THE PLUNDER OF THE NATION Part IV Printed on 6th February, 2013 Himalayan Mirror Sonam Wangdi Little Knowledge Series “Nothing can save this country. Not even God” Bruce Grant was Australian High Commissioner in India, 1973-76. He wrote Gods & Politicians, 1982: “The God who watches over Indian democracy is, I suspect, none of the big three – Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu – who deal with the eternities, but Ganesh, Hinduism’s most popular deity, a jolly, incongruous figure with an elephant’s head, whose vehicle is a rat and whose divine function is to remove mundane obstacles to health and happiness. He has been active since 1975”. [Page 186]. “When politicians fail, Indians can always turn to their gods; Australians have nowhere to turn except to themselves”.[189]. 1975 had been an annus horribilis. For, among others, it was the year when in May, Sikkim was “annexed”; in June, the “questionable Internal Emergency” was foisted on a reluctant nation; and, as Rakhahari Chatterji, Kolkata, wrote: “The anti-Centre current started to flow since 1975”. [The Statesman, Siliguri, 10 May, 2012]. At variance with Grant’s opinion, however, is that of the Apex Court’s view, which avers that even the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God is helpless in “India, that is Bharat,” - the first four words of the first Article of India’s Constitution. Believe it or not, - he should make it a part of “Ripley’s Believe it or Not!” Series - the condition in Bharat is so bad that the Court mooted giving the VIPs the “third degree” treatment to make them come to their senses and behave befitting their status and standing in the society. For, Samanwaya Rautray reports: “Not even God can help this country, a dismayed Supreme Court said today (5 August), referring to how politicians “scratch each other’s back” by refusing to prosecute those overstaying in government bungalows” [The Telegraph, Calcutta, 6 August, 2008(SS)]. “Nothing can save this country. …. Not even God, if he were to come down, can help this country. We have no national character”, Justice B. N. Agarwal said. (SS). “The two-Judge bench angrily disposed of a four-year-old public interest litigation, which cited squatting by politicians and bureaucrats, after the Centre refused to amend the law to make such overstay a criminal, non-bailable offence”. (SS) “Unless we have a mechanism of accountability of all sections in a democracy, nothing will work in this country,” Justice G. S. Singhvi said. (SS) “Justice Agarwal, who had earlier observed that squatters should be arrested and given the “THIRD DEGREE”, today said: “The whole government machinery is corrupt ... (and) non-functional”. (SS) “He said if the government wasn’t willing to cooperate, the court should not do anything at all about the problem”. (SS). “The decision to wind up the case, however, disappointed lawyers. “This shows a very non-judicial mind”, said Prashant Bhushan, who steered many Public Interest Litigations.(SS). Counsel Sanjay Parikh said: “Once a court takes cognizance of an illegality, it should take the case to a logical conclusion irrespective of the government attitude”. Also, “He suggested the courts should set a timetable and initiate contempt if officials failed to act”. (SS). Blatant disregard of Supreme Court’s “several orders”. “The court had directed the Centre to tighten the law against squatters on July 24 last year, (2007) and later ISSUED SEVERAL ORDERS TO EVICT MANY VIPs from bungalows in Lutyens Delhi. The government kept stalling and promising to bring in the amendment before enraging the court today by saying such a “drastic step is not required””.(SS). “While the case was on, the Centre had “regularized” the bungalow allotments to people such as BJP chief Rajnath Singh, ex-minister S.S.Badal and former top cop K.P.S. Gill. They can stay as long as they like by paying a nominal rent”.(SS). Lastly, “Once a politician enters, he doesn’t leave….Your government has no guts to evict anybody… because of vote banks. This political party, some other political party, there’s no difference”, the Court had then said”.(SS). “The End of India”. It is fortunate that the court “issued several orders to evict many VIPs”. It is, however, unfortunate that never were they complied with. Nor, it is most unfortunate, were the contemnors ever punished. Never did I even dream that “several orders of the Supreme Court” could be contemptuously slighted with impunity. The Republic is in danger when the Rule of Law fails. Once a judicial order is passed – right or wrong – it shall be obeyed unless set aside. If the Judiciary transgresses the law, it could be punished following the due process of law. Khuswant Singh wrote: “Far from becoming mahaan (great), India is going to the dogs, and unless a miracle saves us, the country will break up. It will not be Pakistan or any other foreign power that will destroy us; we will commit hara-kiri”.