Kejriwal the confusing new right

Saswat Pattanayak

Arvind Kejriwal suddenly discovers in Modi a coward and psychopath, simply because he finally becomes a victim of fascist vendetta now. However, this outrage is a social media melodrama as it was Kejriwal himself who has contributed the most in the resulting chaos that prevail today. Modi/Shah and their BJP goons are professionally committed as communal politicians and xenophobes who have always practiced hate politics to perfection. Indian public had always rejected such right-wing fanatics throughout the country’s democratic history. It is Kejriwal who lent them a humane face through his creation of a hoopla over the corruption bogeyman, only with the sole aim to destabilize what he and his right-wing allies Shanti Bhushan, Kiran Bedi and Kumar Vishwas felt as “dynasty politics”.

Bhushan who funded the creation of AAP was also the same man who was one of the founders of BJP in 1980 – the only aim at that time was to oppose Indira Gandhi because she had dared to “misuse her power” by ensuring that India aims to become a “socialist” and “secular” country. When BJP failed to gain any momentum in India owing to their rabidly communal agendas, these reactionaries floated an outfit by the name of AAP to espouse the same anti-Congress politics, but on a more populist political plank: Corruption.

Prior to advancing the carefully orchestrated political party AAP, Kejriwal was at the forefront of the anti-socialist formation called “India Against Corruption” and an anti-secular formation called “Youth for Equality” – the sole aim of these so-called apolitical movements (ably supported by the likes of objective corporate media comprising Arnav Goswami/Rajat Sharma) was to excite the otherwise indifferent middle class students into getting wet dreams over the potential demise of Congress and the Left in India; to materialize the RSS reveries of a Congress-Mukt Bharat into reality.

Aam Aadmi Party – many of whose stalwarts subsequently have gone back to their BJP family – thereafter emerged as the New Right in India, the first outfit to succeed in legitimizing capitalistic meritocracy as an acceptable political proposition in a society whose collective progress depends on reservation policies, to allow for a political scope for rabidly communal elements of this society to gain a respectable electoral mandate that was virtually impossible to obtain prior to Kejriwal and his team arrived as the educated “we-are-not-political-we-are-you” actors, and to create for the first time in India’s history a Parliament without an empowered Opposition.
It is not Modi, but Kejriwal who created an imagination for a new India whose socio-economic policies could be drafted without the Congress and the Left. And when Kejriwal is not given that rightful due, and instead is treated like he were an outsider, it is only natural that he calls his former bosses names. But even then, Modi continues to heave a sigh of relief, because Kejriwal once again is letting him to be used as a tool to diminish the current debate just when Rahul Gandhi cries vendetta. Because educated Indian bourgeois class and its aspirants know quite well, that when vendetta too appears meritocratic, it is no longer to be treated as a misuse of power.

Advertisements

Fidgets: Manmohan Singh who called revolutionaries ‘left viruses’, calls CBI Court ‘mindless’

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is in fidgets, as situation has been created to judicially focus on his face.

Being summoned by the CBI Court in Coal Block allocation scam, instead of cooperating with the Court as an ideal citizen, he is trying to evade the Court, by preferring a litigation in the Supreme Court of India seeking quashing of the summon.

At the crux of his petition lies his perception that the CBI Court is mindless.

The summon issued to him is generated because of “non application of mind”, he has alleged.

He is a man who, in his nefarious design to render the Constitution of India purposeless by sabotaging its resolve for socialism, had hurled the wordy filth ‘left viruses’ at the revolutionaries that fight for socialism, to overcome whose impact his government was giving the people opiates like subsidized wheat and rice to keep them under slow-starvation while continuing to densify capitalism, which was the cause of starvation.

Now the same man Manmohan Singh, lest the CBI Court comes to the conclusion that he was working as a comprador in the coal block allocation matter, has called the Court mindless.

When in Office, Singh had tried to belittle the dignity of India’s Constitutional Authority of Audit – the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) – whose reports were exposing the black deeds of his administration.

Singh was terribly irritated when in March 2012 the CAG estimated that the country has suffered a financial loss to the tune of Rs.10.7 Lakh Crores because of scam in coal block allocation during the period from 2004 to 2009. In May 29, 2012, he asserted that he would give up his public life if found guilty of the scam.

When the CBI court is attempting to find out whether or not he is guilty of the scam, and the ready issue in hand is his role in allocation of Talbira -II coal block to a particular private company called Hindalco in 1996, the same Manmohan Singh is trying to quash the Court’s attempt to reach at the truth!

