Thursday, May 24, 2012

scope of Article 21 of constitution protection of life and personal libertyProtection and Improvement of Environment and Safeguarding of Forests and Wildlife


The Environment related Laws enacted by the Parliament under Articles 252 and 253 of the Constitution of India. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was promulgated as a Central Legislation under Article 252 of the Constitution. Since, the "water" is listed under the State list, a Resolution from two or more State Assemblies empowering the Parliament to enact the Legislation on the State List was required. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 became effective at the State level when it was adopted by the concerned State Assemblies. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 were promulgated under Article 253 of the Constitution of India, which empowered the Parliament to enact legislations on such matters as necessary for compliance of International Agreements in which India has been a party.
The Supreme Court of India in numerous matters elaborated the scope of Article 21 of the constitution of India, which deals with protection of life and personal liberty - No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by Law. In the matter of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Vs State of U.P. - the Hon’ble Supreme court held that the right to unpolluted environment and preservation and protection of nature’s gifts has also been conceded under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional provisions provide the bed-rock for the framing of environmental legislations in the country. Article 48-A of the Constitution deals with the Protection and Improvement of Environment and Safeguarding of Forests and WildlifeThe State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. On the basis of the said provisions, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (as amended in 1986) have been enacted by the Parliament. Under Part IV-A of the Directive Principles of State Policy, Fundamental Duties have been added under Article 51-A by the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution in 1976. Under Article 51-A(g) provides the Fundamental Duties with respect to the environment which includes - To protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.


