Tag Archive | National Democratic Alliance

Thousand-Wise, Billion-Foolish ? – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                                February 20, 2005

Yashwant Sinha, Finance Minister of India

Yashwant Sinha, India’s former Finance Minister (Photo: Wikipedia)

Thousand-Wise, Billion-Foolish ?

 

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – Authorities preparing India’s 2005 Budget have been urged to stop exempting dividends Indian and foreign promoters earn– to the tune of thousands of crores of rupees.

Virtually unnoticed by millions of toiling Indian taxpayers, hundreds– perhaps thousands– of promoters have netted thousands of crores of rupees free of tax over the past eight years.

Critics say in an economy which suffers from managerial and resource inadequacy and does not ensure citizens’ access to water, housing, jobs, an effective system of justice and other basics, such policies smack of a class bias.

On one hand, authorities tax wage earners and even productivity awards, and have cut provident fund interest.

On the other, lakhs of crores are sunk in non-performing assets– loans the rich haven’t repaid– and thousands of crores fly out as company reserves distributed to individuals are exempted.

According to a news report this week, some multinationals running operations in India have declared huge dividend payouts– windfalls for bulk shareholders abroad.

The joyride started in February 1997 with then Congress Finance Minister P Chidambaram abolishing dividend tax on recipients as part of what the market hailed as a ”dream budget.”

In fact, says one critic, this was the prospect that brought the cheer and the accolades.

Since then, governments– National Democratic Alliance as well as United Progressive Alliance– have– with one exception– exempted recipients, encouraging companies to declare higher dividends– or tax-free cash year after year.

One e-published source claims the average dividend payout from Indian companies moved up from 20 per cent to 25 per cent in financial year 2004.

According to India Infoline, a hundred companies paid Rs 4,334.18 crore dividends for 2003-04– up 54.1 per cent over the Rs 2,811.3 crore paid in the previous year.

Advocates of dividend tax exemption claim it eliminates double taxation of profits– in the hands of the company and again in the hands of shareholders.

But opponents say taxing dividends declared by companies is not the same as taxing recipients’ dividend income.

A 19th century United States court ruling held that ”the capital stock of a corporation, and the shares into which such stock may be divided and held by individual shareholders, are two distinct pieces of property.

”The capital stock and the shares of stock in the hands of the shareholders may both be taxed, and it is not double taxation,” US Judge Rufus Peckham declared in 1896 in Bank of Commerce v State of Tennessee.

Asked to comment, a top Indian economist, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, ”There is no valid argument against taxing dividend or to favour exemption, especially considering that even wage earners who take home far less, are taxed.”

Yet, through that single exemption, critics say, the NDA and the UPA governments between them have contributed to thousands of crores of rupees of revenue shortfall over the years.

One man who tried to end that spree was NDA Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha who allowed exemption in February 2001– but abolished it a year later.

In that budget speech– his last– Sinha confessed he was troubled by the ”inherent inequity” in the system which ”must go.”

മലയാളം: ജസ്വന്ത് സിംഹ്

Jaswant Singh (Photo: Wikipedia)

The inequity: ”Income is exempt in the hands of the recipient” and ”allows persons in the high-income groups to be taxed at much lower rates than the rates applicable to them.”

Sinha said, ”these issues have been troubling me over the past four years, and I am now convinced that the existing system must go.” He moved to abolish tax on dividends distributed by companies and levy it on ”such income… in the hands of the recipients.”

”Few are aware,” Sinha remarked in a newspaper interview in July 2002, ”that there are people in this country who have been earning anything between Rs 10 to Rs 20 crore by way of dividends. They have been earning in crores without having to pay any tax. You think it is unjustified to tax them?” he countered.

His previous Budget, Sinha went on, registered a revenue shortfall of Rs 40,000 crore, of which ”something like Rs 22,000 crore could be directly ascribed to concessions.”

