http://timesofindia.
Edit Page
Jan 7, 2012, 12.00AM IST
Kureshi was not charged under this law.
According to Kureshi’s father Aslam Kureshi who met Governor Ram Naresh Yadav in Bhopal today, his son was waylaid by a Bajrang Dal group at Sarangbihari in the small hours of December 31. The men demanded money to allow him to pass, and when Anish refused, they damaged the Bolero pick-up he was driving, and dragged him to Goni village some two kilometres away.
They took away the Rs 8,315, mobile phone and ATM card that Anish was carrying, and after tying him to a pole, beat and shaved him, Kureshi told the Governor. He was about to be paraded in the village when police rescued him, Kureshi said.
Kureshi alleged the Bajrang Dal workers had torn up the receipt that proved the cattle in Anish’s vehicle had been purchased the previous day from a fair in Chandgram. The cattle were meant for sale in Umranala bazaar, the family said, and denied that they were headed for a slaughterhouse.
“We often give them (the Bajrang Dal) money to escape harassment. That day they asked for Rs 20,000 and beat up and humiliated Anish who refused to pay,” Anish’s younger brother Salman Kureshi told The Indian Express.
“The local police had to plead with the Bajang Dal leaders to free Anish,” said the father.
Chhindwara SP Dr Ashish said both Anish and his attackers were in the wrong. He said the police booked seven Bajrang Dal workers for bailable offences because the Kureshis refused to share details with the police. In the light of new allegations, he said, he had asked SDOP (Saunsar) Bhupendra Sengar to probe further.
Both SP Ashish and SDOP Sengar said the Kureshis were into the illegal transport of cattle, and often sold them to a slaughterhouse in a neighbouring state. Anish was carrying no transport permit or medical certificates for the cattle.
Edit Page
TOP ARTICLE
A watchdog needs teeth
By Shanti BhushanJan 7, 2012, 12.00AM IST
Contrary to the general perception that it was on account of the UPA's coalition partner, the Trinamool Congress, that the Congress did not proceed with the voting process in the Rajya Sabha on the Lokpal Bill, the truth is that it was the SP and BSP that were responsible for its humiliation.
The Congress was that great party which secured India its freedom, which fashioned its Constitution, which gave each man and woman one vote. This party rid India of untouchability and abolished zamindari, giving lands to tillers of the soil who were mainly OBCs.
But since the Emergency in 1975, the Congress hasn't looked like the party of Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Rajendra Prasad and Vallabh-bhai Patel. It appeared to become progressively more corrupt and arrogant. It was in reaction to the all-pervading corruption spawned under the Congress that the Lokpal campaign became so popular so quickly.
The Congress was forced to make a show that it was committed to a strong and effective Lokpal Bill. But the Lokpal that it proposed to set up would be appointed and suspended by the government. And it would not have its own investigative machinery; it would be forced to rely on government-controlled investigative organisations.
The Lokpal Bill was a government Bill piloted by a minister. The general discussion on it had been completed and the minister was replying to the debate. Clause-by-clause consideration would have begun soon. Amendments for a broad-based selection committee instead of a government-dominated one, and for giving administrative control of the CBI to the Lokpal, would have been carried.
If the minister thereafter moved for passing this amended Bill, an effective Lokpal Bill would have emerged. However, the government was not prepared to have this kind of a Lokpal Bill. If the minister refused to move for passing the amended Bill, it would have been seen by the whole country. People would have turned against the government.
Some politicians allege that the Lokpal envisaged by the Jan Lokpal Bill would be too powerful and would become a parallel government. The absurdity of this argument is evident from the fact that, firstly, the Jan Lokpal Bill proposes to establish a Lokpal at the Centre and 28 Lokayuktas, one in every state, each selected by different selection committees. Secondly, the only authority of the Lokpal would be to investigate corruption cases and send them for trial to the courts.
Moreover, the proposed Jan Lokpal would have been made the most accountable institution in the country. India's superior courts have far greater power to issue any direction or quash any order of any authority. Though these courts are totally unaccountable, the same people find no problem with them. They are not even willing to have corruption in the judiciary investigated by an independent investigative body.
Of course, there is no force in the contention of the BJP and the Trinamool Congress that the chapters relating to Lokayuktas are beyond Parliament's legislative competence. Even if one disregards the UN Convention on Corruption and does not invoke Article 253 of India's Constitution, Parliament's legislative competence is obvious: entries 1 and 2 of the Concurrent List relate to criminal law and criminal procedure, and the Bill is fully covered by these entries.