[The End of India, Penguin, Pages 3-4]. Events, especially, in the ’seventies and thereafter, may lead to “the end of India” if timely action is postponed . Also, Kripalani said on 13 December, 1954, in Lok Sabha: “It is not the Opposition, it is not the goondas, it is not the black-marketers, it is not even the Communists, it is you (referring to India’s government ) who are the greatest enemies of this infant democracy. If ever this democracy dies, you will be responsible for it. You may live for a day and no more; but this will be the judgment of history to your everlasting shame”. [The Statesman, Siliguri, 26 January, 2004]. Here I am reminded of a Lord Chief Justice of England in days of yore who sentenced to imprisonment the heir apparent to the throne of England. He willingly served the punishment. On being informed, the King of England said: “I am delighted to have a son who abides by the law and a Chief Justice who administers justice according to law and justice without any fear or favour, affection or ill will. My Kingdom is safe in the hands of the future King of England who obeys the Law and the Lord Chief Justice of England who upholds the Majesty of Law”. However, the “rascals, rogues and freebooters”, do not seem to be aware of the John F. Kennedy averment: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”(1962). Kerala High Court sends leader to jail for six months Nevertheless, unlike the Apex Court as submitted above, the Kerala High Court brought the contemnors to justice. For, “The Kerala High court on Tuesday [8 Nov.] sentenced CPM state secretariat member MV Jayarajan to six months imprisonment for contempt of court, the highest punishment for such offence.” [The Times of India, Kolkata, 10 Nov., 2011 (MH)]. “Suo motu proceedings were initiated by the high court against Jayarajan after he ridiculed the single bench order banning roadside meetings, at a public meeting in Kannur in July last year (2010)” . (MH). “Immediately after the verdict, Jayarajan’s advocate pleaded for a suspension of sentence to appeal to the Supreme Court, but was turned down by the division bench of Justice V Ramkumar and Justice PQ Barkath Ali.” (MH). “Last week, a state government legislation overcoming the high court ban on roadside meetings was stayed by division bench of acting chief justice C N Ramachandran Nair and Justice P S Gopinathan citing violation of Article 19 of the Constitution.” (MH). J Venkatesan reports that a Supreme Court Bench of Justice DK Jain and Justice Anil R Dave on 13 April pulled up the Kerala government for enacting legislation to circumvent the judgments of the Apex Court and the High Court. [The Hindu, Kolkata, 14 April, 2012 (JV)] A Division Bench of the High Court had struck down as unconstitutional Section 5(1) (c ) of the Kerala Public Ways (Restriction of Assemblies and Processions) Act that empowered district police chiefs to grant permission for holding public meetings and assemblies on public roads and road margins.(JV). Since the Supreme Court Bench of Justices D K Jain and Anil R Dave on 13 April, 2012, upheld the order of the Kerala High Court, similar order could be passed for preventing intolerable nuisance, obstructions, inconvenience, sound pollution etc in the heart of towns in Sikkim. Delhi High Court orders one-month jail The Delhi High Court also brought contemnors to justice. “Taking a stern stand, the Delhi High Court has sentenced the CEO and an assistant general manager of public enterprise Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd (IFCI) to one month’s jail term for contempt of court”. [The Indian Express, Kolkata, 21 March, 2012 (TIE)]. “Giving the same punishment to a Debt Recovery Tribunal official as well, the court also slapped a fine of Rs 5 lakh on IFCI and said this would have to be paid out of the salaries of CEO Atul Kumar Rai and manager (Law) Shalini Soni”. (TIE) “The litigants have started gathering the impression that the moment an apology is tendered, even while maintaining that no contempt was committed, the court would melt down and pardon them. That kind of an impression needs to be washed off from the minds of the litigating public. This court, therefore, is not inclined to show any leniency to any of the contemnors,” said Justice P K Bhasin while dismissing the plea to impose only monetary penalty on them. (TIE). Justices V Ramkumar, P Q Barkath Ali, C N Ramachandran Nair, P S Gopinathan, D K Jain, Anil R Dave, P K Bhasin, A P Shah, Jag Mohan Lal Sinha, J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, H.R. Khanna, V R Krishna Iyer, et alia, barring a microscopic few, are great names in India’s judiciary who will be remembered by posterity for their commitment - not to some unscrupulous