Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Can Chidambaram escape the 2G trial

image Today the Supreme court has pronounced a very important judgement in the 2G spectrum allocation case. It’s has given some sort for breathing time for Mr.Chidambaram. The supreme court in it’s order has cancelled 121 licenses issued to telecom companies under the UPA-1 regime. This is a big blow to the UPA and to Congress and DMK in particular. Now the question is will UPA yet again face another embarrassment, defending Mr.Raja back fired at them and now defending Mr.Chidambaram  may back fire at the UPA government. The supreme court has decided not decide on inclusion of Mr.Chidambaram in the 2G trial and left it to the CBI court to decide upon the matter. February 4th is the day on which CBI trial court is expected to deliver it’s judgement on Mr.Chidambaram inclusion in the 2G trial.

What are the possible scenario:

Scenario – I : Inclusion on Mr. P.Chidambaram: 

In this case the Mr.Chidambaram will be left with very few choice. He will for sure will appeal against the decision but there will be lot more chances of the appeal being dismissed rather than being allowed in the high court or in the supreme court.

Scenario – 2 : Non- Inclusion on Mr. P.Chidambaram: (Most likely scenario)

Well in this case there will be an appeal as against non inclusion of Mr.P.Chidambaram and the appeal will be most probably be allowed. The chances of succeeding the appeal is predicated based on today’s judgement on 2G case by supreme court. This scenario is the mostly likely because this would allow time to Mr.Chidambaram and lower court may try to put the ball in the superior courts to decide on this critical matter. It’s seems form today’s judgement that Mr.P.Chidambaram is most likely to face trial and likely to lose the Home Ministry.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

GoM recommendations on corruption

The Government has accepted the recommendations made by the Group of Ministers (GoM) on Corruption in its First Report, aimed at fast-tracking of cases against public servants accused of corruption. The report was accepted on September 6, 2011.

The Government had, on 6th January. 2011. constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM) to consider measures that can be taken by the Government to tackle corruption, under the chairmanship of Union Finance Minister, Shri Pranab Mukherjee. The terms of reference of the GoM were as under:-

(i) To consider all measures, including legislative and administrative, to tackle corruption and improve transparency;

(ii) In particular, the GoM may consider and advise on the following:-

(a) State funding of elections:

(b) Fast tracking of all cases of public servants accused of corruption:

(c) Ensuring full transparency in public procurement and contracts. including enunciation of public procurement standards and a public procurement policy:

(d) Relinquishing discretionary powers enjoyed by Ministers at the Centre:

(e) Introduction of an open and competitive system of exploiting natural resources:

(f) Amendment to Article 311 of the Constitution to provide for summary proceedings in cases of grave misdemeanor or blatant corruption by public servants: and

(g) Consideration of relevance/need for section 6(A) of the Delhi Special Establishment Act, 1946.

The GOM has so far held five meetings on 21.1.2011, 14.2.2011, 16.3.2011, 16.06.201 1 and 06.09.2011. Based on the deliberations in its first three meetings, the Group of Ministers had submitted its First Report to the Government in April. 201 1. After due consideration by DoPT, Cabinet Secretariat and PMO, the Government has, on Tuesday, accepted the recommendations made by the GoM in its First Report with minor changes.

These decisions, which cover items (ii)(b), (ii)(f) and (ii)(g) of the term of reference (ToR) of the GOM, are as follows:-

(a) Dispensing with the Second Stage Advice of the Central Vigilance Commission. (However, in those cases where consultation with UPSC is not required under the extant rules, the second stage consultation with CVC should continue.)

(b) Departments/ Ministries should primarily use serving officers as Inquiry Officers (IDs) & Presenting Officers (POs) and in important cases, they may request CVC to appoint their Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries (GDIs) as lOs. CVC to maintain a panel of lOs/POs from amongst retired Government officers after due process of screening and empanelment. These officers could be engaged on advice of the CVC.

(c) In all cases where the Investigating Agency has requested sanction for prosecution, it will be mandatory for the competent authority to take a decision within a period of 3 months from receipt of request, and pass a Speaking Order, giving reasons for the decision. In the event of refusal of sanction to prosecute, the competent authority will have to submit its order including reasons for refusal, to the next higher authority for information within 7 days. Wherever the Minister-in-charge of the Department is the competent authority and he decides to deny the permission, it would be incumbent on the Minister to submit, within 7 days of passing such order denying the permission, to the Prime Minister for information. Further, it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of each Department/Ministry to monitor all cases where a request has been made for permission to prosecute. Secretaries should submit a certificate every month to the Cabinet Secretary to the effect that no case is pending for more than 3 months and, in case any such request is pending, the reasons for such pendency and the level where it is pending may also be explained.

(d) Expediting the setting up of Special CBI Courts already sanctioned by Central Government, by actively pursuing the matter with the State Governments;

(e) Setting up of a Committee headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court and having as its Members, a retired CVC, retired Director of CBI and another person of impeccable reputation who could be drawn from the Civil Society, to look into old CBI cases which are pending for more than 10 years, particularly those under the Prevention of Corruption Act and suggest ways for their speedy disposal, including withdrawal, if need be.

