Connect with us

Doosra Pehlu

A fabricated charge sheet rebuffed by the Court – Arun Jaitley

Published

on

The CBI Special Judge Shri O. P. Saini discharged all the accused including Shyamal Ghosh, the former Telecom Secretary in a case relating to fixation of Spectrum User Charges. The Court observed that “there is no doubt that the charge sheet has been filed for extraneous reasons….. Since the charge sheet has been found to be full of distorted and fabricated facts, an attempt has been made to mislead the Court, Director, CBI is directed to conduct an inquiry against the erring officers and take actions as per law.”

Indeed the officers are guilty of fabricating charges against an honest Civil Servant and others. There is no doubt that the Chargesheet was filed at the behest of Shri Kapil Sibal, the Telecom Minister in the UPA Government. At the time when the Telecom sector was riddled with scams, Kapil Sibal selected a retired Judge of his choice and asked him to unearth an “NDA Scam” in Telecom. The Judge opined that there could be an arbitrariness in fixing the Spectrum User Charges for allocation of additional spectrum. An unsustainable charge sheet was filed against an outstanding and honest Civil Servant Shyamal Ghosh. The idea to attack the NDA was by including the Late Pramod Mahajan in Column II as a deceased accused.

I had consistently maintained that this charge sheet was full of fabricated facts. I had written an Article on 2nd April, 2013 in ‘The Hindustan Times’ commenting on this charge sheet. The last three paragraphs of the Article deals specifically with this charge sheet. A copy of that Article, which appeared on 2nd April, 2013, is enclosed. The Court has vindicated what we had always maintained. The CBI Officers who acted on the dictates of the political government will now face an enquiry. But what about the Ministers who conspired to create a fabricated charge sheet and a retired Judge who, for the sake of a post-retirement assignment, agreed to lend his Offices for the same?

Annexure
Tuesday, 02 April 2013
The Telecom Story
By Shri Arun Jaitley
Leader of Opposition (Rajya Sabha) (As he then was)
Courtesy : The Hindustan Times

India’s Telecom sector was a ‘showcase’ for the success of economic reforms. When the Government opened up the sector in 1994-95 to the private sector, there were many skeptics about the private sector being put in control of communications. Within years every critic was proved wrong. Public sector monopoly had led to a sluggish growth of the sector. India’s tele-density at the time of opening out was 0.8 percent. Less than one out of every 100 people had access to a telephone. Contrary to popular perception mobile telephones proved to be a boon for the common and weaker sections. It hugely improved India’s tele-density. The waiting list became a part of history. Costs were radically slashed down; linemen were no longer required. Most Indians felt better connected.

There were apparent mistakes made in the initial years –though made honestly. The licence fees regime could only ensure costlier telephony. The National Telecom Policy 1999 formulated by the NDA government corrected these mistakes. The switch over to revenue sharing reduced the cost to the operator and increased the volumes substantially. The increased volumes ensured much larger revenue to the government and cheaper services to the consumers. Technology began to converge between basic telephony, limited mobility and full mobility. This led to universal access licence which were common to both the basic and the mobile services.

Telecom became the most visible face of the success of economic reforms. They attracted investments, increased employment and India became the fastest growing telecom economy in the world offering cheaper services. The UPA Government inherited this success story of telecom in 2004 and could only make it better.

Regrettably, the entire enthusiasm inherent in the success story has disappeared. Though services have substantially expanded, there are no takers for the spectrum auctions now. Fresh investors are reluctant to look at this sector and those who have invested in the sector despite having earned profits must be regretting the environment in which they function. How did this success story turn sour?