Supreme Court Cases-2006S.C.C.vol.1 page1
Constitution of India
— Arts. 21, 48-A and 51-A(g) — Forests — Conservation of — Adoption of incentive compatible/market oriented instead of command and control methodologies for — Diversion of forest land to non-forest use — Creation of market in forest use, ensuring inclusion of social opportunity cost/<169>externalities<170> of such use, in contemporary context and in terms of intergenerational equity, in pricing model therefore — Levying of appropriate Net Present Value (NPV) of such diverted forest land as the price of such forest use, on user agencies — Need, justification and scope of such NPV, discussed — Public trust doctrine reiterated and employed — Inadequacy of compensatory afforestation by itself in compensating for loss of natural forests, explained — Held, the appropriate NPV has to be worked out on economic principles — Expert Committee, comprising three experts, one from Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi University, directed to be constituted — Terms of reference of said Committee specified — Committee to report to Supreme Court within four months of this order — Various methods of, and considerations involved in estimating said NPV discussed and emphasised — Clarified that various environmental outputs from forests appear as public goods for which there is no market — Such outputs enumerated, and directed to be accounted for by said Committee in arriving at estimate of said NPV — Committee to undertake entire exercise within framework and on basis of doctrine of sustainable development — Further held, larger public interest has to be the guiding principle and not present interest of the user agency only, (2006) 1 SCC 1-A
Constitution of India
— Arts. 21, 48-A, 51-A(g) — Forests — Conservation of — Diversion of forest land to non-forest use — Levying of appropriate NPV of such diverted forest land as the price of such forest use, on user agencies — Updation of NPV amounts — Periodicity — Held, whatever be the NPV to be charged as determined by expert committee set up in terms of this judgment, the amounts shall have to be updated every three years, (2006) 1 SCC 1-B
Constitution of India
— Arts. 21, 48-A, 51-A(g) — Forests — Conservation of — Diversion of forest land to non-forest use — Levying of appropriate NPV of such diverted forest land as the price of such forest use, on user agencies — Payments of NPV pending final determination by expert committee set up in terms of this judgment — Need for user agencies to make — Held, besides NPV as being presently calculated by MoEF, user agencies shall give undertakings to pay remaining/further amounts as determined by said expert committee, (2006) 1 SCC 1-C
Constitution of India
— Arts. 21, 14, 48-A, 51-A(g) — Sustainable development — Applicability of principle of — Forest use — Primacy between dictates of development and protection of environment in — Held, Forest Policy, 1998, which has a statutory flavour dictates that derivation of economic benefit must be subordinated to ensuring environmental stability and maintenance of ecological balance — Non-fulfilment of this principle would be violative of Arts. 14 and 21 — Furthermore, in the ultimate analysis, economic development at cost of degradation of environment and depletion of forest cover would not be long-lasting — Such development would be counterproductive — Dwindling of forest cover in India — Importance of India as major biogeographic/<169>megadiversity<170> country — Need for vision for overall development and systematic approach — Concept of forest management discussed as possible practical mode to achieve the same, (2006) 1 SCC 1-D
Constitution of India
— Arts. 21, 48-A, 51-A(g) — Right to enjoyment of healthy life under — Violation of, from threats to the ecology — Conservation of natural resources — Obligations of all concerned, including Union and State Governments — Duty of Supreme Court — Held, Constitution enjoins upon Supreme Court a duty to protect the environment, (2006) 1 SCC 1-E
Constitution of India
— Arts. 21, 48-A, 51-A(g) — Forests — Conservation of — Diversion of forest land to non-forest use — Levying of appropriate NPV of such diverted forest land as the price of such forest use, on user agencies — Projects/user agencies to be exempted from payment of NPV — Held, though issue is to be finally decided by expert committee set up in terms of this judgment, prima facie, revenue charging projects, even though they be public utilities, would not be exempt, while non-revenue earning projects could be exempted, (2006) 1 SCC 1-F
Environment Protection and Pollution Control
Forests
— Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Agency (<169>CAMPA<170>) set up in terms of MoEF notification dt. 23-4-2004 — Validity of — Held, constitution of CAMPA is necessary to fully and effectively implement recommendation dt. 9-8-2002 made by CEC for protection of environment, (2006) 1 SCC 1-G
Environment Protection and Pollution Control
Forests
— Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Agency (<169>CAMPA<170>) set up in terms of MoEF notification dt. 23-4-2004 — Constitution/Composition of executive body of CAMPA — Need for inclusion of conservationists, environmentalists, economists and experts in forestry — Held, cl. 2.2 of CAMPA notification dt. 23-4-2004 shall be amended so as to include two more environmentalists, one expert in field of forests and the other in field of forest economy development — Said amendment to be made within one month of this judgment, (2006) 1 SCC 1-H
Environment Protection and Pollution Control
Forests
— Sums tendered as NPV for diverted forest land — Appropriation and use of — Appropriation whether to CAMPA Fund set up in terms of MoEF notification dt. 23-4-2004 or State Governments — Purposes for which funds to be used — Held, payment to CAMPA fund is constitutional and valid — Natural resources/ecology not being in ownership of any State or individual, public at large is beneficiary and they belong to all — Hence amounts of NPV cannot be made over to State Governments — In any case, proprietary rights of States over the land, timber or minerals are not affected — Effect of change in scheme of forest management from Forest Act, 1927 to Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and removal of forest and wildlife from State List in Sch. VII of Constitution in this regard, discussed — CAMPA or CAMPA Fund set up to protect ecology and provide for regeneration of forests cannot in constitutional scheme be considered as a fund under Arts. 266, 283 or 284 — Hence neither Arts. 110, 199, 195 nor 294 will have any application — Furthermore, imposition of NPV is a charge or a fee within Sch. VII List III Entries 47 and 20 — Lastly, 12th Finance Commission has recommended a grant of Rs 1000 crores, spread over 2005-2010 for maintenance of forests, to the States over and above what they have been spending through their forest departments, (2006) 1 SCC 1-I
Environment Protection and Pollution Control
Forests
— Sums tendered as NPV for diverted forest land to CAMPA fund — Territorial usage of — Held, cl. 6.4(v) of CAMPA notification dated 23-4-2004 to be amended within one month of this order so as to provide that ordinarily expenditure shall be incurred in State or UT from which such sums are received, but leaving it to discretion of CAMPA to also incur expenditure in adjoining State or UT where impact of diversion of forest in question is also felt, (2006) 1 SCC 1-J
Environment Protection and Pollution Control
Forests
— Establishment of SPV under CAMPA notification dt. 23-3-2004 — Legality of — Held, there is no illegality in establishment of the same in terms of cl. 6.6 of the said notification — However, before establishing SPV, its format to be filed in Supreme Court, and further action to be taken on orders thereupon — In meantime, word <169>may<170> in cl. 6.6, which left it discretion of CAMPA to establish SPV, to be amended to <169>shall<170> within one month of this judgment, (2006) 1 SCC 1-K
Environment Protection and Pollution Control
Forests
— CAMPA Fund set up in terms of CAMPA notification dt. 23-3-2004 — Accounting method to be followed — Held, there should be corporate accounting based on double-entry system and auditing is to be done by CAG, every six months — Relevant clauses of CAMPA notification to be amended within one month of this judgment, (2006) 1 SCC 1-L