So long as the provisions in the Bill have a rational connection with criminal law or criminal procedure, Parliament will have the power to enact it even if some provision relates to an entry in the State List.
The only provision in the Lokpal Bill, which may be said to be remotely touching the state services, is clause 93. It provides that when - while making a prelimi-nary enquiry - a Lokayukta is satisfied that the continuance of a public servant in his post is likely to affect the preliminary enquiry adversely, it may recommend to the state government his transfer or suspension for a specific period. It is crystal clear that the chapters relating to the Lokayukta do not encroach on the power of the state under the Constitution.
The provision mandating that not less than 50% of Lokpal members shall be from among persons belonging to SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities and women is clearly unconstitutional. At least 50% posts are collectively reserved for specified categories. Article 16(1) of the Constitution says: "There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State." Article 16(4) says, "Nothing in the article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointment or post in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State."
The Lokpal is clearly an office under the "State" and Article 16(1) gets attracted. Reservation permitted by Article 16(4) is confined to backward classes of citizens. Even if some sections of minorities or women could be regarded as backward, the provision in the Bill is not confined to them. It is therefore unconstitutional.
No major party really wants an effective Lokpal. What kind of Lokpal we finally do get will depend on the kind of public pressure that the people will be able to bring to bear on the political class.
The writer, a former Union law minister, is a social activist.
----------------------
http://www.indianexpress.com/
PAGE 1 ANCHOR
Milind Ghatwai
Bhopal:
The Congress was that great party which secured India its freedom, which fashioned its Constitution, which gave each man and woman one vote. This party rid India of untouchability and abolished zamindari, giving lands to tillers of the soil who were mainly OBCs.
But since the Emergency in 1975, the Congress hasn't looked like the party of Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Rajendra Prasad and Vallabh-bhai Patel. It appeared to become progressively more corrupt and arrogant. It was in reaction to the all-pervading corruption spawned under the Congress that the Lokpal campaign became so popular so quickly.
The Congress was forced to make a show that it was committed to a strong and effective Lokpal Bill. But the Lokpal that it proposed to set up would be appointed and suspended by the government. And it would not have its own investigative machinery; it would be forced to rely on government-controlled investigative organisations.
The Lokpal Bill was a government Bill piloted by a minister. The general discussion on it had been completed and the minister was replying to the debate. Clause-by-clause consideration would have begun soon. Amendments for a broad-based selection committee instead of a government-dominated one, and for giving administrative control of the CBI to the Lokpal, would have been carried.
If the minister thereafter moved for passing this amended Bill, an effective Lokpal Bill would have emerged. However, the government was not prepared to have this kind of a Lokpal Bill. If the minister refused to move for passing the amended Bill, it would have been seen by the whole country. People would have turned against the government.
Some politicians allege that the Lokpal envisaged by the Jan Lokpal Bill would be too powerful and would become a parallel government. The absurdity of this argument is evident from the fact that, firstly, the Jan Lokpal Bill proposes to establish a Lokpal at the Centre and 28 Lokayuktas, one in every state, each selected by different selection committees. Secondly, the only authority of the Lokpal would be to investigate corruption cases and send them for trial to the courts.
Moreover, the proposed Jan Lokpal would have been made the most accountable institution in the country. India's superior courts have far greater power to issue any direction or quash any order of any authority. Though these courts are totally unaccountable, the same people find no problem with them. They are not even willing to have corruption in the judiciary investigated by an independent investigative body.
Of course, there is no force in the contention of the BJP and the Trinamool Congress that the chapters relating to Lokayuktas are beyond Parliament's legislative competence. Even if one disregards the UN Convention on Corruption and does not invoke Article 253 of India's Constitution, Parliament's legislative competence is obvious: entries 1 and 2 of the Concurrent List relate to criminal law and criminal procedure, and the Bill is fully covered by these entries.
So long as the provisions in the Bill have a rational connection with criminal law or criminal procedure, Parliament will have the power to enact it even if some provision relates to an entry in the State List.
The only provision in the Lokpal Bill, which may be said to be remotely touching the state services, is clause 93. It provides that when - while making a prelimi-nary enquiry - a Lokayukta is satisfied that the continuance of a public servant in his post is likely to affect the preliminary enquiry adversely, it may recommend to the state government his transfer or suspension for a specific period. It is crystal clear that the chapters relating to the Lokayukta do not encroach on the power of the state under the Constitution.
