Karnataka BJP It-cell wishes all A very Happy Ganesh Chaturthi

Hoping that this Ganesh Chaturti will be the start of a year that brings the happiness, that lord Ganesh fills our home with prosperity & fortune, Best wishes on Ganesh Chaturthi.

Karnataka BJP It-cell wishes all A very Happy Ganesh Chaturthi

Eid Mubarak Message by BJP National President, Shri Nitin Gadkari

The BJP National President Shri Nitin Gadkari has greeted the people on the auspicious occasion of Eid Ul-Fitr which is being celebrated all over the country tomorrow.

In a message, Shri Gadkari conveyed his good wishes to all citizens and Muslim brothers and sisters in particular.

Shri Gadkari expressed the hope that the eventful festival of Eid Ul Fitr would usher in happiness and prosperity for all our countrymen and strengthen the bonds of communal harmony and brotherhood

Anna Hazare wins, Parliament passes resolution on Lokpal Bill

Both Houses of Parliament on Saturday passed a resolution conveying the sense of the House on the Lokpal Bill, paving the way forAnna Hazare to break his fast.

On a motion moved by Pranab Mukherjee, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha passed a resolution conveying the sense of the House on the Lokpal Bill.

After the passage of the resolution, Speaker Meira Kumar adjourned the Lok Sabha till Monday.

There was some confusion over whether the resolution was passed by a voice vote or not. Apparently, no voice vote took place.

"Thumping of the desk is akin to passing a motion by voice vote," Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar told Times Now.

After the passage of the Lokpal resolution in Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha also passed the resolution.

Team Anna welcomes the passage of the Lokpal resolution, Kiran Bedi said.

Some of the important points of the Lokpal resolution passed by Parliament are:

*An effective Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in states be set up.

*Employees of centre and state governments to be brought under purview of Lokpal and Lokayuktas respectively.

*All government departments to have citizen's charter with timeline.

With a copy of Lokpal resolution and a letter from PM Manmohan Singh, Union minister Vilasrao Deshmukh would now go to Ramlila Maidan to meet Anna Hazare.

Earlier, the team Anna said they have received a communication from the government that a resolution carrying their demands on Lokpal Bill will be put to a voice vote, a move which they termed as a "very happy" development.

Fresh trouble emerged this afternoon after government decided only to convey sense of House to Team Anna and not put the resolution for voting, the activists hardened their position saying it was "betrayal" and only a resolution which will be put to vote will be acceptable.

This forced the government to change its stand. The activist's camp said they have received the communication from the government about its decision to put the resolution to voice vote.

The 74-year-old Gandhian has been on fast for the last 12 days, demanding the passage of the Jan Lokpal Bill by Parliament.

India is no longer willing to accept corruption as a way of life

Brief talking points made by Shri Arun Jaitley, LOP, RS while participating in a short duration discussion on ‘the Situation arising out of widespread corruption in the country’ in Rajya Sabha.

This debate takes place at a time when a popular movement against corruption has provided us with a historic challenge. The message of these extra-Parliamentary protests is loud and clear. India is no longer willing to accept corruption as a way of life. India expects the Parliament to take effective steps so that corruption and graft in society can be eliminated.

There is a crisis of credibility. The credibility of Government is at an all time low. People are losing faith in the Government. It is therefore time for us to seriously introspect. We must restore the credibility of politics and governance. We must eliminate discretions and wage a war on corruption. Time has come to penalize the corrupt so that there is a deterrent against it.

When de-licensing took place and controls were eliminated, one expected that with the role of Government coming down, corruption would be eliminated. Unfortunately, it did not happen. The expansion of economic activity, expanded the areas and quantum of corruption. Landbecame a major source of corruption. From acquisition to release, to change of Land users, to sanction townships, discretions in relation to land became major source of corruption.

Mining transferred a natural resource, belonging to the people, into a few hands. Taxes and royalties were meager. The ‘First Come First Serve’ policies in relation to mining, placed these resource in the hands of those, who traded in minerals rather than use it for value addition. Allocation of natural resources like Spectrum, Oil and Gas, allotment oftenders and contracts in relation to highways, ports and other areas became matters of Government discretion. The exercise of discretion gave way for arbitrariness and corruption. Private sector education expanded the base of education but resulted in huge capitation fees, in disciplines where the capacity was scarce. Allotment of liquor contracts was another area where corruption flourished. In the environment of corruption and graft, dealing with revenue departments, municipalities, ration department became a nightmare for citizens.