Assurances from the Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandh Times of India Group and HINDALCOi

I was a tiny manufacturer entrepreneur, using Aluminium as a Raw Material. I sent one revolving LC to Hindalco for supply of a particular Aluminium item. But in the meantime since the Black-Market assumed a dominating factor, Hindalco refused to supply the same against the promised goods and sent back the LC. I started to collect Information from different sources relating to the production, supply and other activities relating to Hindalco. In 1974, I called a Press Conference, in which one Mr. Samarjeet Ghosh, was also present on behalf of the Economic Times. Firstly, he raised a question, taking me to be a Marwari. After hearing my response, he called me in his Office and after being satisfied about my honesty, integrity and commitment to the cause, he started publishing my interviews in the Economic Times, regularly based on “Information” collected by me, through various sources to support and promote the cause of SSI Sector. The vested interests of Hindalco started getting affected seriously, and hence the pressure started building up to mount on the management of the Times of India Group of Newspapers. Consequent to the pressure brought by the bosses of the management to stop publication of my interviews, Mr. Samarjeet Ghosh’s plain response was that he was doing his professional duties in exposing the wrong doings of the Monopoly House. Hence, if they could contradict any of the information as told by Mr. Choraria (means me), he would not publish any of his interview in future. After sitting more than three months in the National Library, I searched various papers, reports, documents, and obtained copies of more than thousand pages. After studying the various Tariff Commission Reports on Aluminium Industry, and Balance Sheets of Hindalco and Indal of several consecutive years, I prepared a Study Report giving details relating to the manipulation of the Cost and quantity of Aluminium by Hindalco, which seriously affected the larger public interests.

Times of India Group and HINDALCO
Before publishing the aforesaid Study, on Monoply Aluminium Producers, Mr. Samarjeet Ghosh wanted to check the veracity of my Study by referring it to some accounting and costing experts, and as such he gave it to Mr. A. K. Biswas, (If I am not wrong about the name) the First President / Chairman of the Indian Institute of the Cost Accountants, which then had its Head Quarters at Kolkata. After getting approval from Mr. Biswas, Mr. Samarjeet Ghosh published the said large Report in Six Columns of the Economic Times dated 2nd August, 1975. Immediately thereafter, within few months, Mr. Samarjeet Ghosh was transferred to Pune, on compromise for advertisements in its Group Newspapers, including on 1st January, 1976, 26th January, 1976, 2nd February, 1976 and 8th March, 1976, large size advertisement was published under heading: Prime Minister’s 20 Program promises a new era of progress and prosperity”. The aforesaid story was seriously affected the interests of Hindalco, since the period was under Emergency. As a result, the Company took the help and services of one Dr. Chakradhari Agarwal to conduct one Seminar on behalf of the alleged SSI Aluminum Industry. The purpose of the seminar was just to backstab our 'Movement for equal distribution at fair price' of Aluminium. Most funniest part of the fact was that the said advertisement was never published in Birla's own Newspaper Hindustan Times or any of its Group of Newspaper.

HINDALCO's SWISS TRANSFER
In view of such exposures being brought out by me, one Top Official from Hindalco, secretly got in touch with me and gave me some secret information relating to Swiss Transfers of the money by Hindalco. I being a small Shareholder of Hindalco raised the question before Mr. G. D. Birla, the then Chairman of Hindalco. In reaction to that I was threatened, by one Mr. Tejraj of M/S. Jugraj Tejraj, Kolkata, in presence of Mr. A. K. Agarwal: who was subsequently elevated as President of Hindalco. Further, I also got a legal Notice from a big Solicitor firm of Mumbai. However, in spite of such threats, I sent the whole matter to Mr. Samarjeet Ghosh at Pune, which was published in the Economic Times of 8th March, 1976, under the heading 'Shareholder's Right'. Based on the publication of the said News, matter was raised in the Parliament and the then Industry Minister Mr. T. A. Pai assured the house to conduct an inquiry, which however was never done.

