अंत में मोदी सरकार ने वायुसेना द्वारा एकत्र किये गए सारे सबूत विरोधी दाल के नेताओं के सामने रख दिया। सबूतों को देखकर सभी ने आगे की रणनीति के लिए एक बैठक बुलाई । बैठक के बाद सब मीडिया के सामने आकर चिल्लाने लगे,
"हम इन सबूतों को कैसे मान लें ? सबूत सच्चे हैं इसका सबूत दो।"
@narain41
PUBLIC INTEREST PETITION AGAINST PRIME MINISTER NARENDRA MODI
(1)AAM AADMI PARTY PETITIONERS (2)BAHUJAN SAMAJ PARTY THROUGH EMINENT LAWYERS
(3) COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA
(4) COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (M)
(5) INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS
(6) Nationalist Congress Party
(7) SAMAJWADI PARTY
(8) TRINAMUL CONGRESS
(9) SHIV SENA
(10) OTHERS
VERSUS
NARENDRA MODI, PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA RESPONDENT
IN THE MATTER OF PREAMBLE TO THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, ARTICLES 14, 19, 21 AND 29 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
The Petitioners, legally constituted and recognised mainstream political parties of Indiarepresenting majority of the citizens of India, beg to draw the attention of the highest court of justice in the country to certain important provisions of the Constitution of India:
(a) The Preamble, which is an integral part of the Constitution of India, says that the people of this country constituted “India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
(b) The Constitution secures to all its citizens, inter alia, “JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity.”
(c) Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits the States from denying “to any person equality before the law or the equal opportunity of the laws within the territory of India.”
(d) Article 19 protects certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. and grants all citizens the right, inter alia, to form associations or unions.
(e) Article 29 protects the right of the minorities to conserve their language, script or culture.
The Petitioners are in opposition at the Centre but are either in power or in opposition in the States/Union Territories of India.
In this era of coalition with large number of mainstream political parties, no single party, not even the party that has formed a government and provided the present Prime Minister, can claim to represent the majority of the country’s citizens.
It is the responsibility of every political party (whether in power or in opposition), every political leader and every citizen of the country to ensure that the government of the day functions in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Constitution.
Notwithstanding their political and ideological differences and competition among themselves for political space, the Petitioners firmly believe that the single most important factor that can keep India a socialist, secular and democratic republic and maintain the country’s sovereignty and integrity is level playing, availability of equal opportunity to all the stakeholders. No single party should to try to take credit for doing everything for the country. Rather, in a spirit of mutual cooperation, should give opportunity to all the parties to serve the poor of the country.
The Petitioners do not just preach what they believe. In fact they have been practising their faith in the interest of the socialist, secular and democratic character of the Republic, in the interest of the poor and downtrodden people of this country.
The claim of the Petitioners is proven by their track record. To give a few examples:
(a) The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Petitioner No. 1, was founded by a person who is a symbol of simple living and high pitched oratory (even after a surgical strike on his tongue, literally) to eradicate corruption from the public life and to make politics clean. Having set the goal and shown the means to achieve the goal, the party has graciously left it to other political parties to complete the task.
(b) The ultimate objective of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Petitioner No. 2, is to empower the Dalits of the society. However, in order to give opportunity to other parties to achieve that goal, the party supremo has restricted empowerment to herself and to her kins and friends. Her public appearance in designer dress wearing heavy gold and diamond jewellery, holding a designer purse in hand and surrounded by heavily-armed commandoes, is the sample of what empowerment means. Her statues are inspiring millions of people.
(c) Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 believe in eradication of poverty and creation of classless society. However, even after remaining in power in West Bengal for more than three decades, they deliberately did not achieve their objective because they did not want to deprive others of the opportunity and credit.
(d) Petitioner No. 5, the oldest political party of the country that fought for freedom under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, had declared even before independence that removal of poverty was the next goal. Despite reiterating its commitment to remove of poverty at the time of each and every election, the party has scrupulously avoided achieving the goal and has been liberal enough to give opportunity to all other political parties to follow it.
(e) Nationalist Congress Party, Petitioner No. 6, was formed by parting company with the parent political party to give opportunity to more leaders to reach top level in a party, a natural ambition of every leader.
(f) Samajwadi Party, Petitioner No. 7, was founded by Netaji Mulayam Singh, the great follower of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, to transform our poor traditional society into a society of rich socialists. He too has transformed only his extended family and friends. He too presents himself and his beneficiaries as samples of what socialism can achieve. He has shown the path which other have to follow.