The Prime Minister initially gave the responsibility of telecom department to a Minister who apparently had a conflict of interest. Criminal cases against the first Telecom Minister of the UPA are under investigation. After he was dropped, his successor from the same party, the DMK, decided to run havoc with the Department. In 2007-08 spectrum was allocated at rates determined by the market mechanism of auction in 2001. The sector had hugely expanded in seven years and the value of the spectrum had substantially increased. Despite being cautioned that the price determined at the time of allocation be freshly undertaken either through auction or through indexing, he decided to allot the spectrum at a rate much less than the market prices. The mode of allocation was conspiratorial. The goal post was altered half way through. The criteria of first-come-first-served was changed to those who pay the entry fees ahead of others. This information appears to have been leaked out to the most favoured applicants. The result was disastrous. The report of the CAG shattered the confidence in the credibility of governmental functioning. The CBI had to file charge sheets where the Minister, civil servants and investors were all arrested. The Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of cancelling the licenses. The biggest success story of economic reforms had now become a monumental scam.

Now the third minister was appointed to look after the Telecom Department. He wanted to get the sadistic delight out of the fact that the scams were not new to the telecom sector under the UPA government. He, therefore, selected a Judge of his choice to ‘unearth’ an NDA scam. The Judge’s report was sent to the CBI. The CBI has now filed a charge sheet in the Court. The essence of the CBI case relates to the spectrum user charges. When the service expands, the operators need extra spectrum. Under the NTP 1999 additional spectrum charges is to be paid for through revenue sharing. The policy framed in 2001-02 was that on 4.4 MHZ the initial startup spectrum a 2% user charge would be paid; upto 6.2 MHZ a 3% user charge will be paid and for the entire slab from 6.2 MHZ to 10 MHZ the charge would be 4%. The entire allegation against the NDA is as to why the slab between 6.2 MHZ and 10 MHZ was not broken in two and between 8 MHZ to 10 MHZ an extra 1% charge was not levied.

The spectrum user charges are a tariff fixation. Tariff fixation is an Executive function. The Executive at a given point of time considers various factors while increasing or reducing tariff or while determining the size of the slabs on which a particular tariff is charged. There is no scientific rationale on which this can be done. Tariffs are fixed on a commercial assessment of the market conditions. The underlying consideration has to be the promotion of the sector. An administrator may well feel that lower tariff can reduce costs and increase the volumes and hence benefit both the sector and the revenues. In this case slabs could have been fixed keeping in mind the parity between the basic and the limited mobility. Subsequent reports of the TRAI appear to have accepted the principle on which these tariffs were fixed. If tariff fixation becomes a ground for invoking the Prevention of Corruption Act clauses such as causing wrongful loss to revenue, every Finance Minister who reduces the customs or excise duty in the Budget may be subject to such an accusation. The CBI charge-sheet names my then colleague, Shri Pramod Mahajan, as a conspirator in tariff fixation. Since he is no more he obviously cannot be prosecuted. As a Member of the then government I feel obliged after examining the charge against him to suggest that the charge is absolutely ill-founded and baseless.

The telecom story is a case where the UPA government and the Prime Minister have a lot to introspect. Having inherited a ‘showcase’ success story, the first Minister appointed by the UPA conflicted his personal interest with that of the sector. His successor got trapped in his own shenanigans. The third minister set out to teach the NDA a lesson. Former Civil servants and investors have become his victims. In the process he has damaged the sector further adding to its’ instability.

Source

NewsAurChai Media is a media house which has young contributors ensuring a fresh and renewed perspective to news and recent happenings. We hope to offer sensible articles, which goes with our tag line of 'sense above sensation'.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Doosra Pehlu

All About The Bhainsa Riots

Published

on

Bhainsa Riots Expainer | News Aur Chai

Communal riots broke out in the town of Bhainsa in Telangana after altercations between Hindu and Muslim youth-led to stone pelting on March 7, 2021. Thirty-eight people have been arrested in connection with these riots, the majority being members of the right-wing nationalist organization Hindu Vahini. The police are on the lookout for 70 more people whose parts in the riots have been established.