Assurances from the Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi
Price of Aluminium was a controlled item, and as such our campaign for the cause of equitable distribution at fair prices prevailed, even when Smt. Indira Gandhi again became Prime Minister in 1980. It was reported that the then Steel Minister Sri Pranab Mukherjee was playing in the hands of the Hindalco, and as such he prepared a proposal for the enhancement of the control price of Aluminium. Prior to that Hindalco had also moved in Kolkata High Court, wherein SSI Aluminum users had petitioned, under my leadership, to intervene. Our Intervention Petition was opposed by a battery of several senior Lawyers including Shri Siddharth Shankar Ray, the Ex-Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mr. Dipankar Gupta, Mr. Bhaskar Gupta. I had just one Lawyer Mr. P. K. Ray, Bar-at-law. Mr. Milon Bannerjee, the then Addl. Solicitor General of India (Now Attorney General of India) appeared on behalf of the MMTC.
           
I prepared a detailed printed Memorandum, in 16 Pages, with appropriate data in support of our claim and submitted it to Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, with copies to the then all MPs. She gave us the assurance to look into the matter.

Even after getting the assurance from the PM, I was told that Sri Pranab Mukherjee is getting ready with a proposal to get approval from the cabinet for an increase in the price of the controlled Aluminium. There being a clash of political interests between the then Energy Minister Mr. Abdul Gani Khan Choudhury, and the then Steel Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, and to take advantage of the same, I apprised the Private Secretary of Sri Choudhury about the alleged unwarranted patronage being given to Hindalco by Sri Pranab Mukherjee. He, in turn, briefed Sri Gani Khan Choudhury the entire matter, based on our 16 Page printed Memorandum. Sri Choudhury being the head of the Ministry, which controlled the user consuming the Aluminium, ordered an internal enquiry in the matter. The matter was published in the Economic Times, dated 8th December, 1980. However, since Mr. Pranab Mukherjee always had better opportunities in preference to others, he pushed his proposal for consideration by the Cabinet. I had to send a long Telegram to the Prime Minister, giving reference of the assurances she gave in response to out Memorandum. As a result of which the matter was returned by the Cabinet, without considering it.