The people of India have punished the Congress as severely as possible only in order to avenge Manmohan Singh’s misrule and treason against the country. His administration was marked for unprecedented treachery against the people, subjugation of India to American hegemony, compromising with India’s future in order to ensure “bonanza” to Americam Nuke traders, and amongst may other offenses against the country, attempts to thwart the Supreme Court’s judgment through vested interest ordinances, disturbed over which, Rahul Gandhi, the only person in Congress marked for his eagerness to be one with the poorest of the poor Indians the victims of or threatened by big private industries, had called Manmohan’s ordinance-missile against the Court as ‘Nonsense’.

Let the Supreme Court decide his petition as it likes, because there is no avenue available to the people to intervene with what it will hold.

But the conscience of any citizen of this country holds that whether or not the former Prime Minister of India has acted a comprador in coal block allocation to Hindalco be determined through a competent Court of Law within a specific time.

Hansada hoodwinked the High Court, embarrassed Orissa by attending Lok Sabha as an accused in custody

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Should the High Court allow itself to be hoodwinked by an under-trial prisoner, who is a ruling party member of the Lok Sabha? This question needs cogitation, because judiciary is the last hope for the people when compradors and criminals rule the roost in politics and, hence, must not be the lost hope.

Orissa’s Ruling party has many such members, who, if cases were not limping in courts, would have been branded as criminals.

Ramchandra Hansada, ruling party member of Lok Sabha from Mayurbhanj Constituency is in Jail as an under-trial-prisoner in a case of chit fund scam. He was arrested on 04 November 2014 and the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) is prosecuting him in connection with R.C.No.50/S/2014-SCB/KOL.

In jail custody, he has failed to attend the sessions of the Lok Sabha. He has not taken permission of the Lok Sabha to remain absent. So his absence is unauthorized and voluminous enough to threaten him with disqualification under Article 101 (4) of the Constitution of India.

Article 101 (4)

The Article stipulates, “If for a period of sixty days a member of either House of Parliament is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant:
Provided that in computing the said period of sixty days no account shall be taken of any period during which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for more than four consecutive days”.

Using this Article as a ploy, he tried to hoodwink the Judiciary for bail, but failed.

Orders of the lower Courts

On 12.February 2-15, the Special CJM, CBI rejected his petition dated 6 February 2015 on the ground that, Article 101 (4) of the Constitution “shall not come to his rescue”, as “his detention in the judicial custody under criminal charges is lawful” when the offenses allegedly committed by him “are not within the due discharge of his lawful function as a sitting member of Parliament”.

The Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar also refused his petition for bail – B.A.No.183 of 2015 – on 21 Februaary 2015, relying upon a ruling of the Apex Court reported in 1966 SCR (2) 406 that rights of a member of Parliament to attend the session of Parliament to participate in the debate “are not constitutional rights in the strict sense of the term and quite clearly, they are not fundamental rights at all”. Refusing to be misled to accept a general Notice of Secretary-General of Parliament to a member for attending the Parliament session as a Summon from the President which Hansada was insisting to be, the Sessions Judge refused him bail, as to him, “nature of the offenses committed, particularly seriousness of economic offense” are too severe for enlarging him on bail; and when “further investigation is in progress” it would not be in consonance with “the larger interest of society and state”.

Writ Petition in the High Court

The High Court of Orissa was moved thereafter in W.P. ( C ) No. 3715 of 2015 seeking “release” of Hansada from jail to enable him to attend the Parliament, as otherwise his membership would collapse under Article 101 (4) of the Constitution necessitating a fresh election in his constituency of Mayurbhanj which would denude the exchequer of huge money. The High Court, in a ruling on Misc. Case No. 3722 of 2015 arising out of the Writ case, has rendered Article 101 (4) of the Constitution inconsequential in his case and helped him retain his membership by releasing him from the jail to attend the ensuing session of the Lok Sabha for a day on 20 March 2015.

Orissa in embarrassment

In this ruling, the CBI is directed to receive him from the jail as an accused under custody and hand him over to the Security officer of the Parliament who in turn shall return him to CBI after he joins the Lok Sabha session for a day. March 23 has been stipulated as the day of his reproduction before the CBI Court at Bhubaneswar to be remanded to the jail again. We consider such presentation of the MP to the Lok Sabha very embarrassing to Orissa.