What Happened In Bhainsa

Two, two-wheeler bourne youths named Thoth Mahesh and Dattu Patel attacked a Rizwan in Zulfiqar Gali. Rizwan and his friends went looking for the two attackers in Batli Gali. There they were beaten up by Mahesh and Dattu and their friends. Stone pelting followed between people of the two communities after one of the friends of Mahesh and Dattu again went to Zulfiqar Gali to buy alcohol and picked up a fight with members of the other community. A constable who tried to intervene and stop the fight sustained head injuries. Section 144 was imposed in the riot-affected areas.

Y. Nagi Reddy, the inspector general of the north zone, has said that 26 cases have been registered about the violence. The 38 people that have been arrested also include four minors. Twelve people, three of which were police officers, were injured in the stone-pelting. Four houses, thirteen shops, four rickshaws, six cars, and five two-wheelers were set on fire riots.

IGP Reddy said, “People belonging to one group were informed, gathered, and were sent to places under the guidance of Abdul Khabeer alias Baba, AIMIM party’s Counsellor from 15th ward.” He added, “The second group was led by Thota Vijay, Counsellor from 8th Ward and ex-president of Hindu Vahini. Some of the arsons committed on the second and the third day and night…..were led by Santhosh, who is the district president of Hindu Vahini.” He also clarified that the investigation was being conducted in an unbiased manner and that the instigators were identified using CCTV footage and Nenusaitham initiative geotagged cameras.

The Other Side Of The Story

Bandi Sanjay Kumar, the state BJP chief, alleged that the police were torturing Hindu Vahini members. He said that the party would complain to the central government against the state police’s third-degree interrogation methods. He also wrote to Telangana’s governor accusing Muslim “infiltrators” from Maharashtra of causing communal tensions in Bhainsa.

“AIMIM leader Mohammad Jabir Ahmed is the cause for communal violence in Bhainsa. They have been involved in land grabbing for a time now and when the local Hindus…… have been spreading the news via social media, communal violence has begun,” BJP MP Dharmapuri Arvind told news agency Asian News International.

The official spokesperson of the ruling TRS Krishank pushed back criticism of the State Government by saying, “Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao has always been very serious against the communal violence in the state.” He assured action against the riot perpetrators and said, “Strict action will be taken against the people resorting to communal violence in the state and also those who are spreading rumours across social media and are creating disturbances in the society.”

Continue Reading

Doosra Pehlu

Why is Nodeep Kaur Making Headlines?

Published

on

Nodeep Kaur | News Aur Chai

Nodeep Kaur is a 23-year-old Dalit Labour Rights Activist from Punjab. She is a member of the Mazdoor Adhikar Sanghatan, an organization based in the Kundli Industrial Area of Haryana which works for workers’ rights. She was involved in a protest with labourers at Kundli, on the border of Haryana and Delhi. The protest was about demanding higher wages for workers. It was also in solidarity with the ongoing farmers’ protests against the new farm laws. She was arrested on January 12. A string of charges was made against her following her arrest, including Section 307 (Attempted Murder). Her sister Rajveer Kaur alleged that the police have tortured and sexually abused Nodeep.

Her Background

Nodeep Kaur comes from a Dalit family from Gandera Village in the Sri Muktsar Sahib district of Punjab. Her family is one of the activists, her parents are associated with a farmer’s union, and her sister is a member of the Bhagat Singh Chhatra Ekta Manch. After the lockdown restrictions eased, she started working at a factory in Sonipat, Haryana. She also joined the Mazdoor Adhikar Sangathan around this time.

In a video shared by Canadian Poet Rupi Kaur, Nodeep Kaur can talk about Farmer-Labourer Unity. She speaks in support of the farmers’ protests and says that it is not a sole cause, and everyone needs to come out in support of the farmers.

Why Was She Arrested?

Nodeep is a dedicated Labour rights activist. She was involved in a protest, and her associates at the Kundli border demanding higher wages for workers. The protest coincided with the ongoing farmers’ protests and was in solidarity with them. On January 12, a team of Sonipat Police went to the Kundli Industrial Area (KIA), acting on the information of alleged manhandling of management and the staff of a unit and extorting money from them. The police said Kaur and her associates attacked police with sticks and injured seven personnel. Her associates managed to flee, but she got arrested following the incident. She was produced before the court and sent to jail the same day.