REPORTED REMARKS FROM  SMT. INDIRA GANDHI
I can't say whether this is correct or not, but it was reported that whenever Smt. Gandhi wanted to do something and some one opposes with facts and figures, she had standing instructions for the respective Secretary, not to place the matter for her consideration for second time. However, Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, again pushed the proposal for consideration by the Cabinet. Taking a cue from the aforesaid report, this time instead of sending directly to Smt. Gandhi, I sent another telegram to Dr. P. C. Alexander, the then Principle Secretary to the Prime Minister, with a request to place the telegram when the respective matter comes up for consideration by the Cabinet. Reportedly, once again the matter was sent back without any consideration by the Cabinet. However, since Mr. Pranab Mukherjee was committed, for his assurances given to the Monopoly House, to get the approval from the Cabinet for the enhancement of the Control Price of Aluminium, he once again pushed, for the third time, to get the approval from the Cabinet. Since, I was in constant touch, with my contacts, to keep myself well informed about the developments taking place, hence this time, I sent my fresh salvo of Telegram to the Cabinet Secretary with similar request. It was reported that after seeing the third Telegram, on the same issue, at appropriate time, from me, (each telegram at the time of each Cabinet Meeting with the agenda on the same issue) Mrs. Indira Gandhi said: Look Mr. Mukherjee, this man appears to be a mad one for his concerns and will make you mad as well. So don't place this proposal again and again and she put her objection in writing against the proposal. The authenticity of such remarks can only be verified by Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, alone.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
As already stated that prior to our aforesaid approach to the PM, Hindalco had filed a Writ Petition in Kolkata High Court (Hindlaco's Head Office was in Mumbai, and Factory was in UP). The Hon’ble Justice Mr. Dipak Sen heard my intervention petition and rejected on the grounds that the Petitioners are not the directly interested party in the matter. The number of Senior Lawyers including Ex-CM of WB Sri Sidhhartha Shankar Ray opposed my Petition against Hindalco. Mr. Dipankar Gupta, Bar-at-law, was also amongst them. Subsequently, I started sending telegrams to the Ministry of Steel, in view of the poor pleadings of the Government pleaders against Hindalco. The Judgment was reserved by Justice Sen. However, after a lapse of more than a year, but within a few days from the said third time return of the proposal submitted by Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, Mr. Justice Dipak Sen, passed an interim Order, without announcing his Judgment. I lodged my complaint before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and met Mr. Kalyan Ray, M.P. from CPI, who could raise the issue in Parliament. Finally Hindalco lost the said case in the Supreme Court.
I BECAME FIRST INDIVIDUAL TO GAVE EVIDENCE
BEFORE ANY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
I do admit that Mr. Samarjeet Ghosh, could found me an honest and true citizen, and as such he introduced me to one of his friend (Late) Mr. Jyotirmoy Basu, M. P. from C.P.I.(M) Party. Initially Mr. Basu was not prepared to entertain me, possibly because of his bias against the Marwari community, probably because of certain misconceptions viewing every businessmen as an exploiter of the community. Mr. Samarjeet Ghosh was not surprised and advised to have patience and keep silence for a while. During this intermission, Mr. Jyotirmoy Basu got engaged on telephone with some one on some vital issue and got enraged concerning some point in the balance sheet of the Jute Corporation, since he had very recently been appointed Chairman of the Parliamentary Public Undertaking Committee (PUC). This incidence relates to the period of Janta Party Regime. It was obvious for him, to get interested in examining the working of the Jute Corporation, which was a Government of India undertaking. At this point of time, taking advantage of the crucial moment, Mr. Samarjeet Ghosh said to him that he could recommend one, who could well be termed as a creature of Balance Sheets, but this one is none other than the one whom you are not interested even to talk with. In reaction to this, Mr. Basu angrily threw the whole Balance Sheet with a bang on my face. Surprisingly, I was just taken aback. For a moment, I just remembered God, and as soon I opened a page of the Balance Sheet, there was before my eyes, an entry of Rs.22 Crores (Odd) as outstanding over Six Months. Immediately I handed back the Balance Sheet to Mr. Basu, pointing out that this amount reflects some sort of a fraud. Mr. Basu asked me to explain as to how this could be a fraud. I asked him, whether he has read the ‘Tondon Committee Report?’
Immediately he could realise that I was talking about the principles relating to the   double / multiple finance. After that, he took time to sit along with me for more than 3 long hours and discussed in depth about the various issues relating to ‘Jute’. Thereafter he asked me whether can I repeat the same, whatever I have said just now, in front of no less than 22 Parliamentarians. Having been exhausted owing to the long discussion that we had, I accepted the offer, without going into its pros and cones. Thereafter, he invited me to appear before the Parliamentary Public Undertaking Committee (PUC) to give evidence regarding the matters relating to ‘Jute Corporation’.

EXPERIENCES OF PUC
Since we had the entire discussion in Bengali, Mr. Basu could never imagine that I was one of those who had the least educational qualification. On appearing before the Committee, I found that there is a tussle between the Members from South and North. The point of contention being that the Members from South wanted to hear me in English, while those from North wanted me to speak in Hindi. At this point of time, I told them that I am not conversant to speak in English. It was a great surprise to Mr. Basu, and to an extent even some shock. Finally I gave my evidence in Hindi. Though the period for my deposition was fixed for half an hour, but, it went on for almost two and a half hours. After that, I was even invited for dinners, by a couple of MP's, among whom were also Ms. Chandrawati from Haryana, Mr. K. Lakkappa from Kerala, and Mr. Gunanand Thakur from Bihar. This was a unique experience for me, as during the evidence, I learnt that I was an exception to have been invited inadvertently in my individual capacity as being a first case of this nature, for deposition before any Parliamentary Committee. This was revealed to me only when some Members raised their objections for myself being invited in my individual capacity only. At the time of the dinner, Mr. Gunanand Thakur told me that Mr. Basu regards your evidence to be of a very crucial nature, and for this very reason he had also called various investigating agencies to be able to hear me.