Was this order necessary? Had Hansada not been judicially helped to overcome the mischief of Article 101 (4), was he sure to forfeit his membership? We would like to seek the answer.

Peculiarity of Article 101 (4)

The peculiarity of this article is that it has an inbuilt remedial provision that a member may resort to in order to avoid disqualification due to absence for a period of sixty days or more. He/she has to seek permission to stay absent for a long period under unavoidable circumstances. Hansada was never debarred from applying for permission. He has told the High Court that he has applied for leave of absence, which has not been denied. This means, mischief of Article 101 (4) was not to hit him with termination of his membership. The very thinking of termination of his membership while his application for leave of absence is pending in the Parliament is itself an affront to dignity of Parliament, being suggestive of possible contravention of the law of natural justice in the highest law making House of India.

Remedial Provisions

Lest the law of natural justice gets contravened in matter of Article 101(4), provisions are made for notice to the member found absent for 40 days, so that the member shall apply for leave of absence before the Article gets activated against him or her. This is as per recommendation of the Committee on Absence of Members on 13 March 1956, when founding fathers of our Constitution were members of this Committee. On 24 March 1975, 11 April 1975 and 25 July 1975, CAM further prescribed that reminder would be sent to a member when his/her continuous absence amounts to fifty days. Hansada has not revealed whether or not he was reminded by the Lok Sabha Secretariat of his absence. If he was not reminded of his absence in time, the Lok Sabha was in such fault that termination of his membership on absence of sixty days (in fact 55 days by the day the High Court issued the order in question) would have been impossible, because, all the members in the current CAM are supposed to have expertise in handling leave of absence of members.

Moreover, there are provisions in practice for condonation of absence without permission, even when the period exceeds sixty days. Condonation of absence of B. Shiva Rao without permission for 68 days [3R (CAM-1 LS)] is one of many instances.

The House Committee

The Lok Sabha has a Committee to deal with absence of Members from the sittings of the House, created under Rule 325.

This Committee, under Rule 326 (1) (i) and (ii) is empowered to consider all applications from members for leave of absence from the sittings of the House and to examine and report every case where a member has been absent for a period of 60 days or more, without permission, from the sittings of the House.

Practice and Procedure

So, even if Hansda was to be hit with Article 101 (4) by not joining the sessions of the Lok Sabha for more than 60 days his membership was not to be terminated on ground of absence. The Court has recorded that the CBI has already informed the Speaker about the arrest of Hansada and his detention jn jail as an under-trial prisoner. So the Parliament is aware of his absence due to detention in jail. Detention in Jail is a recognized ground for condonation of absence beyond sixty days. (Leave of Absence of Members; Practice and Procedure of Parliament, p.409).

Without travesty of repetition, it can, therefore, be said that even if he would have stayed away from the sittings for more than 60 days, it should have been wrong to assume that by such absence he was to forfeit his membership. The Committee on absence of members might have recommended in his favor as “detention in jail” could never have been considered as willful absence. Might be, the Committee could have recommended for “condonation” of his absences on the ground of “detention in jail” in view of precedences created by the CAM, one of which is cited supra.

Direction should have been different

Orissa High Court should have taken this constitutional provision, invigorated with Rules and Procedures of the Parliament into consideration and should have directed Hansda to avail the constitutional facility prescribed for members of Parliament who remain absent around or beyond the permissible period of 60 days, instead of allowing him to attend the Lok Sabha session for a day under judicial custody.

But the role of the CAM, and the remedies available to him under the scheme of CAM and Parliamentary precedences were not placed before the High Court by Hansada. Obviously the High Court was hoodwinked.

Incorrigible Congress

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

It seems the Congress Party is incorrigible. For its offense of keeping Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister, people of India have punished this party by thrashing it into the ignominy of having no strength even to have the chair of the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Instead of condemning Singh for all the offenses he committed against the people of India, the party has staged demonstration in his support, when a Special Court has summoned him in the matter of coal block scam.

Repeated use of CBI to cultivate a clean chit for Singh has failed and the Court has declared that there are “incriminating circumstances”, enough to summon Singh to find out the truth. The Court has taken note of “the extra undue interest” Singh’s office had overwhelmed the MoC with to help Kumar Mangalam Birla bag the Talabira-II coal block for Hindalco. “The repeated reminders from PMO, written as well as telephonic, to MoC to expeditiously process” the allocation of the coal block to Hindalco is an indicator, according to the 75-page order of the court promulgating the summon on March 11.