Other institutions: Institutional health, in terms of integrity, suffered. Accountability norms in judiciary are much lower than needed. Paid newshas corrupted a section of the media, which was originally intended to safeguard public interest. Investigative agencies like the CBI are now used for political purposes. There are innumerable cases where investigations are used for political purposes.

Sixty four years after independence, we are still far from a mature and transparent method of political funding. Even though donations to the political parties was incentivized by tax breaks, a large part of the politics of the world’s largest democracy is funded through black money.

The UPA rule: The track record of the UPA Government has worsened governance. It inducted tainted ministers. It got CBI to collude with the BOFORS investigations. The cash for Oil coupons in the Volcker case brought discredit to the Government. Two continuous votes of confidence succeeded in Parliament on account of monetary influences. The 2G scam remained covered up for three years, and it shook the public consciousness. The CWG and its accompanied corruption shocked the public mind.

The enormity of corruption, in the UPA Government is directly proportionate to the public anger that resulted in the enormity of protests that ensued. Instead of addressing the problem, when Round one of Anna’s fast took place, the Government practiced deception on the Civil Society. After the initial dialogue, they discarded team Anna, and brought out a Ministers’ draft. The Ministers’ draft lacked vision. If this draft had been reasonable, the problem of this enormity would not have occurred. Why was the appointment mechanism tilted in favour of the Government so as to rig the appointment of Lok Pal. It was logical to include the Prime Minister without his national security and public order functions in the Lok Pal. Some states like Bihar and Madhya Pradesh have drafted citizens’ grievances mechanism. Why should the Government be reluctant to adopt such a mechanism? There is a strong rationale to make the CBI and CVC independent. How can the Government alone have the power to remove the inconvenient Lok Pal.? This power should be with the Supreme Court or through an impeachment process. Why should the whistleblowers not get protection? Why there should not be special bench in every High Court to deal with corruption cases? Why should the punishment to a complainant who makes false complaint be higher than the punishment accorded to the guilty for corruption? How do you include NGOs, which are not funded by the Government into the ambit of the Lok Pal? These are all serious defects of the draft, which after consultations with the political parties, should be rectified provided everyone bears in mind that the final bill should be compatible to the Constitution of India.

Today Anna Hazareji’s fast has entered the 9^th day. His health has steadily deteriorated. We are all concerned. Its high time the Government put its act together and arrive at a mutually acceptable position that inspires confidence of the public

Salient points made by BJP National General Secretary & Spokesperson Shri J.P. Nadda

Salient points made by BJP National General Secretary and Spokesperson Shri J.P. Nadda

• We will fight an effective war on corruption.
• BJP will move an anti-corruption movement through a people mobilization campaign.
• Party has decided to form a Yuva Vahini.
• 10 laks youth will be made members of this Yuva Vahini.
• This Yuva Vahini will go to every village in the country.
• The Yuva Vahini will give an agenda to the young brigade.
• Neither we will be a part of corruption nor will we allow corruption.
• India will be a corruption free society.
• We will get the common man out of the jaws of the corrupt government.

BJP Press: Anna Hazare Anshan & Arrest: Sh. Nitin Gadkari

Brief points made by Sh. Arun Jaitley on the motion for the removal of Justice Soumitra Sen

A note on the brief points made by Shri Arun Jaitley while speaking on the motion for the removal of Justice Soumitra Sen, a Judge of the Calcutta High Court on 17/08/2011 and 18/08/2011.

Sir,

This is a sad but historic moment in the Indian democracy. We have assembled to decide the fate of a man who decided the fate of others. This political house is here to perform a judicial function. We have heard a detailed presentation in the defence of the Judge sought to be impeached.

The power of removal/impeachment of a Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court is a power which is to be used in the rarest of the rare cases. We invoke this jurisdiction to remove a man and save the dignity of the office, which is paramount. The invocation of the power is both punitive and deterrent. The removal of a Supreme Court Judge under Article 124 (4), and a High Court Judge under Article 217 (1) (B) after following the procedures prescribed in the Judges Inquiry Act, can only be for proven misbehaviour or incapacity. In this case, the jurisdiction is being invoked on the ground of ‘proven misbehaviour’.

While participating in the debate on Article 124, in the Constituent Assembly, Shri Gopalaswamy Aiyangar had expressed a hope that the procedures would never be used during his life time. His prophecy proved to be true. But now times are changing. We chose the best system for India, a system of Parliamentary democracy with separation of powers and independence of judiciary. Judiciary performs a divine function where ordinary humans decide the fate of others. When this divine function of deciding the fate of others is bestowed in a Judge, we expect him to perform it with the highest standards of scholarship and utmost impartiality. He must be detached from all collateral persuasions. The premise of the utmost impartiality, free from aberrations under which the institution of judiciary was created, is no longer available. There are compromises, in terms of quality, in terms of independence and collateral influences. Thus the need to be vigilant about the judiciary.