(g) The firebrand leader and founder of the Trinamul Congress, Petitioner No. 8, is another symbol of simple living and high pitched oratory. She has made her party rich and powerful with the help of her loyal friends so that she can serve the people of West Bengal for a long time. She is concentrating on the minorities so that her successors have opportunity to do something for the majority.
(h) Petitioner No. 9, led by the second generation of protectors of the interest of local people, inspires others to take care of local interest in their respective states.
All the Petitioners believe in transparency and clean politics and have been promising to achieve the objectives and will continue to promise in future. Any action beyond promises may prove to be disastrous to the entire constitutional system. This underwritten sacred code of conduct is product of mutual understanding and has been faithfully practised by the Petitioners and others.
The Petitioners’ motto is ‘charity begins at home” and they have been asking people to have patience because “Rome was not built in a day’.
The Petitioners believe in “participative democracy”. Whenever any big programme is taken up by any party in power, all the stakeholders should be given opportunity to participate.
Unfortunately, since mid-2014 the Central Government is headed by the Respondent who is a person who does not care for the healthy democratic traditions of this great country. In flagrant violation of the unwritten code of conduct, he seems to be in tearing hurry to initiate and complete several programmes during his tenure. The Petitioners’ fear is that he does not want to give other stakeholders any opportunity to serve the country the way they have been doing.
The Petitioners’ fear is neither imaginary nor baseless. Just consider how many programmes the Respondent has taken up within a short time and is hurriedly implementing: “Make in India”, “Swachh Bharat”, “Jan Dhan Yojna”, “Smart Cities”, “Digital India”, “Bullet Trains”, “Give up Subsidised LPG”, “Save Girl Child”, etc. etc.
The Petitioners patiently tolerated the Respondent’s overreach but are deeply aggrieved that he does not believe in “participative democracy” as is evident from two major actions taken by him unilaterally, without even giving any prior hint to them.
The first action is described as “Surgical Strike” in the Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK ). Ours being a participative democracy, the Respondent should have discussed the need for such an action in the Parliament and should have sent the Petitioners’ representatives along with the armed forces to convince them that it was actually a surgical strike and to give the Petitioners an opportunity to boost the morale of the army. If it was absolutely necessary to carry out the strike in secrecy, the Respondent should have held consultation in secrecy.
Even more objectionable is what is being wrongly described as “Surgical Strike on Black Money”. Without caring for the stockholders like Petitioners, the Respondent made the existing currency notes of ₹500 and ₹1000 useless pieces of paper unless exchanged with newly printed currency notes or deposited in bank accounts.
The Petitioners are deeply hurt and aggrieved that such an important decision was taken without any discussion in the Parliament. If the Parliament was not in session, a special session should have been convened. If that was also not possible, the Respondent should have taken the Petitioners into confidence and given them time to put their house in order. Had the Respondent done so, today the Petitioners would have been standing with the Respondent and the government he heads and would have been appealing to the people to cooperate.
By not doing anything like that, the Respondent has in fact carried out “Surgical Strike the Very Foundation of Democracy”. He has done so just when the Petitioners are preparing for elections in various states.
The latest example of the respondent’s strategy to take full credit is how he is leading the war against a powerful invisible enemy called Corona virus. In a war-like situation, there should be a national government comprising leaders of prominent parties. Every prominent leader should have been given chance to hold the post of Prime Minister by rotation. Leaders of the Petitioners are well-known for their vision. It is in the interest of the Respondent as well as the nation also. The respondent should have got much needed rest and the country would have got new ideas to fight the common enemy.
It is well known that the Petitioners had worked very hard to collect materials, black as well as white, from several sources to build a strong foundation. Within a few months the common people will start leading normal life but it will take decades to repair the damaged foundation of our parliamentary democracy. Our democratic system will suffer for a long time because when the foundation is damaged, the superstructure is bound to collapse. The Respondent has not only crippled the Petitioners, he has ensured that they, the Petitioners, should not be able to serve the people
The Petitioners apprehend that unless restrained by the highest court of justice of the land, the Respondent will continue to violate the code of conduct. His next move may be may be to grab all the real estate acquired by the Petitioners and their supporters.
Briefly, democracy as being practised in this country since independence is facing serious threat from ‘Modicracy’
Prayer
The Respondent should be restrained from taking any major decision in violation of the code of conduct, well established code of conduct, live and let live, developed on the basis of mutual understanding and from doing further damage to the basic structure of the constitutional system which guarantees equality of status and opportunity. The highest court of justice is requested to ensure level playing, to save our democracy from “Modicracy’.