politicians for their personal gain, such as out-of-turn elevation or post-retirement-job - but to the Rule of Law, and to India’s Constitution. “Third degree” treatment Interestingly, the Supreme Court’s “THIRD DEGREE,” treatment of VIPs, reminded me of another “THIRD DEGREE” resorted to by financial institutions for the recovery of loans, in violation of the Court’s order. It relates to “The thousands of people who have suffered at the hands of GOONS ENGAGED BY BANKS”; and “musclemen are dubbed ‘loan recovery agents’ by the banking sector”. [Lead Editorial “Curbing musclemen”, The Statesman, Siliguri, 2 Nov., 2007]. In Hyderabad, “A 42-year-old government electrician has died after allegedly being kidnapped and confined by agents of a loan-recovery firm hired by ICICI Bank. The complaint from victim K.Yadaiah’s wife says he was tortured to death but the police are waiting for the post-mortem report. The death of the medical and health sciences department employee, who had taken a loan of Rs. 15,000 (fifteen thousand) for his daughter’s wedding two years ago, comes four months after the Supreme Court told banks not to hire ‘GOONDAS’ to recover loans. Yadaiah had not paid the EMI for over seven months, causing his dues to rise to Rs. 30,000, a bank official said. ICICI had handed the case over to Elite Financial Services, which recovers loans for many private banks”. [Lead piece, The Telegraph, Calcutta, 25 June, 2007]. This paper is on our “stolen money” abroad. But I have dealt with India’s bungalow allotment policy and Bank’s recovery scheme in more detail than justified to prove the “utter helplessness of God and Supreme Court” in convincing India’s government and Banks to see reasons in reasonable arenas. When the Almighty God and mighty Supreme Court failed in issues like eviction of “squatters” or “hiring GOONDAS”, it is a Herculean task to bring into the country our looted wealth abroad. Another implication of the above analysis is that if the government of India or a State government were to embezzle the entire budgeted amount, there appears to be, theoretically, no possibility of any action against them, since, as noted by George Bernard Shaw below, “majorities cannot be shot”; nor can any legal action be taken against VIPs who continue to occupy government bungalows even after the personages are no more in office. Shaw wrote: “A minister of State who accepts and undertakes a public duty on the understanding that if he fails he will be impeached and possibly shot, or at least discharged and discredited, is a responsible minister. But a minister who has only to do what he can persuade a majority in Parliament or in committee to agree to has no responsibility; and neither has anyone else, because majorities cannot be shot except by their own consent, nor can they be demoted, as they have no rank”. [EVERYBODY’S POLITICAL WHAT IS WHAT?, 1950, Constable, London, Page 33]. The Supreme Court’s inability to evict “squatters”, and to prevent “GOONS” as “loan recovery agents” reminded me of a petition for rescinding a Sikkim government Notification pending in the Court. The petitioner prayed for the quashing of the “illegal” government notification “illegally” barring the legitimate operation of the legitimate Central Bureau of Investigation in Sikkim. Only in Sikkim is it possible for a likely accused person to ward off CBI against himself by abusing power and manipulating law with impunity and immunity. Nevertheless, I must praise our Chief Minister for his sublime dexterity in handling the CBI. Chandrababu Naidu, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Mayawati, etc., who were Chief Ministers at one time, and who are under CBI’s surveillance on the Apex Court’s order, should learn from their Sikkim counterpart the knack of keeping the agency at a distance and continue making hay while the sun shines. Moreover, the Sikkim CM has made Ram Jethmalani stand on his head: in 1993, as LD Kazi’s counsel, he convinced the Supreme Court and CBI held inquiry against the then Sikkim CM; but, now, as the counsel, opposing D L Kazi’s petition (Delay Namgyal Barfungpa W.P. No.16 of 2012) which will culminate in CBI inquiry against the present Sikkim CM, Jetmalani argued that it is “politically motivated”. Never before did I realize the miracle of the rupee. Ram Jethmalani’s stand in the Supreme Court relating to the Sikkim petitions of L D Kazi in the past and D L Kazi’s present one involving the past and present Chief Ministers, respectively, reminded me of what I had read in 1962: “The inequality in the distribution of wealth has brought into existence the richer and the poorer classes and the richer class is certainly in a more advantageous position to get greater amount of protection under law in so far as money can bring it by its liberal expenditure for successfully conducting a