Tag Archive | Pranab Mukherjee

Use Norms – Not Discretion – To Punish Crime: ARC – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                         July 8, 2007

Use Norms – Not Discretion – To Punish Crime: ARC

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – Government experts have called for guidelines ”so that sentencing across the country for similar offences becomes broadly uniform.”

Inconsistency in punishments judges award is among issues figuring in the latest report of the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission on Public Order.

English: An unfair administrator barnstar

Justice v Discretion – A matter of balance (Photo: Wikipedia)

”To effectively deter crime, penalties must not be discretionary,” Commission Chairman M Veerappa Moily told United News of India Special Correspondent Mukesh Jhangiani.

According to the findings Moily gave Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last week, ”there is a view that in India there is a real problem arising from a lack of consistency in sentencing practices across the country.
”This is also compounded by broad executive discretion in commuting sentences and granting pardon,” the Commission said.
With Dr Singh’s approval, a 12-member Group of Ministers headed by External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was set up three months ago to consider the recommendations.
Feedback is yet to come.
The first such Commission headed by Morarji Desai functioned during 1966-70, but some of its key recommendations are yet to be implemented.
The Moily Commission underscored that sentencing guilty persons is an important and ultimate phase of the criminal justice system.
The trouble, experts say, is that not all laws specify a minimum punishment, which gives judges the leeway to let the guilty off with a slap on the wrist– undermining deterrence.
Thus offences like bribery and cheating are punishable under the Indian Penal Code with imprisonment ”which may extend to one year.” The fact that they are among the commonest crimes is a reflection of the level of deterrence law effects.
The IPC was enacted in 1860. But even the Biological Diversity Act 2002 makes contravention punishable with imprisonment ”which may extend to five years.” No minimum punishment.
”Criminal laws normally provide for a maximum sentence that may be imposed if an offence is proved,” the Commission said, adding that a minimum punishment is prescribed in only ”a certain category of offences.
”The courts have a wide discretion in deciding the quantum of punishment,” according to the Commission.
Advocates of such discretion say it ”is necessary in order to enable the judge to impose a punishment depending upon the circumstances of each case.” They say criminal courts do not have ‘total discretion’ in deciding the sentence and, for subordinate courts, the rulings of the High courts and the Supreme Court also act as guidelines.
They also argue that in a big and diverse country like India it may not be possible to codify each and every situation, and may be best to leave it to the courts’ judgement.
But critics say ”there are instances when such wide discretion has resulted in varying punishments for similar crimes in similar circumstances.”
They say there should be statutorily-backed guidelines to help judges arrive at the quantum of punishment in each case.
The Commission has recommended that the Law Commission lay down guidelines for Trial Courts ”so that sentencing across the country for similar offences becomes broadly uniform.” It has also recommended strengthening the training for trial court judges ”to bring about greater uniformity in sentencing.”
Western experience is that guidelines help ensure ”certainty and fairness” and avoid ”disparities” among defendants with similar records and criminal conduct, while allowing flexibility for mitigating factors.
Britain, for instance, set up a Sentencing Guidelines Council to frame or revise sentencing guidelines to which ”every court must… have regard.” In the United States, a Sentencing Manual and Table lay down a range in months within which the court may sentence defendants based on nature of their offence and criminal history.
Originally mandatory, the guidelines were made discretionary two years ago by a US Supreme Court decision, which cited Americans’ constitutional right to trial by jury.
Starting June 2006, the 2nd Commission has so far submitted five Reports:
— Right to Information – Master Key to Good Governance;
— Unlocking Human Capital – Entitlements and Governance – a case study;
— Crisis Management;
— Ethics in Governance; and
— Public order.
The Commission proposes to submit nine more and has been given a 7-month extension by the Union Cabinet up to March 31, 2008.
UNI MJ

 

Netaji… ‘Global Conspiracy To Suppress Truth ?’ – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                            August 19, 2006

Netaji…’Global Conspiracy To Suppress Truth ?’

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – Six decades after a legendary figure of India’s independence movement disappeared in an alleged air crash, a year-old law is being invoked to determine what really happened to Subhas Chandra Bose.

”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 week.

Subhas Chandra Bose as the leader of INA.