I SUCCESSFULLY OPPOSED THE MEGER OF INDAL WITH M & M
I had spent my precious time to make a study on Aluminium Industry, and with full support of the Media, I was able to build a strong voice against the wrong doings by the Aluminium Industry at that point of Time. INDAL was Indian unit of ALCAN Canada. M&M was also having collaboration with a foreign Company. Both the foreign groups decided to make a merger of INDAL into M&M. While, I was opposing it with all the facts and figures, at various levels, not only before the Company Law Board and MRTP Commission but also in the Supreme Court and also in Kolkata High Court. The news covering my opposition were published as ‘leading news’ in the Financial Express and Economic Times. Government of India had always favoured the big business houses, at times even at the cost of larger public interest. The result was that on 15th December, 1983 Chairman of INDAL Mr. Keshab Mahindra took steps to inform all the shareholders interalia that:
 “At their respective meetings held on 26 September and 4 October the Shareholders of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited and INDAL approved the Scheme of Amalgamation between two Companies by the requisite majorities. Both  Companies submitted their petitions to the respective High Courts in Bombay and Calcutta for confirmation of the Scheme. The Central Government's approval under the MRTP Act is also awaited. Sd/-Keshb Mahindra, Chairman 15 December 1983”.
After the said message, on 6th January, 1984, I sent a Telegram to CJI, giving reference to my petitions before the SC and Kolkata High Court, Company law Board and MRTP Commission with the prayer that all the matters be together heard by the SC itself. Resultantly, on 16 February, 1984, Mr. Keshub Mahindra informed all the Shareholders of INDAL interalia that:
“I greatly regret to say that Government has been fit to reject our application as not being expedient in the public interest.”
This is to be referred that in this case of INDAL too, Mr. Dipankar Gupta, the Barrister, was the Counsel of INDAL. So he took this defeat of his client as his own and that is why, since then he has never spared any occasion to let go without causing damage to my lawful rights. Subsequently, Sri Keshub Mahindra and Field Marshal Sam Manek Shaw, opted to resign from the Board of Directors of INDAL.

HIDING LIABILITIES OF PEERLEES, KOLKATA WERE EXPOSED BY ME
I made a study of the Balance Sheet of the Peerless, with regard to  a period of four years and found that there was a hiding liability to the tune of Rs.172 Crores. Thereafter, I made a representation, dated 28th November, 1994, to the Governor of the RBI. When subsequently the matter came up before the SC in January, 1996 it was revealed that the hiding liability was as high as around Rs.700 Crores. In this case Sri Somnath Chatterjee, (then M.P.), was the Counsel for the Peerless. Consequently, the then Peerless Chairman Mr. P. C. Sen had to resign around 16th January, 1996, from the Chairmanship of the Peerless.   

Group Newspapers. For instance, on 1st January, 1976, 26th January, 1976, 2nd February, 1976 and 8th March, 1976, large size advertisement was published under heading: Prime Minister’s 20 Program promises a new era of progress and prosperity”.


SOME OF MY PAST EXPERINCES:YOGESH SAXENA GENERAL SECRETARY ALL INDIA BAR ASSOCIATION

Cost of Fair Journalism.

Before I should mention any thing about me, I must tribute to one Honest and most dedicated to his profession of Journalism: just to support my, cause based fighting, in larger public interests. I was never a Communist, while on other hands he was a true communist, just not only in words or speech, but also in all of his actions. But at the same time, he was also committed to fair journalism. I meet him in a Press Conference, in Kolkata. He never became biased against me, even I was a Kayastha  or even I was not a Fanatic . He gave a strong voice to the cause, and interests: seriously concerns to entire Advocate Profession which were grabbed by Monopoly and Multinational Companies. However, the Economic Times punished him first by transferring to Pune and finally matter was gone up to the Court. This was done by the Times of India Group of Newspapers, on compromise for advertisements in its Group Newspapers. For instance, on 1st January, 1976, 26th January, 1976, 2nd February, 1976 and 8th March, 1976, large size advertisement was published under heading: Prime Minister’s 20 Program promises a new era of progress and prosperity”. Under this background, I am still blacklisted from the Newspapers published from the Times of India Group of Newspapers, except some thing published by mistake. Even important matters were not published, while on the other hand, much less valued News items or some story were published to sponsor some one. This attitude of the Times of India Group of Newspapers is against the Right of Expression, by a strong Campaigner of “Right of Expression.”. This issue should be examined by the Press Council of India.

To expect decency from a communist government that killed its own people in Singur and Nandigram is to expect a miracle. As for the UPA government in Delhi, the less said the better.