Judges no longer live in ivory towers. Today, they live in glasshouses where the bar, litigants, public and the media watch them from close proximity. But then we have all to exercise utmost restraint. Judges cannot defend themselves against unfounded allegations. They must neither be summarily tried nor be thrown to the wolves. A Judge, under inquiry, must be candid. He cannot plead only technical defences. He cannot be too clever by half. He cannot invoke a right to silence like an ordinary accused, and shy away from speaking the truth.

In this case, when the Judge under inquiry says that his offence must be proved ‘to the hilt’ or ‘proved beyond reasonable doubt’ , he relies on technicalities rather than substance. A Judge is like Caesar’s wife. He must be beyond suspicion. Caesar divorced his wife merely on the basis of suspicion. Those who occupy high offices must live through the scrutiny of highest standards of probity. A Judge must be unsuspectable.

Part 2

Is Justice Soumitra Sen guilty of ‘proven misconduct?

On 10.01.1983 a civil suit was filed by the SAIL seeking money decree against various defendants. The dispute was in relation to certain goods. On 30.04.1984 the Calcutta High Court appointed Shri Soumitra Sen, Advocate, as a Receiver to take charge of goods, sell the goods and make an inventory of the goods. He was directed to file half yearly returns with the court, in relation to handling of the goods. Nothing significant happened till 20.01.1993 whereupon the Calcutta High Court directed the Receiver to sell the goods, open a separate bank account, and keep the proceeds free from lien or encumbrance. The Receiver opened to bank accounts. He eventually sold the entire goods for a value of Rs. 33,22,800/-. Of this amount he deposited Rs. 4,68,000/- in the Allahabad bank and the balance in the ANZ Grindlays Bank. He did not even once file the return of accounts with the court for how much money he collected, and how much money he had spent. He was entitled to collect a five percent fee on this amount, which he did. Of the money deposited in the Allahabad Bank, he usurped them for an unlawful purpose. Instead of holding the money for the benefit of the SAIL, he has issued a number of cheques in favour of private individuals- _Subroto Mukherjee, Biresh Prasad Choudhary, Somnath Ray, K.L. Yadav, and one Jayguru Enterprises. He also withdrew money against several self-cheques. He further drew out payments against his VISA credit card and made payment to a bookselling company M/s S.C. Sarkar & Sons. He has till date not explained why he usurped this money.

He was also appointed Special Officer for disbursement of workers dues in the case of one Calcutta Fans Ltd, which had gone into liquidation. He was given Rs. 70 lakhs for distribution amongst the workmen. Of this Rs. 70 lakhs, he withdrew a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs and deposited it with one company called Lynx India Ltd.

When he had to pay the money to the workmen, he was obviously short of payment. He, therefore, withdrew an amount of Rs. 22 lakhs from the Receivership account of SAIL and deposited it in his Special Officer account in relation to Calcutta Fans case. All this while, he did not render any account to the court. These monies continued to be misappropriated by him, and this misappropriation continued for a reasonable period of time.

On 07.03.2002 the Receiver Soumitra Sen was asked to submit the accounts by the Advocate of SAIL. He did not respond to the same. On 27.02.2003 the SAIL advocate moved to the Calcutta High Court for rendition of accounts.

On 03.12.2003, Advocate/Receiver Soumitra Sen was elevated as Judge of Calcutta High Court. The single Judge of the High Court repeatedly issued notices to the Receiver to render accounts. He never cared to reply to the notices. Finally, on 10.04.2006 the single Judge of Calcutta High Court passed serious strictures against him and directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 52, 46, 454/- to the SAIL. This was in addition to Rs. 5 lakhs he had already paid. He started paying the amount from 27.06.2006 onwards and for the first time, after paying Rs. 40 lakhs in installments , he moved an application on 14.09.2006 seeking extension of time to pay the balance. He did not dispute the judgment of the single Judge. After paying the balance amount, he moved the single Judge for deletion of the remarks against him. The single Judge declined his request.

Meanwhile, newspapers in Calcutta published several articles on how Justice Soumitra Sen had continued to keep the misappropriated amounts, even after his elevation as a Judge. The Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court wrote to the Chief Justice of India, that this prima facie amounted to misconduct and Justice Sen should be proceeded against.