(Signed by Petitioners)
(Note: I have managed to obtain a copy of the Draft which is under discussion of the Petitioners. They will sign the petition and the affidavit once they have sorted out their differences. Devendra Narain)
I had written this satire more than two and half years back and posted on social media and Google Blog. Republishing it because the issue is still valid.)
PS
(This draft has been under consideration for a long time. It was updated recently)
People do not know that Rahul Gandhi is as innocent as his mother
(This satire was originally written in February 2016 soon after Indian politician Subramaniam Swamy claimed that Rahul Gandhi was a British citizen. The issue has been raised from time to time.)
Sometime back the one-man army, popularly known as Subramaniam Swamy, raised a controversy about India’s Family No. 1 without verifying the facts. Earlier Swamy had claimed that Sonja Gandhi became Indian citizen without surrendering her Italian citizenship. This time he has discovered that more than a decade back Rahul Gandhi had claimed it to be a British citizen.
I did some research to find out how it happened. I will share the inside story with you.
Rahul was in London in connection with the registration of his company. He had to declare his nationality. He felt irritated but was told that he had to furnish the information. He looked around for a dictionary but it was not there. He rang up mom who was in Delhi. When the phone call came Mom was in a serious discussion with Digvijay Singh about the future of India. Digvijay Singh, always eager to come to Madam’s help, rushed to lift the receiver but was stopped. The call had come on a phone none other than other Sonja and Rahul were allowed to use. The brief conversation was like this.
‘Yes, dear, what’s the problem?’
‘Mom, what is my nationality?’
‘What? Who has asked you? Are you holding a press conference? I told you several times not to hold any press conference without my presence.’ Mom was a bit annoyed.
‘No Mom, I’m not holding any press conference. How can I do that without your permission? Actually, I’m completing a form for the registration of my new company. I have to write something against the column, nationality.’
‘What a stupid question? Asking the future Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy such a silly question?’
‘Mom, I know it is a silly question but the fellows here are not ready to accept the form unless I write my nationality. Please tell me what does it mean and what is my nationality?’
‘Hold on for a minute. I will have to check.’
She asked Digvijay Singh to get a dictionary from her study room. Digvijay Singh rushed to her study room and broughtThe Concise Oxford Dictionary.
‘Find out the meaning of the word nationality. Quick.’ She ordered Digvijay Singh.
Digvijay Singh found out. ‘Ma’am, there are two meanings: one, the status of belonging to a particular nation and two, an ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations.’
Ma’am got annoyed. ‘What does it mean, belonging to a particular nation? How dare they ask Rahul which nation he belongs to? A nation belongs to us, I mean to Rahul and me.’
‘Very true, Ma’am. Please tell me the problem I can find a solution in no time.’
‘There in England, the English authorities are asking Rahul, my innocent child, his nationality.’
‘Ma’am, perhaps they want to know his citizenship.’ The wise man understood the problem.
That upset Ma’am even more. She never liked the word ‘citizenship’. She took a deep breath. She had to be cautious this time. She asked Digvijay Singh to find the meaning of the word ‘citizenship’ in the dictionary.
Digvijay Singh again turned the pages ofThe Concise Oxford Dictionary.
‘Yes Ma’am, I found it. Unfortunately, again there are two meanings: one, a legally recognised subject or national of state or Commonwealth and two, an inhabitant of a town or city.’
A cautious and loving mother did not want her son to get involved in any legal issue though she knew that India was part of the Commonwealth. She decided to play safe.
She resumed her conversation with Rahul. ‘Sorry dear for making you wait. I have verified. Where are you at the moment?’
‘I’m in London, Mom.’
‘Very good. I know London. It is a beautiful city. Since you are presently residing in London, you are an inhabitant of London. Since London is in Britain, you are an inhabitant of Britain. So, you are citizen of Britain. That means your nationality is Britain.’
‘Is that so, Mom? I can write ‘British’ against the column for nationality?’
‘By all means, clear. You can be doubly sure of that. Right now you are an inhabitant of a British city and India and Britain are parts of the same Commonwealth. Please go ahead. Best of luck for your commercial business there and political business here.’
‘Thanks, Mom, for help and advice. I love you, Mom.’
‘I too love you, dear.’
The conversation between the Mom and the son was over. Madam turned to Digvijay Singh. ‘Thank you very much, you are always so helpful.’