Sinha’s public remarks notwithstanding, such qualms did not appear to weigh with either his NDA successor, Jaswant Singh, or UPA incumbent Chidambaram.

In a telephone interview this week, Sinha told UNI he believed that ”all income should be treated alike from the point of view of tax.”

He said ”the hue and cry that followed the 2002 budget was largely on account of the fact that I re-introduced tax on the dividend. Many opinion makers invest in stocks and resented the tax.”

But the exemption was reintroduced in 2003 on expert advice supplied by a group led by Dr Vijay Kelkar, an economist and former International Monetary Fund executive director.

The group recommended exempting dividend both in the hands of shareholders as well as companies distributing it.

Singh was petitioned by the Legal Cell of All India Tax Payers’ Association which spelt out the incongruity in taxing everyone– even agriculturists– but exempting dividends to promoters.

Palaniappan Chidambaram (1)

Palaniappan Chidambaram (Photo: Wikipedia)

The Association warned that letting huge tax free sums accumulate in the hands of industrialists would increase the gap between rich and poor– violating Article 14 and the spirit of Article 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution.

Those Articles provide for equality before law and forbid pursuit of economic policies that result in concentration of wealth to common detriment.

The Association said the move for full fledged exemption had not even found takers in the US.

Last week, the petitioners again represented to the authorities, urging withdrawal of exemption of tax on dividends in recipients’ hands, saying it amounts to discrimination between a common taxpayer and industrialists.

The Association says the dividends declared by companies end up in the pocket of the private management controlling the majority of shares, adding to individual incomes.

It says ten or twelve per cent tax companies must pay to declare dividend is not much price for promoters to transfer company reserves to individual accounts.

Individuals in control of companies can thus help themselves to more and more tax free income– increasing the gap between rich and poor and possibly undermining companies and jobs, it says.

UNI MJ RA GR1013

Advertisements

Drawing Line Between Trial And Punishment ! – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                                          March 25, 2011

M. Veerappa Moila

M. Veerappa Moily (Photo: Nestlé)

Drawing Line Between Trial And Punishment !

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – More than 300,000 under-trials were let out of custody after a special drive begun early last year but with new arrivals daily the number in prisons remains almost what it was– more than 200,000.

”Imagine the plight in absence of such an effort,” was how a senior government official responded when asked about the impact of the special drive, which, he pointed out, has been extended.

Article 21 of the Constitution lays down that ”No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

A statistic to bear in mind: roughly two out of every three prisoners in India are under-trials– only one is a convict serving sentence.

Doing Time, Doing Vipassana

Guilty or Innocent (Photo: publik16)

That, critics say, is a telling reflection of a justice system ostensibly committed to treating an accused as innocent until proven guilty.

For instance, 162 of 543 Members elected to Parliament in 2009 faced criminal charges as against 128 in 2004. Correspondingly, 76 and 58 of them faced serious charges.

Of 813 legislative assembly members in Assam, Kerala, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, which go to the polls next month, 204 faced criminal charges, 83 of them serious charges.

Serious crime cases include those involving murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, robbery and extortion.

The special drive was an initiative by Law and Justice Minister M Veerappa Moily to decongest prisons.

”We want to dispose of as many as two-thirds of the under-trial cases by July 31,” Dr Moily told journalists on Republic Day eve 14 months ago. ”The mission begins January 26.”

The exercise involved expediting legal process for some 200,000 under-trials as part of a National Mission for Delivery of Justice and Legal Reforms.

In a jurisprudence known to let even those accused of serious crimes get bail or get elected to legislatures, many under-trials are believed to spend longer in jail than their alleged petty crimes warrant.

By law anyone arrested has a right to be informed of any charges he or she faces, consult a lawyer of his or her choice and to be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.

Lawyers say that without legal aid, those who cannot afford bail inevitably suffer prolonged incarceration during the pendency of investigation by police and trial by a court.