On 20.09.2007 he was asked to explain his conduct by the Chief Justice of India. Anticipating an in-house inquiry against himself, he requested for time from the Chief Justice of India, and on the same day argued his case before the Division Bench of the High Court in a proceeding that isprima facie collusive. All the advocates present in the court including the advocate for the SAIL, and the buyer of the goods agreed with Justice Soumitra Sen’s advocate that strictures passed against him should be removed. The Division Bench accordingly removed the comments against him.

The Chief Justice of India appointed an in-house inquiry committee of three Judges i.e. Justice A.P. Shah (then Chief Justice of Madras High Court), Justice A.K. Patnaik (Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court) and Justice R.M. Lodha (a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court) to examine the conduct of Justice Soumitra Sen. He appeared before the Inquiry Committee and put up his defence. His defence before the single Judge, or before the Division Bench and the in-house Inquiry Committee was that he had, in good faith, deposited the amounts collected by him in the SAIL case as Receiver with Lynx India Ltd and that money got lost because of the liquidation of that company. Both the single Judge and the in-house inquiry committee came to the finding that he had put up a false defence and that no amount of money was deposited with M/s Lynx India Ltd. He deliberately created a smokescreen, since it was the money in the Calcutta Fans case, which had actually been deposited in that company. The in-house inquiry committee held him to be guilty. He declined the request of Chief Justice of India to resign. Fifty Eight (58) Members of Parliament moved a motion for his removal. An inquiry committee was constituted by the Chairman, Rajya Sabha to examine the case of Justice Soumitra Sen. He appeared before the committee but claimed a right to silence. He put up a defence of the monies received by him as a receiver being lost on account of liquidation of Lynx India Ltd. This committee also came to the conclusion that Justice Sen is guilty of ‘proven misconduct’.

Justice Sen is guilty of a continued ‘proven misbehavior’ from his days as a lawyer when he was appointed as a Receiver; and this continued well in to his tenure as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court. He never rendered the accounts as directed by the courts both as a lawyer and as Judge. He created encumbrances, by withdrawing monies, which were in his custody as a Receiver of the court. He transferred these monies unauthorizedly to persons not authorized to receive them. He withdrew the monies himself. He transferred the money to another account, which he maintained as a special officer in Calcutta Fans case. Even after his elevation as Judge in 2003, he continued the misappropriation of monies. His case squarely falling under Section 403 of the IPC of temporary misappropriation of monies is a criminal offence. In any case, he continued to retain these monies till 2006. He only returned the monies under the coercive order of the court and not otherwise.

During his tenure as Judge, he put a false defence before the single Judge, the Division Bench, the in-house inquiry committee and the impeachment inquiry that he had invested these monies in a company which went into liquidation. The liquidated company had nothing to do with these monies. The Division Bench judgment is a judgment with consent of all parties. It does not lay down the law. It is a judgment in personam, which is binding only on the parties, and not a judgment in rem, which binds the rest of the world. It does not, in any way, restrain the jurisdiction of this House under Article 217 from examining a case of ‘proven misconduct’.

Justice Soumitra Sen’s conduct as a litigant was unfortunate. He led no evidence. He hardly cross-examined witnesses. He claimed the right of silence. He then misrepresented and put up a false defence. He has been held guilty, both by the in-house committee appointed by the Chief Justice of India, and also by the committee appointed by the Chairman, Rajya Sabha. He is conclusively guilty of an offence. A case of ‘proven misconduct’ is made out against him. A Judge has to lead by example. A Judge cannot rely on technicalities and try to escape the rigours of law. Litigants cannot be Judged by a Judge, who himself is stigmatized. The defence of Justice Sen has thus to be rejected.

Part 3

General observations with regard to the Judiciary:

1. Who must appoint the Judges:

The Constitution of India empowers the government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India to appoint Judges. Since the government has the last word, the independence of judiciary was being seriously compromised. The theory of social philosophy of Judges was propounded in the early 1970s in order to provide for a ‘Committed Judiciary’ in India. The failure of a section of the Judiciary during the Emergency and thereafter compelled the revisiting of the debate as to who should have the last word in the appointment of the Judges. The Supreme Court in 1982, by a narrow majority of 4 against 3, maintained the status quo. This enabled further politicization in matters of judicial appointments. In 1993, the balance of power shifted. The advice of the Chief Justice of India became binding upon the government. In 1998, the authority of the Chief Justice of India was diluted to provide for a collegium to appoint Judges.

The quality of judicial appointments, the best available not willing to become Judges, has not improved. Both the earlier systems have not succeeded. Thus the system of Judges alone appointing Judges must now change. India needs a National Judicial Commission to appoint Judges. It must be a combination of members of the judiciary, the executive and citizens’ representatives in public interest who must collectively appoint Judges.