(f) Strengthening of vigilance administration of Central Ministries/Departments and, in particular, the strengthening of vigilance wing of the Department of Personnel and Training, with requisite manpower to ensure effective monitoring of vigilance matters.

(g)Continuation of minor penalty proceedings against public servants even after retirement with provision for a ceiling of 10% cut in pension for a period not exceeding five years. Such cut in pension in minor penalty proceedings would, however, be non-mandatory.

(h)Change in the present penalty of 'compulsory retirement' (with full pension) to 'compulsory retirement with a cut in pension upto 20%".

Necessary follow up action for implementing these decisions, by way of amendment of rules, etc., is expected to be taken shortly.

As regards relinquishment of discretionary powers enjoyed by the Ministers at the Centre, the GoM had reviewed the information furnished by various Ministries/Departments and had observed that the exercise of such discretionary powers, such as nomination of members/experts to various boards, etc, were generally found to be governed by guidelines in most of the Ministries/Departments and has recommended that wherever such guidelines have not been framed, clear cut guidelines for exercise of these discretionary powers be framed by the concerned Ministry/Department and put in the public domain.

In another significant development, the GoM, in its meeting held on Tuesday, 06-09-2011, considered the recommendations made by a Committee of Secretaries on the Report submitted by an Expert Committee on "Public Procurement" and accepted the recommendations of the COS to come out with an all encompassing "Public Procurement Bill" in the Parliament by the end of the current year, as promised by the Hon'ble Prime Minister from the ramparts of Red Fort on 15th August, 2011.

The GoM further recommended that the Law may contain the broad principles governing public procurements, ensuring transparency and accountability but at same time providing for due independence and flexibility for the procuring agencies. The GoM further suggested that the rule making exercise may be undertaken in parallel with the drafting of the proposed legislation covering different aspects of procurement of goods, services, pharma drugs and works. The GoM also suggested that the exercise of framing of rules and standardisation of documents for PPP projects may also be undertaken concurrently, so that the system is in readiness and is prepared for implementation of the new legislation without any loss of time.

*****

RS/-

(Release ID :75965)

Friday, August 19, 2011

Government in search of magic wand

UPA – II had promised a lot when the returned back to power and now they are in search of magic wand to curb corruption. can government really find a magic wand and succeed against gaining it’s lost popularity. A dumb prime minister and loudspeaker spokesperson has certainly failed. The dual power setup in UPA has been a biggest failure and only defence for every issue is the integrity of Manmohan Singh. Now can they put of the fire lit by Anna hazare against corruption.

 

The congress during the pre independence and also for short period after the independence remained a true representation of the Indian people. During Independence struggle the congress used to fight against the British raj or then government now there is protest against the congress government. The congress has lost the people’s trust and no longer the true representative of the Indian peoples.   Will the  government continue to act arrogantly and bring up fantastic stories to defend themselves against the movement or will they prepare a very well drafted legal defence against the problem. It’s seems that UPA is heading towards a biggest disaster.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Corruption vs irregularity

The prevention of corruption act, 1988  talks about taking illegal gratification. The  act defines "gratification" as not restricted to pecuniary gratification or to gratifications estimable in money. Under this act offences can be made out only if there is proof of taking illegal gratification. let us examine some of the current corrupt cases which are under trail,

2G spectrum,

  1. Raja has not received but has help Kanimozhi to receive the illegal gratification.
  2. Kanimozhi has received illegal gratification though her TV company.
  3. Maran, fmr textile minster has received illegal gratification indirectly through his brothers company.
  4. BS Yeddyurappa has received illegal gratification through a family managed trust.

Now the question is that  Sheila Dikshit has been charged with irregularities by CAG report, does this amount to corruption. It’s inclusive with in  popular meaning of the word corruption, but under the prevention of corruption act this not an offence since no illegal gratification received.

Monday, July 18, 2011

Central government’s review petition on SIT

The central government has filed a  review petition to withdraw the SIT constituted by supreme court. The governments has appealed to the supreme court to withdraw the SIT on the below grounds.

Economic policy

“It impinges upon the well settled principle that courts do not interfere with the economic policy which is the domain of the Executive and that it is not the function of the court to sit in judgement over matters of economic policy, which must necessarily be left to the expert bodies”. The government has contented that it’s the economic policies of the executives and the court cannot review matter regarding the policies. Any rational mind would understand that executive have the worst of economic policies. What is their policy to allow the black money to flow out of the country and do nothing about it. Is this the policy of the government and the executives?

Separation of power

The government feels that judiciary has gone beyond its powers and there by infringing the powers of the executives, That is SIT take away the power if Enforcement directorate and Intelligence bureau and gives it to SIT . The separation of powers is well established principle and it has to be respected is the contention of the government.

The governments contentions are very clear that they will act slowly and do nothing about corruption and also the black money issue.