Experts say they languish simply because they are illiterate, do not know their rights or charges they face, and cannot afford lawyers– although Rs 50 crores is spent annually on legal aid.

According to a National Human Rights Commission consultant, India’s prison capacity in December 2008 was 293,144 inmates, against which 386,791 inmates were actually in prison– 264,502 of them under-trials and 122,289, convicts.

While authorities have been acquiescing in the miscarriage of justice, the victims’ plight has, from time to time, evoked concern at home and abroad with critics assailing India’s tortuously slow courts.

India is bound by several international human rights conventions and for decades the government as well as courts have been aware of the violations.

An early official reference to the plight of under-trial prisoners came in the findings of K F Rustamji, a National Police Commission member, 32 years ago.

He saw under-trials as ”dumb, simple persons, caught in the web of the law, unable to comprehend as to what has happened, what the charge against them is, or why they have been sent to jail,” and prisons as a system ”slowly grinding thousands of people into dust.”

Indeed, the first public interest litigation– Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar… 1979– brought to light how undertrial prisoners had been in jail longer than if they had been charged, tried, convicted and given maximum punishment.

Supreme Court lawyers recall a September 1977 judgement by Justice V R Krishna Iyer who held that ”the basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail.”

Among exceptions he spelt out ”are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like.”

”It made clear that incarceration in the name of judicial custody and protracted or delayed trial is itself criminal as it hits at the very base of Article 21,” says advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta.

Eight years ago, National Democratic Alliance Law Minister Jana Krishnamurthy drew attention to the plight of more than 200,000 under-trials.

”It’s a shame,” he said, that in independent India men and women have to await their day in court for over ten years.

The yearly cost to public exchequer for under-trials upkeep was then estimated at Rs 4.6 crore.

Although under-trials’ guilt is yet to be proven, they remain in prison almost indefinitely.

Experts say unlike convicts, found guilty, they are not even entitled to such basics as uniforms, literacy lessons or work.

NHRC consultant Lakshmidhar Mishra says children and juveniles are worse off inasmuch as they are put up in regular jails with hardened criminals contrary to law for lodging them in police lockups or observation homes, which are neither adequate in number nor adequately equipped.

There was no let-up until about a year ago, when a move to cut two thirds of under-trial cases was announced by Dr Moily of the United Progressive Alliance.

Addressing lawyers on November 26, 2009, marked as Law Day, the Minister regretted the justice system’s failure to give every citizen equal protection of law.

”A necessary corollary to the guarantee of the rule of law is Article 14 of the Constitution,” Dr Moily reminded.

Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

”Unfortunately,” he admitted that ”justice delivery system in its working in India has not been able to guarantee this protection to every citizen– man, woman and child.”

The government asked High Courts to identify under-trials not involved in heinous crimes or preventive detention so that their cases may be put on a fast track to expedite pressing cases.

The Indian Constitution guarantees speedy trial. But the commodity is routinely in short supply, with litigation often taking years, even decades.

Indian courts have close to 31 million cases pending, a factor that discourages justice seekers at home, investors from abroad, and has even judges advocating alternative ways of resolving disputes.

Hope may be hard to entertain given hundreds of High Court judgeships and thousands of lower judicial posts perennially vacant and inconsistent sentencing practices across India undermining the deterrent value of law.

Government figures show that there were 213,739 under-trials in prison as the drive got underway.

Over the next six months or so, only 43,504 were convicted and 50,282 discharged.

As many as 309,728 under-trials were released after having been kept in jails for unspecified periods.

About the same time, 399,115 new under-trials arrived in prisons across India, to wait for their day in the court.

Government data indicate that of 612,854 under-trials in prison for unspecified periods– ranging from a day to possibly several years– merely 7.09 per cent were actually convicted in those six months or so.

The figures made available do not, for instance, specify how long individuals spent in jail on what sort of charges before they were convicted, discharged or released.

