7.
THE CBI AND THE COURT CASES
In the meantime, the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probing the security scam forwarded the case of Mr.D.S.Pendse, former M.D. of Tata Finance, to the Ministry of Finance for necessary action. He had diverted Re. 578 crore for speculative activities related to Ketan Parekh scam (Earlier it had been reported as Re. 800 crore.).
On 14 January 2002 , the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the sale of the BALCO. The bench comprised Justice Ms. Ruma Pal and Justice B.N.Kirpal.
The learned judges treated the PIL with contempt.
The petitioners did not argue the case with any seriousness. This could be discerned from the fact that the important points were not mentioned.
The print media did not report the judgment. One or two TV Channels reported it superficially.
After retirement, Justice B.N. Kirpal went to work in a private company.
Evidently, an enquiry should have been conducted to find out his real wealth.
Even otherwise, he must be construed as one of the co-conspirators to convert public assets into private assets.
On 16 January 2002 , the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestments (CCD) referred a fresh bunch of PSUs including Pradeep Phosphate Limited and Jessop to the newly reconstituted Disinvestments Commission.
Mr. Arun Shourie, Minister for Disinvestments, said that he would come out with a pleasant surprise to satisfy Mr. Yashwant Sinha, Union Finance Minister, who was looking for Re. 12,000/- crore through disinvestments.
In the above matter, the Government had been ignoring the reservations of Mr. K.R. Narayanan, His Excellency the President of India
Now, this writer felt that the working of the judiciary and the investigation agencies must be exposed to save the Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs).
The letter was addressed to Mr. K.R. Narayanan, His Excellency the President of India India
In order to cripple the Supreme Court, the copy each of the letter was sent to every learned judge.
The letters were sent to important Chief Ministers also.
The letter No.6 follows.
From
V. Sabarimuthu,
Thattankonam,
Vellicode,
Mulagumoodu, 629167.
To
Mr. K.R. Narayanan
His Excellency the President of India
Presidential Palace
Your Excellency,
Most kindly, consider the question of examining the following points with regard to the plight of the people vis-à-vis the Constitution of India
1. The Preamble of our Constitution decides the direction of the Government. Sovereignty, Socialism, Secularism and Democracy are the four keys to the Constitution. The Government must stand within this boundary. The keys shall not be deformed by any reform. All those who commit breach of trust and contempt of Constitution must be disqualified. It is the demand of the Constitution.
2.In November1996, the Chairpersons of ITC and Shaw Wallace were arrested under FERA. The CBI initiated action against Mr. Sukh Ram, Ms. Kaul and Mr. Thungon in April 28, 1998. Mr. Krishna Kumar was arrested on 26-5-1998 under FERA. On 22 July 1998 , the Directorate of Enforcement had a very strong case against Mr. Prabahar Rao, son of Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, former Prime Minister of India 27 October 1998 , Mr. M. Gopalakrishnan and 28 others were charge sheeted by the CBI. In August 1998, the Government contemplated a probe by the CBI against the officials of Prasar Bharati for irregularities to the tune of Re. 1000 crore. There are several bigger offenders, which the courts and the CBI know better. The offenders amass wealth through manipulations and become NRIs before acquiring citizenship of other countries. They are capable of keeping any case under cold storage. They change the counsels, courts and laws to dilute the severity of the case. They know that they would be discharged at one stage or other under one pretext or other. We could read only what they feed. Thus, the visit of the President of India
3. The above cases and the cases inclusive of the JMM pay off case, Urea Scam Case, and some cases against Mr. Kesri, were utilized by the media syndicate to bring down the UF Government. The syndicate conveyed the impression that the UF Government was biting the ears of the Congress Party while sitting on its shoulders. The “The Hindu” on January 20, 1997 in front page news said, “ It is a common talk among political circles that the IB has been asked by the PMO to find ways and means of implicating Mr. Kesri in a 1993 criminal case”. The New Indian Express on December 17, 1996 in front-page news said, “The Deve Gowda Government seems to have decided to dump Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao. The CBI today suo motto decided to enlarge the scope of its inquiry in the JMM MPs bribery case” In fact, the JMM case served the purpose of enacting two coups-one to stabilize the Government of Mr. Rao and the other to destabilize the UF Government.