As the mega scam had come out in CAG report and as concerned files were found missing, we had wondered in these pages: Are members of the Congress Party not ashamed of Manmohan Singh?

Congress members did not dare to express their shame.

Had they, the Congress party might not have been forced out of office by the people.

Now in support of Manmohan Singh, they have dared to condemn the judicial wisdom of the Special Court!

It seems the Congress Party is incorrigible.

Read:
Are members of the Congress Party not ashamed of Manmohan Singh?

Also read:

Manmohan must be made to quit

And browse pages of this site to read many more write-ups on how Singh had played mischief against India when in office. In absence of an organized uncompromising Left,  the nation needs the Congress most urgently now. members of the Congress party should tell their so-called supremo Sonia Gandhi that they ought to stand with the people of India, not with fellows like Manmohan Singh who sabotaged Indian interest to provide the “Bonanza for U.S. Firms” they were so desperately searching for.

Read one more of the speaking articles:

Come Elections, the Nuke deal won’t be able to help Singh retain his position

This posting is directly addressed to the members of the Congress Party. Let them shun sycophancy and wake up in cause of the Nation. More than me, they know, how Manmohan Singh has harmed India. Let them rise to the occasion, help the Court to prosecute him and welcome if he is punished. If they do this, I believe, people may again embrace the Congress, in absence of a credible Communist movement.

Why Bail? Are not bails lingering litigations? Supreme Court should issue a Whitepaper

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak
Orissa High Court has enlarged suspended BJD legislator Pravat Kumar Tripathy on bail. He has been released from the jail to extravaganza of a reception by his sycophants, posing as if the appropriate Court was wrong in remanding him to jail. Tripathy was arrested by the CBI on 31 October 2014 on charges of involvement with chit fund Artha Tattva. His bail application was opposed by the CBI on the ground that, once enlarged on bail, he being a political heavyweight, the witnesses may be influenced and evidences may be tampered. But, bail was granted by the Orissa High Court. It has given birth to speculations that the bail granted to him may open up the gates to freedom of other politicians presently in the jail under chit fund related charges.

Every offense in India is bailable. The word “non-bailable” does not extinguish the provision of bail. It means, if the offense is non-bailable only higher echelon of judiciary can grant the bail. So, there is no wrong in granting the bail to Tripathy by the High Court.

But, can the High Court obstruct any cleaver and clandestine attempts to tackle the witnesses or evidences? Has anywhere at any time the judiciary has acted a secret police to catch and thwart any act in action to tamper with the evidences by the accused released on bail?

On the other hand, bails are helping the culprits linger the litigations everywhere. And, in many cases, it is seen that the under trial offenders on bail are getting acquittals ultimately. Whether or not the freedom given to them through bails foils the prosecution is never studied.

It is time, the Supreme Court of India should publish a Whitepaper on bails so that the people can know how bails affect the litigation time and can study the final verdicts in matters of culprits enlarged on bail.
Judicial discretion in matter of bail should not be factors to foil prosecution.

Chit Fund Felony: Artha Tattwa Facilitator Rewarded with Promotion and Posting of Choice

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Who is the Godfather of Smt. Gayatri Patnaik, now Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies-cum-MD, Orissa State Cooperative Handicrafts Corporation Ltd, is a must for the CBI to find out, as otherwise root of the felony may not be reached at.

Smt. Patnaik was Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies when all administrative norms and practices were contravened by her in registering the cooperative gimmick of Pradeep Sethy – the Artha Tattwa Multipurpose Co-op. Society Ltd on 3 November 2010, within 3 days of receipt of his application.

She has been rewarded with promotions and postings of her choice, keeping inconsequential the departmental proceeding instituted against her for serious offenses located through an inquiry.

Government of Orissa in the department of Cooperation had asked B.B.Mishra, DD (Statistics), Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Orissa, vide Letter No. 1026 dt.27 January 2011, to inquire into allegations leveled against her by leading members of Capital Coop. Housing Society Ltd.

The Inquiry Officer found that, Ms. Patnaik had captured the said Society’s CEO post by herself, “by utilizing one administrative order of the Govt. having no relevance to any authority under OCS Act and Rule 1962 and 1965 respectively”.