Nor has there been a mention of compensating any who might have been jailed or held without basis.

Any compensation awarded by human rights or other authorities is discretionary, depending on how a given judge feels at the moment– hardly fair.

No compensation is mandated by the Indian Constitution or statutes for wrongful confinement.

In a telephone interview with United News of India special correspondent Mukesh Jhangiani, Dr Mishra called it ”a significant omission,” and agreed that a remedial legislation is needed.

But given the pace of legislation in India, remedies are neither swift nor easy.

The figures indicating that the number of under-trials in prison at the end of the drive was 212,454– just 1,285 less than at the outset– do not necessarily reflect a nationwide trend.

In 16 out of 27 States or Union territories for which the Justice Department has received figures, the numbers actually went up.

West Bengal led in this increase with 14,238 under-trials put into prisons while 9,337 were released, an increase of 4,901 under-trials in prison.

It was followed by Orissa, with an increase of 4,305, Rajasthan, 3071, Haryana, 1,737, Jharkhand, 1,726, Bihar, 1,550, Chhattisgarh, 1,516, Gujarat, 1,086, and Assam, 1,000.

Smaller increases were reported by Andhra Pradesh, 678, Punjab, 677, Kerala, 652, Manipur, 238, Tripura, 118, Himachal Pradesh, 107, Goa, 106, Nagaland, 69, and Arunachal Pradesh, 47.

One State which reported the highest decline was Uttar Pradesh which released 77,205 under-trials while putting in jail 55,287, an actual decrease of 21,918.

It was followed by Madhya Pradesh, where the number of under-trials in prison declined by 748, Karnataka, 643, Uttarakhand, 569, New Delhi, 356, Maharashtra, 257, Mizoram, 156, Meghalaya, 112, Sikkim, 58, Chandigarh, 11, and Daman and Diu, 1.

The Department had no figures immediately from Tamil Nadu, Jammu and Kashmir, Andaman and Nicobar, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Lakshadweep and Puducherry.

The programme originally scheduled to end on July 31, ”is continuing,” Dr Moily told journalists a few weeks ago.

From citizens’ perspective locking up innocent, law-abiding individuals is as undesirable and indeed repugnant as letting crooks and lawbreakers roam free or shape laws or societies.

UNI MJ NK 1749

How ‘Functional Felony’ Creeps Into Judiciary : CJI – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                                March 14, 2005

CJI R C Lahoti

How ‘Functional Felony’ Creeps Into Judiciary : CJI

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – Personal visits to Judges’ residences, dinner invitations from lawyers and political pressures are some of ways in which ”functional felony creeps into the judiciary,” India’s Chief Justice has cautioned.

As a counter, Justice Ramesh Chandra Lahoti has stressed such time-tested judicial ethics as independence, impartiality, integrity and propriety.

Justice Lahoti was delivering the Inaugural M C Setalvad Memorial Lecture on Canons of Judicial Ethics organised by the Bar Association of India recently.

It was an evening given to remembering one of India’s finest lawyers– a ‘grand’ practioner, who charged ‘reasonable’ fees irrespective of stakes and respected Judges, but declined Judgeship.

The hall packed mostly with judges and lawyers heard a message from former Supreme Court Judge V R Krishna Iyer: ”Today, when the decline and fall have become deleteriously visible in the two sister professions, the memory of Setalvad will be a necessary admonition.”

The ethics topic sat well with 2005 dubbed the Year of Excellence in Judiciary. Judicial misconduct in India has no legal remedy.

Codes of ethics have been tried time and again, Justice Lahoti said, adding that if required to make a reference to such documents, he would ”confine myself… to three”:

— The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life adopted by the Chief Justices’ Conference of India, 1999

— The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, 2002

— The Oath of a Judge as contained in the Third Schedule of the Constitution of India.

As Justice Lahoti spelt out the documents it became clear that a number of Judges are already in violation of one or another of the canons of ethics.