The police say they did not seek remand. Sonipat Superintendent of Police said there were prior complaints of extortion against Nodeep Kaur, and a case was registered on December 28 2020. A slew of charges was pressed against her, including Murder, Extortion, Theft, Rioting, Unlawful Assembly, Extortion and Criminal Intimidation and other offences under Sections 148, 149, 332, 353, 186, 384, 379-b, 307. She was sent to the Karnal Jail in Haryana following her arrest.

Allegations Of Sexual Abuse And Torture In Custody

Rajveer, Nodeep’s older sister, visited her in Karnal Jail after her arrest. There, Nodeep told her of the alleged assault by police in Custody. She has alleged that there were no women police officers, and she was taken aside by male cops and beaten black and blue. Rajveer said that she was beaten publicly by male officers, dragged by her hair to the police van. She also said that Nodeep was beaten with sticks and shoes, including her private parts, which caused heavy bleeding. There are also allegations of sexual abuse by male police personnel.

The police vehemently deny these allegations and said that she was kept in the ladies’ waiting room and was accompanied by two female police officers for the entire duration of her stay.

Nodeep claims no medical examination was conducted following her arrest, violating Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. She also claimed that she was made to sign blank papers in Custody. On the contrary, police say that she was taken to the civil hospital to undergo a general medical examination and special medical examination for sexual assault by a lady doctor. But Nodeep did not undergo a medical examination, and she gave a written statement to the doctor stating that she did not want to be examined since she wasn’t assaulted. Denying these allegations, the police said that Kaur did not speak about any assault in front of the magistrate. They called these allegations “an afterthought”.

Her advocate Arshdeep Singh Cheema questioned the statement and asked why the police made two separate requests for medical examinations in the first place.

On January 15, she applied for a medical examination before the magistrate. The magistrate ordered the examination had to be done on January 18. However, her medical examination happened only on January 25, 13 days after her arrest. Cheema claimed that this delay was done to allow her injuries to heal. The medical report later produced before the court pointed out that she did have purplish bruises on her body caused by blunt objects or weapons. Cheema said that these were indicative of the torture she was subjected to by the police.

International Attention For The Case

This case received very little attention before February 6. It was brought to the spotlight by Meena Harris, niece of US Vice President Kamala Harris.

Her tweet came in response to the hate she received from Right Wing Hindutva elements alongside American and Canadian celebrities like Rihanna, Mia Khalifa and Rupi Kaur for speaking in support of the farmer’s protests.

Rajveer expressed her disappointment in the media about the little coverage it got before Harris’s tweet. Following sustained international recognition, many people domestically started speaking actively about the case and demanding Nodeep Kaur and other jailed activists’ release.

Progression Of Court Proceedings

Three First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed against Kaur, FIR numbers 26, 649 and 25. On February 2, a local court denied her bail application. However, the Government authorities were quick to act after international and domestic furore about her arrest picked up post-February 6. On February 8, the Punjab State Commission for Scheduled Castes asked the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to provide relief.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court took suo motu cognizance of Kaur’s illegal confinement and alleged police torture on February 12 after receiving complaints of the same via email on 6th and 8th February. The court posted this matter to be heard on February 24 (also the initial date of Kaur’s third bail plea hearing).

On February 12, she got bail on one of the cases, FIR no. 649, which dealt with rioting and other charges. On February 15, she got bail on the second case, FIR no. 26, which dealt with extortion. Her third and final bail application for the case registered under FIR no. 25, which dealt with murder and other charges, was filed on February 15. It was supposed to be heard on February 24, but the court adjourned the case after finding that the state’s medical records were not put on record. The matter was heard finally on Friday, February 26, where she finally got bail.

Justice Avneesh Jhingan also heard the suo motu matter along with the bail plea. This matter will now be discussed in April. Now that Kaur has received bail in all three cases, she got released from jail.