While holding this self-acquisition of the post of CEO absolutely illegal, the IO observed that “Smt Gayatri Patnaik should have waited for formal acceptance of her joining report by the management of the Cooperative Society before starting work including handling of cash and assets of the Society”.

Holding that, “A person acting as chief executive of the cooperative society without express permission of the management amounts to impersonation and her action can be very well termed as trespassing”, the IO declared, “all action done by Smt. Gayatri Patnaik are ultra vires in law unless until approved by the management of the Capital Housing Ltd”.

She was found to have transferred the Society’s funds to another organization “surreptitiously” allowing the chief executive thereof to operate it. This is “quite illegal and breach of trust” and “provision of the by-law (of the Society) has been seriously flouted by Smt. G. Patnaik in this case”, the IO has reported.

The report is full of adverse remarks on Smt. Patnaik. It was submitted on 2 November 2011.

It gathered dust in the Government for about one and half years. On 10 April 2013, vide order No. 3034/Coop, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government in the department of Cooperation, suspended her “with immediate effect” for “acts of omission and commissions during her incumbency as ARCS, Bhubaneswar”.

But the charges against her were suppressed and under signature of an Undersecretary, in the name of the Governor, which is a normal practice, she was “reinstated in Government service” on 23 September 2013 under Notification No. 7814/Coop.

On reinstatement, she was placed under the department of Hand-looms, Textiles and Handicrafts “for posting as DRCS (Industries) in the Directorate of Handicrafts”.

After she was thus rewarded with reinstatement and placed in a very comfortable post, as a matter of formality, she was served with a charge sheet on 30 October 2013. That charge sheet is not yet acted upon and she has been given extra lucrative assignment as MD of Orissa State Cooperative Handicrafts Corporation Ltd (Utkalika).

Had she not been in alliance with Pradeep Sethy in registering the Artha Tattwa Multipurpose Co-op. Society Ltd in total disregard to departmental norms in 2010, she would have faced prosecution for the serious offenses enumerated in the Inquiry Report and memorandum of charges the Government had asked her to meet.

Who is her godfather in the Government that has kept the disciplinary proceeding instituted against her inconsequential till date should be found out by CBI that has been investigating into Artha Tattwa’s chit fund felony.

It is worth mention that the General Secretary of All Orissa Primary Handicrafts Co-op. Societies Presidents and Artisans Association, in a letter to the Chief Minister written on 19 October 2014, has raised severe allegations against Smt. Gayatri Patnaik .

But, there is no action on the same as yet.

The mystery of CM’s silence on the Association’s letter is intriguing.

The Assembly Imbroglio: Loser is the Chief Minister

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Despite fabulous majority – 117 members in a 147 seater Assembly – Orissa Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik looks like a pathetic loser, as a mere 30 member strong multi-party Opposition has put him on the mat where he does not dare to open his mouth.

At the crux of this imbroglio lies the chit fund felony.

Significantly, the Opposition is not holding the Cabinet, as a whole, responsible for this, whereas it has unambiguously pointed out at Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik, who seems to have acted God Father to at least one of the crooks – Prasant Dash of SeaShore.

It should have been proper for Naveen to explain his position; because he is not an individual alone, but a Chief Minister.

It is not becoming of a Chief Minister to use silence as the best method of defense.

On the 14th day of its commencement, Orissa Assembly collapsed again to adjournment till 3 PM today after less than a minute of beginning of the Question Hour.

At par with our views, the daily Sanchar, founded and guided by the most astute member of Naveen’s cabinet Dr. Damodar Raut, also has opined that, the Chief Minister shouldn’t shy at the Opposition in the chit fund matter and rather should put forth with honesty the details of the scam as has come out in course of investigation, so that denigration of the image of the Government in the eyes of the people may stop.

But, instead of correcting himself, the Chief Minister has taken refuge in the ruling of the Speaker that the chit fund matter being sub judice, cannot be subjected to debates of the House.

This plea is abysmally poor.

From what the Opposition is stressing upon, it is clear that, it wants accounts of the Chief Minister on his suspected link with chit fund crooks. The Chief Minister’s link with chit fund crooks is never before any court of law. So, it is not acceptable that the matter is sub judice. It would fit better to legislative magnanimity if the Speaker recalls his ruling and allows debates on chit fund felony without any prejudice to matters before the court. Assembly secretariat should be used to apprise the members of what exactly is su judice. Beyond that, free debate on chit fund should be allowed.