The more important question is what should be the criteria on which Judges should be appointed. Today, Judges perform the Executive function of appointment in an unguided manner. The discretion of the National Judicial Commission, if it is so appointed, or the collegium as at present must now be restricted and regulated by the provisions of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There must be objective criteria introduced with regard to the qualification of persons under consideration, their academic credentials, their experience at the bar, their quality of judgments if they belong to the judicial institutions, details of cases argued, details of judgments reported with regard to the cases the lawyer has argued, the number of juniors trained, academic papers authored, amount of income tax paid, and the reputation and integrity etc. Unless these objective criteria enable a candidate to cross the threshold, he cannot enter the zone of consideration.

2. Who would the Judges be accountable to:

At present we have an in house mechanism, which Judges the Judges. It is an extra constitutional mechanism which has not succeeded. The process of impeachment is a near impossibility. The National Judicial Commission thus, in matters of judicial discipline, should be the Judicial Lok Pal.

3. What are the threats to judicial independence:

The appointment of political activists as Judges at times has compromised the judicial independence. The lack of integrity can be on account of several reasons, which influence the administration of justice . These include judgments delivered because of collateral reasons and prejudices on account of religion, caste or personal reasons.

4. Should Judges look for Government jobs after retirement:

There is an increased trend of the Executive distributing jobs to Judges post retirement. This has seriously compromised the independence of judiciary. In recent times , the cases of Judges delivering judgments in politically sensitive cases on the eve of retirement and getting jobs the very next day from the Government is on the rise. I believe that no Judge should be entitled to a job after retirement. If the age of retirement is sought to be increased in the case of High Courts, as per the existing Bill pending, the same must be accompanied by a constitutional amendment, which prohibits jobs after retirement. The Judge strength of High Courts can be increased and all judicial tribunals must be manned by serving Judges.

5. Separation of Powers:

The separation of powers is one the most valuable principles of the Indian democracy. Separation of powers is infringed upon when the Legislature or the Executive encroach upon the Judiciary’s space or Vice Versa. It is only judicial statesmanship which prevents a confrontation between the institutions. Of late, with the weakening of the political Executive and serious division in the polity, the tendency of the judicial institution to encroach upon the Legislative or Executive space has increased. It has been argued that if the Executive does not perform its job, the Judges have to step in. This is a dangerous argument. By the same logic, if the Judiciary does not perform its job, can somebody else step in? The answer is NO in both the situations. Recent comments and pronouncements with regard to whether India should have liberalized economy or regulated economy do not fall within the judicial space. How terror is to be fought is in the Executive domain. What should be the land acquisition policy, is a concern which belongs to the Parliament and the Executive. Whether a Pakistani prisoner in India should be released or exchanged for Indian prisoners in Pakistan, is to be determined by the Government and not the Supreme Court. Whether FDI is needed in the economy or not is an area that belongs to be Executive or Parliament. Unfortunately, recent aberrations in the separation of powers, have all been on account of judicial activism. Activism and restraint are two sides of the same coin. Each institution must respect the Lakshman Rekha.

Part-4

What do we do to Justice Soumitra Sen?:

Finally Sir, we have before us a case of ‘proven misbehaviour’ by Justice Soumitra Sen. It is not that his misbehaviour is restricted to his tenure as a lawyer. There is a thread of continuity in his ‘proven misbehaviour’. He became a Receiver of a court property. He opened a bank account in his own name. He was a Trustee of somebody else’s fund. He misappropriated the funds. He put them for an alternative use. This he did as a lawyer.

In 2003, when he became a Judge, he continued the misappropriation. He did not ask the court to discharge him. When the court issued him notice, he did not respond. When the court passed strong strictures against him, he under coercive direction of the court returned the money in 2006 along with interest. He mis-representated to the court that he had invested the money in a private company and that the money got lost when the company became insolvent. No part of this money was ever invested in a private company. When the Chief Justice of India called him for an explanation, he moved the Division Bench through his mother and got an order of the single Judge set aside on the basis of concessions made by the advocates. The order shows the members of the bar not in good light. Before the in-house committee, appointed by the CJI, he persisted with his false defence. The committee found him guilty. Before the Parliamentary Committee, he did not volunteer the entire evidence. He resorted to technicalities and silence. He resorted to false defence.

His acts, both as a lawyer and a Judge, had all the ingredients of culpability of breach of trust. He misappropriated the money and he put up a false defence. He was not truthful or candid. This is a case of ‘proven misbehaviour’.

I, therefore, support the address to be made to the President, that Justice Soumitra Sen be removed from office as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court. He is undeserving to occupy that office. We recommend the removal of an undeserving man to save the dignity of the office.