Subhas Chandra Bose as the leader of INA 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.
The two NDA leaders at the conclave assailed the UPA government’s stand, calling it an attempt and conspiracy to ”erase” the memory of Netaji.
Fernandes said Nehru knew that Netaji’s return would jeopardise his dynastic plans.
The event was organised by a group called Mission Netaji and All India Legal Aid Forum, an association of retired judges, lawyers and activists, to ask what then happened to Bose.
The participants included two former members of Bose’s Indian National Army– Captain Surjan Singh Yadav and V P Saini– besides researcher Purabi Roy, and some of Bose’s kin.
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.
Through out the early years after independence there were unconfirmed reports and rumours about his having survived any such accident.
Speculation has been fuelled by the authorities’ refusal to let investigators– even a retired Supreme Court Judge in this case– examine the supposedly secret files.
Even attempts to confer on Bose a ”posthumous” Bharat Ratna– highest civilian honour– or bring from a Japanese monastery an urn supposed to contain his ashes– were challenged and dropped.
Some time after the Mukherjee Commission began its work there was word it was denied classified files by officials in Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s Office and key– Home and External Affairs– ministries.

Chandra Bose with Heinrich Himmler

Bose with Heinrich Himmler (Photo: Wikipedia)

Published accounts say similar reluctance of Russian, British and Japanese governments to let investigators see relevant files ”strongly point to an international conspiracy.”
To crack the mystery, the conclave sponsors have invoked what Prime Minister Manmohan Singh calls one of his government’s key achievements– the Right to Information Act 2005.
They hope the new law would help secure access to ”basic” files which had been supplied to the first two inquiries but denied to the third inquiry.
Here is what they have requested:
— Details of action taken by the government to verify the news of Netaji’s alleged imprisonment in the erstwhile Soviet Union– allegedly reflected in an official file.
— Certified copies of the MEA’s correspondence with the Soviet and the Russian governments over Netaji’s disappearance.
— Cabinet Secretariat papers about a destroyed PMO file titled ‘Investigation into the circumstances leading to the death of Shri Subhas Chandra Bose.’
— Authenticated copies of all documents exhibited before the Shah Nawaz Committee 1956 and the GD Khosla Commission 1970-74.
A Home Ministry official has intimated the applicants that their request ”cannot be acceded to” as it concerns data disclosure of which would ”prejudicially affect” India’s ”security, strategic” interests.
The Mission has since moved the Central Information Commission which gave notice to the Home Ministry officials on August 3, asking them to respond by August 18.
Asked last night if he had heard from the MHA, Sayantan Dasgupta said, ”I have not got anything so far. We’d wait a few more days before going back to the CIC again.”
UNI MJ RP VA BS1119

Jailing Corrupt Politician, Officer Or Judge ! – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                   April 9, 2011

English: Hon. Anna Hazare in Nanded , Maharastra .

Anna Hazare (Photo: Wikipedia)

Jailing Corrupt Politician, Officer Or Judge !

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India
New Delhi (UNI) – With a 72-year-old fasting for five days, the government today announced a panel to draft within 83 days a Bill for Lok Pal– 45 years after it was conceived to regulate Indian governance.

Anna Hazare broke his fast amid euphoria at authorities yielding on an issue government after government has dodged for decades without discarding the idea outright.