Continue Reading

Doosra Pehlu

Julian Assange’s Extradition Rejected by UK Court

Published

on

Julian Assange Wikileaks News Aur Chai

On January 4, the UK Court ruled that the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should not be extradited to the United States of America to face criminal charges including breaking a spy law, as his present mental health complications suggest the risk of suicide attempt.

However, USA has stated that it would pursue the extradition and US prosecutors are ready to appeal the decision to London’s High Court.

Who is Julian Assange?

The 49-year-old Australian-born Assange has been accused of 18 offences regarding the release by WikiLeaks of a wide range of confidential US military records and diplomatic cables that may endanger the safety of lives. Assange, who spent a significant part of the last decade either in prison or self-imposed confinement, has been denied bail and remains in jail.

The US Justice Department claims that it has won on all the legal points, including political motivation and freedom of speech-related arguments, and thus, it would continue to seek Assange’s extradition.

USA’s government take:

The Obama administration did not prosecute Assange due to concerns about the precedent the case could set in free speech and journalism. Assange’s legal team has held the outgoing US President Donald Trump responsible for pressuring the concerning launch of the US effort for extradition, which could cause a grave threat to press freedom.

However, the White House has not issued any immediate comment on the ruling and Trump administration has given mixed messages. In contrast, the President-elect Joe Biden’s side has refrained from commenting.

Trump had shown his approval to WikiLeaks shortly before the 2016 presidential election for releasing hacked emails which landed his opponent Hillary Clinton in an embarrassing position. However, after Trump took office, his first CIA director Mike Pompeo stated that WikiLeaks was “a non-state hostile intelligence service”.

Ruling of UK Judge and further deteriorating condition of Julian:

Judge Vanessa Baraitser said that her judgment was based only on the possibility of Assange attempting suicide if kept in a US maximum security jail as he suffered from severe depression at intervals and had been diagnosed with autism.

In May 2019, half a razor blade had been discovered in his London jail cell. Assange also told the medical staff that he was having suicidal thoughts and making plans for the same. Baraitser also said that Assange made regular calls to the Samaritans suicide-prevention charity from prison.
According to Baraitser, “I find that Mr Assange’s risk of committing suicide, if an extradition order were to be made, to be substantial. The overall impression is of a depressed and sometimes despairing man, who is genuinely fearful about his future.”

For Assange’s supporters, the ruling was a victory, but the threat of extradition still looms large over his head. His partner Stella Moris said, “I call on the President of the United States to end this now: Mr President, tear down these prison walls, let our little boys have their father. Free Julian, free the press, free us all.”

People in support considers Julian as “Hero”:

Assange supporters consider him to be an anti-establishment hero, a victim for exposing US wrongdoings in Afghanistan and Iraq. Supporters claim his prosecution is to be a politically motivated assault on the press and freedom of speech.

However, the US prosecutors and Western security officials regard him to be a dangerous enemy of the state whose reckless actions in leaking classified information, has imperilled the lives of the agents, named in the material.

On the other hand, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said that his country would extend political asylum to Assange and he is in favour of pardoning him.

History of Legal trails with different governments:

Assange’s legal battles began when Sweden sought his extradition from Britain over alleged sex crimes. He lost the case in 2012 and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in London and stayed there for seven years. In April 2019, Assange was finally dragged out from there and imprisoned for breaching British bail conditions. The Swedish case has been dropped till that time. The US Justice Department formally asked Britain last June to extradite him.

However, Baraitser has rejected Trump’s team’s claims for pressuring the US prosecutors due to lack of evidence of hostility on Trump’s part and shunned the claims of the case being political and threatening freedom of speech.

She also said that Assange’s chances of getting a fair trial in the USA were adequate though she believes that Assange had breached investigative journalism boundaries. But she also feels that if Assange is found guilty, he would be sent to ADX Florence maximum security prison (SAM) in almost complete isolation where he could devise a plan of committing suicide, despite their preventive measures.

Continue Reading

Most Popular