4. In the JMM case, Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabbarwal and Mr. Justice D.K. Jain of the High Court, Delhi 9 August 1996 said, “The CBI is trying to identify both givers and takers. If the CBI fails, we know to get both sides identified. At this stage we want to utter minimum”. Less than 30 days time was given to the CBI to complete the investigation. At that time, the Supreme Court also did not lag behind as it, on March 31, 1997 , threatened to monitor the Indian Bank Case.
5. Recently, an employee of the Government of Tamil Nadu was suspended from service for accepting a bribe of Re. 50/-. A court in Gujarat recently awarded three-month imprisonment for accepting a bribe of Re. 100/-. A court at Nagercoil (TN), again recently, issued orders to attach all the immovable assets of eight thieves who stole jewels worth Re.48 lakhs.
6. In contrast, Mr. Hiten Dalal was sentenced to one-year imprisonment for Re. 72 crore. The Supreme Court did not enhance the sentence but chose to uphold it.
7. Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav was arrested in April 2000. Since then, we have been hearing about his arrests, bail denials, bails, re-arrests, appeals and bails. In 1997 Mr.Xylesh Kumar Yadav I.P.S., in bad faith, implicated an innocent person in a criminal case. The SHRC of Tamil Nadu held that the I.P.S. officer was “specifically responsible” for the incident. The victim appealed to the NHRC for further relief. The NHRC rejected the appeal citing one specific reason. The review petition was rejected citing another reason. The NHRC, which recognizes no borders, drew two strong boundary lines for protection. The victim is still persecuted as the prosecution is still pending in the court. There is no authority to hear such cases. There must be a Constitution if not human rights.
8. In the JMM and fodder scam cases the Supreme Court said that there must be only one category of offenders and not categories. It never said that the assets of small offenders must be confiscated and that of big offenders must be spared because the amount is a huge one. The big offenders win the cases the moment they save their assets from confiscation. The act of swallowing the small offenders and nibbling at the big offenders for public consumption is a heinous crime against humanity.
9. The Hindu on 1-1-2002 casually said that the CVC does not reveal the identity of the complainants to ensure his safety. Whether there is anything in store is not clear. When there is a constitutional vacuum, there is no use in talking about the safety to life.
10. In early December 2001, a group of people going for white-collar jobs sat on the railway track at Kovilpatti demanding plying of more trains because they could not afford to travel in bus. At the same time - in Tamil Nadu - 10 million women sat on the roads protesting against the increase in the price of rice. No leader gave a call to this historical rebellion. The difference between this rebellion and the French Revolution and that in Argentina
Vellicode, Yours faithfully,
(V.SABARIMUTHU)
Apparently, the President of India transmitted the letter to the Prime Minister of India on 24 January 2002.The Republic day address of the Prime Minister contained several words chosen from the letters sent by this writer.
The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs and the Cabinet meeting scheduled on 29 January 2002 were cancelled without assigning any reason.
On 3 February 2002 , Mr. A.B. Vajpayee said that the country was in a state of undeclared emergency and asked the opposition parties not to rake up contentious issues.
Mr. L.K. Advani, Home Minister, maintained a studied silence.
On 29 January 2002 , Shi. H.D. Deve Gowda Ji, former Prime Minister of India
In that letter, he addressed this writer as “Dear Shri. V.Sabarimuthu Ji”. As man is known for his self love, this writer was elated by the prefix “Dear Shri” and the suffix “Ji” attached to his name by the former Prime Minister of India
However, his reply inspired this writer to write more letters as there was a feeling that this writer “paid his rent” to his Nation. No wonder, his letter was shown to all friends and relatives. Further, his letter enabled this writer to give a relevant answer to those who constantly asked the question “Did anyone send you any reply to your letters?”
Now the Prime Ministers Office (PMO), apparently, did not disclose anything to the media.
This prompted The New Indian Express on 4 February 2002 to compare the condition to “black hole”, which gives no signal. The editorial said that the economy had never been in worse since the crisis days of 1991. The editorial ended with the warning that it was the time to engineer another crisis to get everyone on the reforms roads again. The Hindu also came out with similar news on the same day. This showed that the moment the things move against the wishes of the industrialists, the media would engineer one crisis or other.
No comments:
Post a Comment