The announcement listed ten members, five each representing the United Progressive Alliance government and the activists, with Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee as chairman and former Law Minister Shanti Bhushan, as co-chairman.
”The Joint Drafting Committee shall complete its work latest by 30th June, 2011,” the announcement by the Law and Justice Ministry said.
The members include Home Minister P Chidambaram, Law and Justice Minister M Veerappa Moily, Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal and Water Resources and Minority Minister Salman Khursheed on one hand, and septuagenarian Hazare, Justice N Santosh Hedge, advocate Prashant Bhushan and activist Arvind Kejriwal on the other.
Dr Moily has been named convenor.
Experts hailed the development but were cautious about expectations.
”What we have witnessed over the past week is anger, real anger of people, reflecting injustices that have been building and must be redressed and the guilty punished,” said former Delhi High Court Chief Justice A P Shah. ”This anger must be properly channelised for national and public good.”
A document titled Salient Features of Jan Lok Pal Bill circulated by activists who pitched their camp at Jantar Mantar on Tuesday spelt out some of the ideas they brought to root out corrupt.
— Creating an institution called Lok Pal at the centre and Lokayukta in each State so ”completely transparent” that any complaint against even its own members is investigated and a guilty ”officer dismissed within two months;”
— ”Like Supreme Court and Election Commission, they will be completely independent of the governments” so that ”no minister or bureaucrat will be able to influence their investigations;”
— Giving Lok Pal complete powers and machinery to independently investigate and prosecute any officer, judge or politician;
— Recovering any public exchequer or government loss caused by a corrupt act from the perpetrator at the time of conviction;
— Imposing financial penalty on officers guilty of not doing ”any work” of a citizen in prescribed time and giving it to complainant as compensation;
— Ensuring cases against corrupt do not linger– giving a year for investgation and another year for trial– so that ”corrupt politician, officer or judge is sent to jail within two years;”
— Lok Pal members to be selected by citizens, besides judges and constitutional authorities– not politicians– through ”a completely transparent and participatory process” to preclude induction of corrupt or weak individuals;
— Merging anti-corruption agencies– vigilance commissioners and anti-corrupt investigators– into Lok Pal;
— Requiring Lok Pal to provide protection to those victimized for raising their voice against corruption.
Activists say citizens denied ration or voter cards or passports could turn to a Lok Pal as could those having difficulty lodging complaints with police, for instance.
Anyone with complaints about, say, the quality of roads or abuse of public parks or other works could also request investigation into possible corruption by elected  or other officials. ”The guilty will go to jail within two years.”
Although Lok Pal, as a political ombudsman was conceived 45 years ago, it is still nowhere around.
”We have been misled completely,” Gandhian Satyagraha Brigade spokesman Shambhu Dutta Sharma, who, too, has been campaigning for a Lok Pal said of government failure to pass a law. ”We cannot trust any longer.”
The concept of Lok Pal– inspired by Sweden’s ombudsman– grew out of an interim report on redressal of citizens’ grievances submitted in 1966 by the Administrative Reforms Commission headed by Morarji Desai.
Two years later, the Lok Pal and the Lok Ayuktas Bill, 1968 was introduced in the 4th Lok Sabha, when late Mrs Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister.
It was considered by a joint committee of the two Houses of Parliament and passed by the Lok Sabha in 1969. It was pending in the Rajya Sabha when the Lok Sabha was dissolved. The bill lapsed.
Resistance to the bill appears manifest in the fact that even after being tabled seven more times– in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998 and 2001– it has never again been put to vote.
While authorities did not enact a Lok Pal they certainly did not reject it– possibly because doing so might have placed on them the onus to find a substitute.
Indeed, in 2007, a second Administrative Reforms Commission recommended appointing a national ombudsman called Rashtriya Lok Ayukta instead of Lok Pal.
Critics say corruption in public life has been sinking lower and lower, compounded by a virtually unaccountable governance.
Agencies or institutions once created in public interest appear to have become part of the problem instead of being instrumental in finding solutions.
The past year or so has seen unprecedented– in sheer size– allegations of financial irregularities levelled at the UPA government.
Public mind has been disillusioned by one scam after another whether it is 2G– underselling mobile phone licences at public cost notionally estimated at Rs 1.75 lakh crores– or Rs 70,000 crore extravagance in organising Commonwealth games.
”Hopefully,” Justice Shah said, ”there will be a proper bill. But at the same time before any Bill is put to vote there must be a thorough public debate about it in which citizens not just experts or authoritative figures should be heard on their opinions, questions, concerns and suggestions. No doubt we need a strong Lok Pal, but we also need a strong executive, legislature and judiciary.”
For rule of law to find a sound footing in India, the nation must attend to a lot more legislative reform, experts acknowledge.
UNI MJ SK 2308

Prez remembers ‘Netaji’… If only

Prez remembers ‘Netaji‘ on India’s 66th Independence day. If only GoI strengthens RTI so conspirators https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EDUDX_9EuZe2_KzCqdwZ2G9f-QSr9_eT5vAJNlLFxxI/edit … are exposed.