However, that is no reason to ask for support of gangs on people having extra-terrestrial loyalties to Rome, Mecca and Beijing. Expose the real loyalties of these Anti-National groups [Not just anti-Hindu]. Rahul Gandhi is a grand son of a Muslim and is a Christian, dating a foreigner - Christian. Priyanka is a Christian married to a Christian and Sonia is a Catholic - will they come out to declare openly that they are Hindus or will they declare openly their religious faith or declare that they are Atheists and ask for our votes. Yes, we should not raise the religion and caste in elections but this rule should apply to every one. Will Muslim League admit any Hindu in their party. How come only BJP is a communal party and not Congress which is the one which plays the communal - religion - jaathi card in elections. Tell every one that BJP is the only national party. Communists play workers against management, DMKs plays upper caste against lower
castes; then there are a whole group of parties blatantly named after castes and religion and these are the real communal parties. Congress waits for directions from Rome, Communists wait for approval of Beijing, DMKs oppose only Hindu Gods when they say they are non-belivers but perhaps their Muslims and Christians do not pray to the real God!!
Sections of the media have a strange idea of news
http://indiasecular.wordpress.com/ The Sharia court headed by you has passed strictures against alleged missionary activity in the Valley. What was the provocation?
Yes. We want the three Christian priests, MC Khanna, Jim Borst and Gayoor Messah, who have been involved in conversions, to leave the Valley immediately. We are still investigating the case against the principal of Tyndale Biscoe School, Parvez Samuel Koul, and we will soon announce the judgment on him.
The Sharia court has also decreed that the state government involve itself in the management of the missionary schools. Besides, we also want a prayer written by Sir Muhammad Iqbal to be read in these schools and a class allotted for Islamic studies.
You say that missionaries are forcibly converting people. What is the proof?
They use methods that force people to convert. There are several missionary agencies charged with harvesting souls for Christianity. People are deployed outside schools to lure students. They usually start with impressionable children or vulnerable people with problems and offer solutions. We also have reports that during the 2005 earthquake, Christian missionaries built houses worth Rs 7.5 crore and they were given to people who were willing to convert. Our Sharia court is still investigating the matter.
But will the Sharia court be able to execute its decisions?
Yes, if there has to be communal harmony in Kashmir, then the decisions of the Sharia court have to be implemented. Kashmir is a very sensitive state. We already have problems of our own, of a very complicated kind at that. So we hope the government will carry out the court judgment. It would be for the good of the state.
Is there any way the Sharia court can ensure that its orders are implemented?
If the state government doesn’t fulfil its obligation, then the people of the state will do it for themselves. In fact, the people are waiting to see what the government does. And if it fails to act, then the people will act.
What will you do if there is violence?
That is why we are warning the government in advance. In case the government fails to do its duty, things can go out of our hand. Violence is but natural under the circumstances. We are not for violence and want it averted. So, in the interest of peace and communal harmony in the state, we feel the missionary activities need to be stopped forthwith.
What is the number of converts in the Valley?
In the course of our investigation, Khanna said that 10 people have converted. He would have revealed more but he was arrested soon. We questioned many persons who had first converted and then returned to the Islamic faith. In fact, it is their account that has helped us understand the full scope of missionary activity in the Valley. We learnt that the persons who convert are given money, all their needs are met, they are taken to California, provided accommodation and jobs and settled there.
How will you deal with those who have converted and won’t return to their original faith?
I call upon them to return and revive their faith in Islam. And if they don’t, then we will respond in the light of what Islam says on apostasy.

Weekly Organiser

What constitutes news to our secular English-language press? When the police in Chennai behave like rowdies, it hardly makes news. Think of this: French journalist Francois Gautier's Foundation Against Continuing Terrorism (FACT) had painstakingly put together a collection of 40 miniatures that told the story of Aurangzeb's rule. The collection was called Aurangzeb As He Was According to Mughal Records.

Among the 40 miniatures were two that seemed to have enraged the bogus Nawab of Arcot in Chennai. Of the two, one depicted Aurangzeb's army destroying the Somnath Temple and another the destruction of the Keshava Rai temple in Mathura, also by Aurangzeb's gangsters.

The collection was first exhibited to critical acclaim at the Habitat Centre in New Delhi. It next travelled to Pune where one lakh people visited the show. It was equally well received in Bangalore where the popular Gallery G hosted the exhibition. But when it was taken to Chennai, under the auspices of the Lalit Kala Akademi and shown there, it elicited objection, by the so-called Nawab of Arcot who managed to get Karunanidhi's government to stop the exhibition and had the cooperation of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, one K.N. Murali. Murali even had one of the miniatures taken off the wall and thrown on the ground.