litigation”. [Sibnath Chakravarty: An Introduction to Politics, ( 7th edition), Modern Book Agency , Calcutta, Pages 146-7]. The same words are repeated in the 20th revised edition 2003. [P126] . Ram Jethmalani’s stand in the Supreme Court, and the Court’s handling of DL Kazi’s petition also reminded me of what I had read in 1989: “Fifty-seven Supreme Court lawyers have urged the Chief Justice, Mr. E.S. Venkataramiah, to lay down guidelines for determining under what circumstances litigants can get their cases heard the same day or the next and when a judge can entertain an urgent petition at his residence. In a representation to the Chief Justice, the lawyers expressed concern at the growing number of extraordinary cases of the rich and the powerful of this country which are being heard and orders passed with such expedition that this court has to sit on public holidays. The lawyers quoted the speech of the former law minister, Mr. Shiv Shanker, which, they said, had become relevant again. Mr. Shiv Shanker had stated in Hyderabad on November 28, 1987, that anti-social elements, like Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) violators, bride-burners and a whole horde of reactionaries have found their haven in the Supreme Court”. [The Times of India, New Delhi, 10 October, 1989]. Shiv Shanker was India’s Law Minister in 1980 and Sikkim’s Governor, September 21, 1994 to November 5, 1995. Notwithstanding my above submission, I am absolutely certain that only the Supreme Court, which is immune to corruption, may bring in our past plundered wealth and prevent the present and future plunder of the nation by politicians, their pages and others. Only in Judiciary, in comparison to the Executive and the Legislature, have the voiceless people reposed their faith for getting into India our “stolen wealth” from abroad. Ms Malvika Singh writes: “The judiciary is the last straw. If it dilutes its sacrosanct role by cloning the many essential institutions of governance and the pillars of our democracy that have, in recent times, degraded themselves by operating outside the confines of the laws and freedoms the judiciary is mandated to protect and enforce, India will witness a terrible revolt”. [The Telegraph, Calcutta, 12 May, 2007] If our “stolen money” comes to India !!!. If the poor taxpayers money, stashed abroad, were to come to India, it would be an economic miracle for the country; miraculously will the perennial poverty of India banish for ever overnight. M. M. P. Kala, Dehra Dun writes: “there are four distinct advantages: first, the government will gain from taxes and fines, which may extend to confiscation; second, this money can reduce our World Bank and like borrowings as well as our dependence on FDIs; third, it will discourage the flight of wealth in future; and fourth, it will prevent rigging of the stock market which can be done by foreign banks who invest without disclosing investors’ identities”. [The Indian Express, Kolkata, 14 May, 2009]. Moreover, Gopal Sharma, one of the petitioners, in the Public Interest Litigation filed on 4 May, 2009 seeking Supreme Court’s intervention to retrieve money from abroad, says: “India can have a tax free budget for the next 30 years and every family in the country can have Rs 3 lakh each – that is the kind of money in Swiss banks”. ibnlive.in/printpage.php?id=90893§ion id=3. Sharma, however, forgot “our stolen money” in the remaining 90 (ninety) other ‘Locations’, categorized as ‘Tax havens of the world’. Govind Das Dujari writes: “Honest tax-payers should demand the return of black money from overseas since it was because of the tax-evaders that law-abiding citizens had to pay extra taxes. Had the tax-evaders not siphoned off black money abroad, the tax slab could have been lower. It is now pay-back time as the country is facing an extraordinary situation and needs money most”. [The Telegraph, Calcutta, 9 April, 2009]. As a teenager, I was taught that India’s Supreme Court is “the most powerful court in the world”. One Judge can nullify the law passed by nearly 800 parliamentarians, “representing” the voice of the entire people of India and assented to by the President if it contravenes the Constitutional provision. India’s “stolen money abroad” is certainly a blatant and unpardonable violation of our Constitution and Laws. When the Court brings in our past plundered property and prevent present and planned plunder, culminating in miraculous mitigation of relentless penury overnight, it will receive the perennial plaudits of the populace who had long been reduced to poverty by politicians in the name of participatory democracy. The Supreme Court will then earn the supreme gratitude of a grateful nation for eternity.
Posted on: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:33:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015