depicted in Rushdie’s book as Mahound) had first added three verses (Sura) in the Quran, accepting three goddesses that used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings, but later revoked the verses saying that Devil (Satan) had tempted him to utter the verses to appease the Meccans — so the title ‘Satanic Verses’ for the disputed verses. The Rushdie book set off violent reaction from Muslims.
Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh blew himself up in a central London hotel while making a bomb intended to kill Rushdie in 1989. Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of Rushdie’s book was stabbed to death in July 1991. Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, was stabbed and seriously injured in the same month. And Aziz Nesin, the Turkish language translator, was the target in the events that led to massacre of 37 people in July 1993. William Nygaard, a Norway publisher, was almost killed in Oslo in October 1993. In Belgium, two Muslim leaders who had opposed Khomeini’s ‘Kill Rushdie’ fiat, were killed. Two bookstores in California, and five in England, were fire-bombed. Twelve people died during rioting in Mumbai. This list does not exhaust the violence.
Starting from then and till now, Rushdie has been hitting headlines for the wrong reasons. Now again Rushdie is in the news. Rushdie had been invited to the Jaipur Literature Festival 2012, Asia’s largest, a week back. Muslims threatened agitations and Rushdie’s presence would have meant violence. So the Indian Intelligence Bureau invented an input saying that four hired assassins were roaming around to kill Rushdie. This was proved fake, calculated to prevent Rushdie from coming to India. The four participants who had read out from The Satanic Verses at the meet ran away from India to escape arrest. William Dalrymple, the festival director, got death threats. Finally, Rushdie’s video address to the Jaipur festival was dropped as, according to organisers, it risked the lives of the participants from the Muslim protesters outside.
The contrast is self-evident. Rushdie, who just wrote about a disputed tradition in Islam, was hounded for decades and is on a death threat even now, and people who had nothing to do with either the book or Rushdie have been butchered. Even today the fear of slaughter in his name haunts the world, as the Jaipur meet shows. But, all that Husain, who, in the name of freedom hurt the Hindus — “considered as the gentlest and most civilised on the earth” according to Mahatma Gandhi — faced were normal protests. The protests by Hindus against Husain were ant-bite compared to the scale of violence against Rushdie’s book, even though the hurt to the Hindu sentiments by the perverted paintings of Husain were explicit and undeniably monumental. But what is distressingly shameful is the politics of contrast. See how the secular media, parties, leaders and state glorified Husain’s right to abuse Hindu gods and goddesses to wound Hindus and how the same secular actors repeatedly decried Rushdie’s similar right to hurt Muslims. Now something even more shameful. The ‘seculars’, including the media, had ceaselessly condemned the normal protests against shows displaying Husain’s painting and pontificated to Hindus about the need for tolerance. But they wouldn’t utter a word against the violence by Muslims nor ask them to be tolerant. The reason is obvious. They are dishonest.
Muslims rightly felt offended by Rushdie’s reckless literary work. And Hindus were justly hurt by Husain’s perverted art. Muslims, highly excitable, however reacted violently. Instead of holding both Rushdie and Husain wrong, the seculars faulted Rushdie and praised Husain. Why? Because, being insensitive to Hindus and pretending to be sensitive to Muslims is enough to make one secular. QED: Such secularism is perversion — and a dangerous one.(Views expressed in the column are the author’s own)
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues.
E-mail: comment@gurumurthy.net
http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/columnists/india%E2%80%99s-dubious-secularists/358494.html

2G case: SC allows Swamy’s petition on grant of sanction

janamejayan — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:30:54 +0000

Dr.Swamy tweets:

Swamy39 1:52am via Webmany thanks to all patriotic tweeples who kept faith and to God for the decision tday. Now I may bypass Vadra and go straight to Sonia.

Now to the news:

PTI On a case filed by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy seeking prosecution of former Telecom Minister A. Raja, the Supreme Court bench on Tuesday said that right to file a complaint against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a constitutional right. File photo

Setting aside the Delhi High Court judgement on sanction of prosecution in 2G case, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that filing of a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a constitutional right of a citizen and the competent authority should take a decision on giving the sanction within a time frame.

If the sanction is not given within four months then it is deemed to have been granted, the two judge bench of the apex court held in a case filed by Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy seeking a direction to the Prime Minister for sanction to prosecute the then Telecom Minister A Raja.

The bench comprising justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly held that Mr.Swamy had the locus standi to seek sanction for Mr. Raja’s prosecution.

It said sanction should be granted within a time frame and the competent authority shall take action in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the apex court in the Vineet Narain case of 1996.

Justice Ganguly, who wrote a separate judgement, agreed with Justice Singhvi and said sanction would be deemed to be granted if the competent authority fails to take a decision within a period of four months.

The bench said that right to file a complaint against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a constitutional right.

The bench said it was not accepting certain submissions made by the Attorney General in defending the stand of Prime Minister’s Office.

The court said it was not declaring as ultra vires the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The apex court had reserved its judgement on November 24, 2010 on the petition filed by Mr. Swamy alleging that there was delay in taking action on his plea seeking sanction to prosecute Mr. Raja.

Mr. Swamy, who had made the Prime Minister a party in the case, had initially sought a direction to the Prime Minister to take decision on sanction to prosecute Mr. Raja but later on he sought framing of guidelines on the issue as his plea became infructuous with the resignation of the DMK leader as telecom minister on November 14, 2010.

He had alleged that there was an “inordinate delay” on part of the prime minister in taking a decision on his plea for grant of sanction to prosecute Mr. Raja in the scam and his plea was neither allowed not rejected for over 16 months.

The PMO had, however, refuted all the allegations and filed an affidavit before the apex court maintaining that the request for sanction for prosecution of Mr. Raja was considered by the prime minister and that he was advised that evidence collected by CBI was necessary before taking a decision.

The government said as the CBI probe was going on it was necessary to wait for its completion before taking any decision on granting sanction.

Mr. Swamy had approached the apex court challenging the Delhi High Court judgement that had refused to pass any direction to the prime minister for taking decision on sanction.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2845351.ece