Nobody covered the event. Gautier wrote an article which, fortunately, was published by The
Indian Express on its edit page and must have attracted the attention of a large number of readers. The only other paper to publish the news was Sunday Pioneer (March 9). The Pioneer used the news as front-page lead.

One doesn't expect justice from Karunanidhi's government.

It was Karunanidhi who called Sri Ram "a drunkard". The miniatures were not anti-Islam. They merely showed the strong anti-Hindu sentiment of Aurangzeb and were factually accurate.

 But there was not a word in the majority of the
English language papers. One doesn't even know whether the desecration of the Chennai exhibition was covered by the news agencies. What are they afraid of? What sort of sickness prevails in the English media?

Or take the
murderous behaviour of CPM goons in Kannur, a district in North Kerala where in just the first week of March, CPM goons 'hacked' to death five RSS workers. Isn't that news?
Such was the ghastly killing that the Kerala High Court was moved to criticise the Leftist-led state government for its failure to protect life and property in Kannur district. Justice Ramkumar had specifically asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe a political murder in which a CPM activist is an accused.

That news, too, was suppressed by most papers.
The Free Press Journal (March 13) was the only paper to publish it.
George Fernandes, often addressed as the stormy petrel of Indian politics, is back again in the news for reason other than politics. Years ago he had started a monthly journal called The Other Side which propagated his party's views. Publishing a monthly magazine is not a joke. It calls for a lot of financial investment. To the best of one's knowledge it had to close down at two different times. It has now been resurrected and is presently edited by Jaya Jaitley. Priced at Rs 25, it describes itself as "Journal of Socialist Thought and Action". Socialism in India is dead as a dodo but George is not one to easily give in. A strong Lohiaite, his resurrected journal provides some excellent fare.

The January issue, incidentally, carries the text of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's address during the Congressional Gold Medal Award ceremony held in Washington on October 17, 2007. It is most relevant in the context of recent events in Lhasa. India, as can well be expected, has maintained its distance from events in Tibet, no doubt on the grounds of political propriety.

The Chinese Ambassador in Delhi is quoted as saying at a press conference that Tibet is an internal matter for China and other nations should keep their hands off. Some one should tell Beijing that Arunachal Pradesh is an internal matter for India and China is well advised to keep its hands off what is plainly Indian territory.

Whether it was wise on the part of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to use Indian territory to criticise China is another matter. It would have been wise on the part of American diplomat to keep her mouth shut and let the spokesman of the State Department in Washington announce US policy in the matter of the recent disturbances, in Lhasa where the Chinese have let loose an orgy of violence against the Tibetan people.

 Using Indian territory to ciriticise another country is just not permissible. One may agree with her thoughts, but there is such a thing as protocol.

Then there is the case of Taslima Nasreen who has left Indian shores to go to Scandinavia to take up refugee residence there. According to Deccan Herald (March 22) Taslima's exist from India "has diminished India's stature as a pluralist, secular democracy".

India, said the paper "has had a long and proud tradition of providing sanctuary to those fleeing oppression" and that "this tradition now lies in tatters".

According to the Herald "Taslima's exit is a serious blow to Indian secularism as it will embolden fundamentalists further" and that "by failing to protect the individual's right to freedom of speech and expression, the government has dealt a blow to democracy as well".

This issue can be discussed later. Meanwhile The Indian Express (March 21) spoke for Taslima when it wrote that "she has been more then willing to retract a few lines" in her work that had offended Muslims and that "one did expect better from India that has always valued free expression and has made common cause with those who were victims of authoritarian regimes and fanatical forces".

The paper said that the Left Front government in West Bengal should have stood up for her, and that "the persons issuing threats to her life should have been identified and arrested". Big words.

To expect decency from a communist government that killed its own people in Singur and Nandigram is to expect a miracle. As for the UPA government in Delhi, the less said the better.
From the times of Rajiv Gandhi the Congress has sought Muslim fundamentalist support, instead of taking a firm stand. And what happened to Taslima is part of Congress tradition of gutlessness.

But that apart, has anyone really made a study of the writings of Taslima? Is anyone aware of the kind of things she said about the Prophet that, with the best of intentions, cannot be repeated here? Freedom of expression does not mean that one can indulge in abuse of any individual. But more on this, some other time.