Take Canon 4 of the Restatement: A Judge should not permit any member of his immediate family, such as spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law or daughter-in-law or any other close relative, if a member of the Bar, to appear before him or even be associated in any manner with a cause to be dealt with by him.

Over a year ago, the Bar Council of India (BCI) asked the government to transfer 130 High Court Judges who have relatives practising in courts in which they function. That meant almost one in four HC Judges. India’s 21 HCs between them had close to 500 Judges in place, the remaining positions being vacant. No action ensued.

The BCI is the apex statutory grouping of India’s 800,000 or so lawyers.

The trouble, experts say, is that a code of ethics cannot be enforced.

Indeed, as Law and Justice Minister Hans Raj Bhardwaj reminded audience, ethics cannot be foisted on anyone and should be left to the institution to evolve or embrace.

Nor does law in India make a proper provision to discipline Judges.

One option provided is impeachment, which, experts say, is more a political remedy than legal. It failed the only time it was invoked in 1992 against a Supreme Court Judge accused of corruption.

With Congress Members of Parliament under a whip to abstain in the vote to impeach Justice V Ramaswamy, Parliament virtually abdicated its duty to ensure accountability in Judiciary.

That was not perhaps the first time an Indian Judge had misbehaved. It certainly was not the last.

A spate of allegations has surfaced over the years involving HC Judges– in Karnataka, Rajasthan, Bombay, Delhi, Chennai, Calcutta and Punjab and Haryana– in bribery, sex and abuse of office, resulting in a few cases to transfer, removal, even arrest.

In one bizarre episode, dozens of HC Judges took leave en masse because two of them were asked by their Chief Justice to explain why they took complimentary membership from a club, which was a litigant.

One of Justice Lahoti’s predecessors, Justice Sam Piroj Bharucha told a lawyers’ meet in Kollam, Kerala three years ago that ”more than 80 per cent of the Judges in this country, across the board, are honest and incorruptible.

”It is that smaller percentage that brings the entire judiciary into disrepute. To make it known that the judiciary does not tolerate corruption in its ranks, it is requisite that corrupt Judges should be investigated and dismissed from service.”

A year later, Justice Bhupinder Nath Kirpal told a judicial colloquium that Judges ”are also Indian citizens who come from the same aggregate as those in the legislature and the administration.”

”Therefore,” Justice Kirpal said, ”there are also instances where corruption and incompetence have also pervaded the judicial establishment that cannot be denied.”

But as Justice Lahoti pointed out, ”The Judge can ill-afford to seek shelter from the fallen standard in the society.”

The trouble, experts say, is that in absence of a clearly laid down law, opacity takes over where will to cover up asserts itself.

Former Chief Justice Jagdish Sharan Verma, during whose tenure the Supreme Court Judges adopted the resolutions on Values of Judicial Life in May 1997, has called for a clear law to discipline errant Judges.

In a radio talk show aired two months ago, Justice Verma said: ”Time has come for enforcing judicial accountability.”

Asked to explain his insistence that the process be conducted by the judiciary itself, he said any external effort would be dangerous for judiciary’s independence.

Justice Verma said he sent the resolutions in December 1997 to then caretaker Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral, requesting enactment of such a law. ”It has not happened so far.”

Some two months ago, Bhardwaj announced a Group of Ministers set up to suggest steps to strengthen the Judges Inquiry Act 1968 as part of an effort to ensure accountability in governance.

Asked after the Lecture as to when the group will give its findings, the Minister told UNI it would probably be after the Budget session.

Corruption in their ranks is not the only issue Judges must reckon with: they have a huge workload– 24 million pendencies– and inadequate strength– 14,000 judicial officers from district level upwards, as against an estimated need of 50,000, topped by a large many vacancies.

Experts question lingering HC vacancies considering that the five member apex court collegium expected to select appointees knows well in advance when a vacancy is due to arise.