Digvijay Singh bowed before Ma’am and said with a broad smile, ‘Always at your service, Ma’am.’ He was happy. His future in the party was secure.
Subramaniam Swamy and media are making much ado about nothing. Instead of blamingThe Concise Oxford Dictionary,they are blaming Rahul Gandhi. How unfair!
The Election Commission (EC) of India is a powerful constitutional authority charged with the responsibility of conducting free and fair elections. Once the EC has announced the dates of the start and the end of the election process, a code of conduct comes into force that bars central and state governments from taking any policy decision during the period. Even the proposals to take decisions of administrative nature have to be first vetted by the EC. The EC assumes the power to transfer any officer who is believed to be favouring a political party or candidate. In all such cases, it is the EC that appoints new officers.
Like all constitutional authorities, the EC also deserves respect due to it. However, genuine respect does not come just because of constitutional and legal powers vested in the institution. The genuine respect comes when people see the institution function impartially and objectively, without any discrimination. It comes when people see it delivering promptly and indiscriminately. Most of the people in India do not respect the police because they do not see it functioning impartially and promptly.
All institutions including constitutional authorities must conduct themselves in a manner that people develop a genuine respect for them. The constitutional authorities have also to keep in view that they do not have absolute power. They too have to work within the framework of the Constitution and the law. There is always a Lakshman Rekha (a strict convention or a rule, the ethical limits of power) that is not to be crossed. Crossing the Lakshman Rekhamay lead to a clash with other authorities with undesirable consequences. The EC is also expected not to cross the Lakshman Rekha.
Unfortunately, on occasions, the constitutional authorities have been found violating this well-accepted code of conduct. We saw it recently when the EC pulled up the income tax department.
Income tax raids on the aides and associates of Kamal Nath
It all started after 300 income tax sleuths accompanied by Central Reserve Police (CRP) personnel started simultaneously raiding 52 premises, all belonging to the aides and associates of Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath. The raids started at about 3 AM on April 07, 2019 and continued for three days, in some premises even beyond that.
As soon as the news of raids became public, all hell broke loose. Instead of feeling ashamed, Congress adopted an aggressive attitude and cried foul. The opposition parties condemned it as “politically motivated”, as an “act of political vendetta”. The late evening that day (April 7) the EC sent an advisory to the Department of Revenue (DOR) to keep enforcement actions during polls “neutral, impartial and non-discriminatory”,
The next day (April 8), the DOR sent a detailed reply (signed by a deputy secretary) to the EC. The Department, inter alia, stated:
The DOR also clarified that operations were not carried out with any political motive but, as is the common practice, on the basis of definite information and actionable intelligence.
In the evening of April 08, the CBDT made it public that
“Searches in Madhya Pradesh have detected widespread and well-organised racket of collection of unaccounted cash of about Rs. 281 crore through various persons in different walks of life, including business, politics and public service.”
“A part of the cash was also transferred to the headquarter of a major political party in Delhi, including about Rs. 20 crore, which was moved through hawala recently to the headquarter of the political party from the residence of a senior functionary at Tughlak Road, New Delhi,”
“Rs. 14.6 crore of unaccounted cash has been found so far, besides 252 bottles of liquor, few arms and tiger hide-skins,”
Ignoring the magnitude of the discovery of black money and not satisfied with the reply of the DOR, the EC summoned Revenue Secretary and CBDT Chairman for discussion in the forenoon of April 9. According to the media reports, the EC expressed its displeasure that it was not informed about the raids in time. The DOR’s explanation that the reports are sent only after operations are over and the EC comes in the picture only if the cash recovered related to the election did not satisfy the EC.
The next day (April 10) the EC sent a strongly worded letter to the Revenue Secretary, The Commission stated that it was deeply anguished by the “casual and trivial” manner in which its advisory of April 7 was taken. The commission wrote that “instead of detailing the modalities of implementing the advisory, the department insolently chose to issue a counter advisory,” the poll body noted. The EC wrote:
Was anything wrong with income tax raids on aides and associates of Madhya Pradesh Kamal Nath?
Can any impartial person who is worried about a huge amount of black money floating in the economy find anything wrong with the raids? If not, what made the EC so angry? I am unable to understand what the EC meant by saying that income tax raids should be “neutral, impartial and non-discriminatory”. Had I been Chairman of the CBDT, I would have asked the EC, ‘how could the raids be described as not being neutral, impartial and non-discriminatory? What should the Director-General (Investigation), Delhi, who organised the raids, have done when he received confirmed information about a huge amount of cash kept by persons associated with a powerful politician of a particular party? Should he have waited for similar information about a powerful politician of the ruling party to ensure neutrality, impartiality, and non-discrimination?