The provision mandating that not less than 50% of Lokpal members shall be from among persons belonging to SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities and women is clearly unconstitutional. At least 50% posts are collectively reserved for specified categories. Article 16(1) of the Constitution says: "There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State." Article 16(4) says, "Nothing in the article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointment or post in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State."
The Lokpal is clearly an office under the "State" and Article 16(1) gets attracted. Reservation permitted by Article 16(4) is confined to backward classes of citizens. Even if some sections of minorities or women could be regarded as backward, the provision in the Bill is not confined to them. It is therefore unconstitutional.
No major party really wants an effective Lokpal. What kind of Lokpal we finally do get will depend on the kind of public pressure that the people will be able to bring to bear on the political class.
The writer, a former Union law minister, is a social activist.
----------------------
http://www.indianexpress.com/
Sat, 7 Jan 2012
PAGE 1 ANCHOR
Bajrang vigilantes cry cow-slaughter, beat, humiliate Muslim trader
MP [Madhya Pradesh] police rescue man, charge him illegal ferrying of cattle, put him in jailMilind Ghatwai
Bhopal:
A Muslim cattle trader’s son was beaten and part of his head, one eyebrow and half his moustache shaved off by alleged Bajrang Dal workers in Chhindwara in Madhya Pradesh after he refused to give them money to allow him to ferry cattle which the attackers alleged were meant for slaughter.
Police rescued the 25-year-old victim, Anish Aslam Kureshi, but charged him with unlawfully transporting cattle for slaughter under a state law for preserving cattle, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. A sessions court in Chhindwara ordered his release on bail today.
His attackers, whom the police identified as Bajrang Dal workers, were also arrested, but were charged with minor offences. They were released almost immediately by the Bichhua police station.
On December 22, a tough new Madhya Pradesh anti-cow slaughter law providing for seven years in jail for eating beef, empowering police to carry out raids on mere suspicion, and putting the burden of proving innocence on the accused received presidential assent.
Police rescued the 25-year-old victim, Anish Aslam Kureshi, but charged him with unlawfully transporting cattle for slaughter under a state law for preserving cattle, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. A sessions court in Chhindwara ordered his release on bail today.
His attackers, whom the police identified as Bajrang Dal workers, were also arrested, but were charged with minor offences. They were released almost immediately by the Bichhua police station.
On December 22, a tough new Madhya Pradesh anti-cow slaughter law providing for seven years in jail for eating beef, empowering police to carry out raids on mere suspicion, and putting the burden of proving innocence on the accused received presidential assent.
Kureshi was not charged under this law.
According to Kureshi’s father Aslam Kureshi who met Governor Ram Naresh Yadav in Bhopal today, his son was waylaid by a Bajrang Dal group at Sarangbihari in the small hours of December 31. The men demanded money to allow him to pass, and when Anish refused, they damaged the Bolero pick-up he was driving, and dragged him to Goni village some two kilometres away.
They took away the Rs 8,315, mobile phone and ATM card that Anish was carrying, and after tying him to a pole, beat and shaved him, Kureshi told the Governor. He was about to be paraded in the village when police rescued him, Kureshi said.
Kureshi alleged the Bajrang Dal workers had torn up the receipt that proved the cattle in Anish’s vehicle had been purchased the previous day from a fair in Chandgram. The cattle were meant for sale in Umranala bazaar, the family said, and denied that they were headed for a slaughterhouse.
“We often give them (the Bajrang Dal) money to escape harassment. That day they asked for Rs 20,000 and beat up and humiliated Anish who refused to pay,” Anish’s younger brother Salman Kureshi told The Indian Express.
“The local police had to plead with the Bajang Dal leaders to free Anish,” said the father.
Chhindwara SP Dr Ashish said both Anish and his attackers were in the wrong. He said the police booked seven Bajrang Dal workers for bailable offences because the Kureshis refused to share details with the police. In the light of new allegations, he said, he had asked SDOP (Saunsar) Bhupendra Sengar to probe further.
Both SP Ashish and SDOP Sengar said the Kureshis were into the illegal transport of cattle, and often sold them to a slaughterhouse in a neighbouring state. Anish was carrying no transport permit or medical certificates for the cattle.