Law Ministry officials say 222 HC positions were vacant against an approved strength of 719 last year when the United Progressive Alliance took over from the National Democratic Alliance.

Bhardwaj has said all vacancies will be filled by the end of this year.

”It is futile to think of excellence,” Justice Lahoti said in his lecture, unless judges– howsoever highly or howsoever lowly placed– ”were to follow the canons of judicial ethics.”

He recounted how veteran Judges handled ethical issues. One instance involved a dinner for Judges given by a lawyer– paid for by a client whose matter was to come up in the court a day later while another was about a Vacation Judge approached for ‘interim’ stay by an advocate who happened to be the son of the then Chief Justice.

The dinner story in former Chief Justice Pralhad Balacharya Gajendragadkar’s words: ”So far as I know, I and K C Das Gupta did not attend. Most of others did. The dinner was held on a Saturday at a hotel. On Monday next, before the Bench over which B P Sinha presided and I and K C Das Gupta were his colleagues, we found that there was a matter pending admission between the management of the hotel chain and its workmen.

”I turned to Sinha and said: ‘Sinha, how can we take this case? The whole lot of supervisors and workmen in the hotel is sitting in front and they know that we have been fed in the hotel ostensibly by the lawyer but in truth at the cost of the hotel, because the very lawyer who invited the judges to the dinner is arguing in the hotel’s appeal.’

”Sinha, the great gentleman that he was, immediately saw the point and said: ‘This case would go before another Bench’.”

Justice Iyer’s tale of the Vacation Judge: ”Naturally, since the caller was an advocate, and on top of it, the son of the Chief Justice, the vacation judge allowed him to call on him. The ‘gentleman’ turned up with another person and unblushingly told the vacation judge that his companion had a case that day on the list of the vacation judge. He wanted a ‘small’ favour of an ‘Interim stay’.

”The judge was stunned and politely told the two men to leave the house. Later, when the Chief Justice came back to Delhi after the vacation, the victim judge reported to him about the visit of his son with a client and his ‘prayer’ for a stay in a pending case made at the home of the Judge.

”The Chief Justice was not disturbed but dismissed the matter as of little consequence. ‘After all, he only wanted an interim stay’, said the Chief justice, ‘and not a final decision’.”

The incident, Justice Lahoti went on, ”reveals the grave dangers of personal visits to judges’ residences under innocent pretexts.

”This is the way functional felony creeps into the judiciary. A swallow does not make a summer maybe, but deviances once condoned become inundations resulting in credibility collapse of the institution.”

”A little isolation and aloofness are the price which one has to pay for being a judge, because a judge can never know which case will come before him and who may be concerned in it. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this matter, but some discretion must be exercised.”

Audience were told of a lawyer who actually observed ethics.

Setalvad remained ever a lawyer and never agreed to become a judge. His fees ”were reasonable and did not vary depending upon the stakes involved in a case.”

He seemed to have instinctively grasped the true function of a Law Officer stressed in English Courts– Counsel for the Crown neither wins nor loses. He is there to state the law and facts to the Court.

Setalvad joined the Bombay Bar in 1911 and rose to occupy such high offices as Advocate General of Bombay 1937-42, Attorney General of India 1950-63, Chairman of the Law Commission 1955-58 and Member of Rajya Sabha 1966-72.

He also represented India before the Radcliffe Commission and the United Nations 1947-50.

”In those days,” Bhardwaj said, recalling the post independence era, ”there were no sharp practices at the bar at all. There was no need for such concerns. Such an occasion never arose.”

These are ”difficult times,” he acknowledged. Standards have ”gone down.”

He said the BCI had not performed its duty. The Bar has been ”left behind by many decades… So much adulteration has come into this institution.”

Many lawyers may not even know who Setalvad was, he remarked.

Organisers thanked Chennai-based Senior Advocate G Vasantha Pai, a former BAI General Secretary, who contributed Rs 15 lakh to conduct the lecture annually, for ”giving us back” Setalvad.