These high sounding words do not clarify what action the tax authorities should take when it receives specific information about a huge amount of cash kept by a politician in his house or office. What “modalities of implementation” are expected? In a Facebook post, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has given a befitting reply to all those who talk of political vendetta and ask the tax authorities to be neutral and impartial and indirectly to the EC. He wrote that those who are criticising raids in which huge amount of unaccounted cash is discovered do not reply to the allegations on merit. He wrote
Why did the EC get irritated?
If I say that the EC got irritated because the raids hit a powerful Congress politician, I may be hauled up by the EC or even the judiciary. So, I am not imputing any motive.
My guess is that the EC was irritated that a mere deputy secretary had replied to its advisory of April 7. Recently, the EC wrote to all the ministries/departments that no communication should be sent to the Commission by an officer below the rank of Joint Secretary to the government of India. The DOR should have observed protocol.
I think, after sending the letter of April 7, the EC expected the DOR to apologise and to assure that it would be careful in the future. However, the DOR asserted its authority and simply reminded the EC that the income tax raids were conducted in accordance with the advisory of April 7 and that it is the responsibility of both the Election Commission as also of the revenue agencies to check and eventually eliminate the use of unaccounted money in the election. If the EC expected ‘apology’ or assurance to be careful in future, I am sorry to say, it crossed the Lakshman Rekha. Election or no election, it is the job of the tax authorities to collect revenue for the state and to catch tax evaders. Election or no election, they are expected to work according to law, impartially and without any fear or favour.
EC should know how income tax raids are conducted
I do not know whether Member Sushil Chandra who was Chairman of the CBDT before joining the EC explained to his senior colleagues how the raids are conducted. Neither the Revenue Secretary nor the Chairman CBDT has any role. The IT department has 14 Director Generals (Investigation) posted at 14 stations in the country. Every DG is completely free to carry out investigations and order raids. He or she is not required to obtain anyone’s permission nor can anyone give directions. To maintain complete secrecy, the preparations are known only to him/her, the next in command and an Assistant Director General (the operational officer). He/she can refuse to give any prior information even to the Chairman and this has happened in the past. I remember a very old incident that took place when, probably, R. Venkataraman was Finance Minister (FM). The CBDT Member (Investigation) summoned the DG of Delhi and asked him whether he was preparing to raid any premises and if so whose and when. When the DG refused to give the information, the angry Member took him to the Chairman who supported the DG. Ultimately all the three and Revenue Secretary went to the FM. After listening to the whole story, the FM got a note prepared that no one – Minister, or Revenue Secretary, or Chairman CBDT or Member – had any power to ask for prior information.
EC’s reaction was unwarranted
Under such a system, there was no point in calling and reprimanding Revenue Secretary and Chairman, CBDT. It is really surprising and shocking that instead of appreciating the action of the income tax sleuths, taken at great risk in the national interest, the EC was more concerned with the respect it ‘deserves’. In order to assert its own superiority, the EC demeaned an important institution of the country charged with the responsibility of unearthing black money. If the EC expects respect from the income tax authorities, it should also respect the legal and constitutional responsibilities of other institutions. Respect begets respect.
The advisory of April 7 was unwarranted. As explained earlier, when the investigating authorities received confirmed information about a huge amount of cash and transactions in illegal money, they could not have waited for similar information about the ruling or any other party. To expect or demand that is absurd. The unwarranted and avoidable expression of anger and a letter reprimanding the DOR has demeaned the income tax authorities and raised doubts about the EC’s conduct. The EC unnecessarily wasted its time on a trivial matter. Yes, it was a trivial matter blown out of proportion.
All that the EC should have done after receiving information about raids is to ask for a factual report and after discussion conveyed its desire to the Chairman CBDT to be informed about raids as early as possible.
Kudos to income tax authorities
It is a matter of great satisfaction that neither the CBDT nor the DGs posted in the field felt demoralised, though the ‘reprimand’ must have gladdened the heart of the corrupt fellows. They did not succumb to unwarranted pressure of the EC. Almost everyday income tax sleuths are unearthing cash hoarded by politicians and businessmen.
Code of conduct for the EC
The first clause of the code of conduct for the EC should be that it must not exceed the Lakshman Rekha and must not demean other institutions discharging their responsibilities.