UNI MJ MM CS1100

 

MEA Acknowledges Correspondence With Moscow On Netaji – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                                              September 6, 2006

 

Subhas Chandra Bose as the leader of INA.

Subhas Chandra Bose (Photo: Wikipedia)

MEA Acknowledges Correspondence With Moscow On Netaji

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India
New Delhi (UNI) – India’s External Affairs Ministry has acknowledged having corresponded with the Soviet and the Russian governments on the disappearance six decades ago of Netaji Subash Chandra Bose, but declined to disclose the contents.

This was reported last evening by a research group– Mission Netaji– which invoked the year old Right to Information Act to get the Ministry to share the facts in the matter.

”The requisite copies of correspondence cannot be disclosed as it involves the relations with foreign State,” was what the Mission said it was told by the Ministry’s Central Public Information Officer, E Barwa.
The Mission had inquired whether ”serious efforts were ever made from a higher level to uncover the mystery surrounding the fate of one of the greatest Indians ever.”
A legendary figure of India’s independence movement, Bose disappeared after an alleged plane crash over Taipei on August 18, 1945, which the Taiwanese authorities later said had never occurred.
The Mission sought certified copies of the entire correspondence the Ministry had with the Soviet and the Russian governments in the matter.
Declining the request, Barwa wrote to the Mission that the data ”is exempt as per the provisions of Clause 8(1) (a)&(f).”
The clauses cover ”information received in confidence from foreign Government” and ”information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect” India’s ”security, strategic” interests.
The Mission also wrote to the Ministry, ”we understand that our Embassy in Moscow had taken up the matter with the Foreign Ministry of Russian Federation in 1992, 1995, 1997, 2001 and 2003 with dissatisfying results.”
”The request to Government of USSR and the Russian Federation were made through diplomatic channels at appropriate levels,” the Ministry replied, without elaborating.
”There was no plane crash that day– August 18, 1945– or the day before that or the day after,” former Human Resource Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi told a conclave in New Delhi last month.

English: Gandhi and Subhas Bose, Haripura Cong...

Bose and Gandhi at 1938 Haripura Congress session (Photo: Wikipedia)

He and former Defence Minister George Fernandes were speaking on new findings that Bose ”did not die in the plane crash, as alleged” and ”the ashes in the Japanese temple are not of Netaji.”
Those conclusions by retired Supreme Court Judge Manoj Kumar Mukherjee countered the findings by two predecessors– Shah Nawaz Khan in 1956 and G D Khosla in 1970– that Bose was killed in a plane crash over Taipei, Taiwan.
Taiwanese authorities say there were no plane crashes in Taipei between 14 August and 20 September 1945.
Justice Mukherjee headed an Inquiry Commission set up by the National Democratic Alliance government in May 1999 following a Calcutta High Court order.

He gave his 672-page report in May 2006 to the United Progressive Alliance government which tabled it in Parliament declaring it has ”not agreed’ with either key finding.
The Mukherjee Commission was the first inquiry set up by a non-Congress government– the past inquiries having been ordered by Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi.
Critics have over the years charged both Khan and Khosla with having made half-hearted inquiries, intended essentially to endorse the view taken by the establishment in those years.
Speakers pointed to indications that the news of Bose’s death in August 1945 was a smokescreen for his escape to the Soviet Union to pursue the freedom struggle.
They suggested that Russia be requested formally at the highest level to open its archives to Indian scholars.
Controversy has dogged the issue over the past 61 years– with many Indians refusing to believe that Netaji was killed at the time of the alleged aircrash.
Speculation has been fuelled by the Indian authorities’ refusal to let investigators– even a retired Supreme Court Judge in this case– examine the supposedly secret files.

Published accounts say similar reluctance of Russian, British and Japanese governments to let investigators see relevant files ”strongly point to an international conspiracy.”
UNI MJ RP KN1543