Sources said the party leadership had taken unkindly to public posturing by bureaucrats and the IAS association in favour of the suspended official.
"We cannot allow officials to gang up like this against the government," said an SP leader who confided that the party chief and the chief minister were "very miffed" at the developments following Nagpal's suspension.
read full TOI/IANS story here
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/up-government-defends-ias-officers.html
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Religious procession stoned, tension in Lucknow
Lucknow: Tension prevailed in the old city area here when members of two groups engaged in brick-batting and arson during a religious procession, police said wednesday.
The incident took place this morning when a procession to commemorate the death anniversary of Hazrat Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet, was being taken out in old city by the members of Shia community, they said.
As soon as the procession reached near Bhadeva telephone exchange in Bazar Khala locality some persons started ................................................
read full story at http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/religious-procession-stoned-tension-in.html
The incident took place this morning when a procession to commemorate the death anniversary of Hazrat Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet, was being taken out in old city by the members of Shia community, they said.
As soon as the procession reached near Bhadeva telephone exchange in Bazar Khala locality some persons started ................................................
read full story at http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/religious-procession-stoned-tension-in.html
Village fights its battle to rebuild mosque wall demolished on orders of IAS officer Durga Shakti
he mosque's wall was demolished on July 27 on orders and under the supervision of area SDM Durkga Shakti Nagpal. Nagpal, said to be actively involved in crackdowns on the illegal sand mining groups operating along the river belt, was promptly suspended by the state government soon after the demolition came to light. The suspension saw the state's IAS lobby rally behind their colleague, who they say was only discharging her duty.
However, the villagers do not care for such bureaucratic speak. "We were building the Mecca Masjid, bit-by-bit with the help of donations from other villagers and well wishers of all faiths, the SDM came on Saturday, July 27 and just ordered the demolition without any warning," said Fateh Mohammed, 50, who claims he and other village elders pleaded with Nagpal to give the village some time before taking action.
The SDM was not in a mood to talk, say villagers, while she did not misbehave or use offensive language she came with a posse of PAC constables, a fire tender and even an ambulance with her. This cavalcade of state machinery, say villages was enough to intimidate them into submission. "How could we simple people fight against so much sarkari strength," says Mohammed, who now sits with other village elders to think up a plan of action.
At the moment the community is on a very short fuse, and the villagers want to .................................................
read full india today story at
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/tags-kadal-pur-yamuna-expressway-ias.html
However, the villagers do not care for such bureaucratic speak. "We were building the Mecca Masjid, bit-by-bit with the help of donations from other villagers and well wishers of all faiths, the SDM came on Saturday, July 27 and just ordered the demolition without any warning," said Fateh Mohammed, 50, who claims he and other village elders pleaded with Nagpal to give the village some time before taking action.
The SDM was not in a mood to talk, say villagers, while she did not misbehave or use offensive language she came with a posse of PAC constables, a fire tender and even an ambulance with her. This cavalcade of state machinery, say villages was enough to intimidate them into submission. "How could we simple people fight against so much sarkari strength," says Mohammed, who now sits with other village elders to think up a plan of action.
At the moment the community is on a very short fuse, and the villagers want to .................................................
read full india today story at
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/tags-kadal-pur-yamuna-expressway-ias.html
सपा सरकार की उपलब्धियों पर प्रदेश के राज्यपाल कुछ कह रहे हैं तो सरकार के नौकरशाह कुछ और। इसका खुलासा आरटीआइ के माध्यम से मांगी गई एक सूचना से हुआ है। सदन में राज्यपाल ने जो कहा, सरकारी फाइलों के तथ्य उससे अलग पाए गए।
चुनाव बाद प्रदेश में सपा सरकार बनी तो 14 फरवरी 12 को प्रदेश के रजच्यपाल ने विधानसभा और विधान परिषद के दोनों सदनों को संयुक्त रूप से संबोधित किया। राज्य सरकार की उपलब्धियों बताते हुए राज्यपाल ने कहा था कि बेरोजगारी भत्ता, कन्या विद्याधन, नि:शुल्क लैपटॉप व टैबलेट दिए जाने की महत्वाकाक्षी योजनाएं शुरू हो चुकी हैं। लाखों लोगों को बेरोजगारी भत्ता, कन्या विद्याधन उपलब्ध
कराने के साथ ही 'हमारी बेटी उसका कल' योजना के तहत हजारों च्च्चियों को लाभान्वित किया जा चुका है। साथ ही, 'पढ़ें बेटिया बढ़ें बेटिया' योजना भी लागू की गई है।
भले ही दोनों सदनों के माननीयों ने पटल को थपथपाकर हर्ष जताया हो, लेकिन आरटीआइ.................................................
read dainik jagran story at given link http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/blog-post_5324.html
कराने के साथ ही 'हमारी बेटी उसका कल' योजना के तहत हजारों च्च्चियों को लाभान्वित किया जा चुका है। साथ ही, 'पढ़ें बेटिया बढ़ें बेटिया' योजना भी लागू की गई है।
भले ही दोनों सदनों के माननीयों ने पटल को थपथपाकर हर्ष जताया हो, लेकिन आरटीआइ.................................................
read dainik jagran story at given link http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/blog-post_5324.html
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Goa shows way, no RTI exemption for vigilance dept
Panaji, July 30: A move by the Goa Directorate of Vigilance seeking to exempt itself from the purview of Right to Information (RTI) Act has been overruled by the state government. A document sourced under RTI by activist Aires Rodrigues yesterday revealed that the vigilance department had moved a note earlier this month to the state government seeking to exempt itself from the RTI Act.
Read full story http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/goa-shows-way-no-rti-exemption-for.html
Read full story http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/goa-shows-way-no-rti-exemption-for.html
उल्टी गंगा बहाता उत्तर प्रदेश का सूचना आयोग
लखनऊ: आठ सूचना आयुक्तों के पद खाली होने के कारण 45 हज़ार से भी अधिक लंबित वादों की बजह से परेशान सूचना मांगने बालों के लिए उत्तर प्रदेश सूचना आयोग के एक निर्णय की वजह से अब और परेशान होने के लिए कमर कसनी होगी l
दरअसल बीते दिनों राज्य सूचना आयोग ने उत्तर प्रदेश के गाजियाबाद, मथुरा जैसे प्रमुख जिलों में जाकर सुनवाई करने का निर्णय लिया था| तब इस निर्णय की जानकारी होने पर इन जिलों के सूचना मांगने बाले नागरिकों के साथ साथ सूचना अधिकार कार्यकर्ताओं ने भी हर्ष व्यक्त किया था किन्तु सूचना आयोग के लखनऊ से बाहर जाकर सुनवाई करने के निर्णय की हकीकत कुछ और ही है, जो लखनऊ निवासी सामजिक
कार्यकत्री उर्वशी शर्मा के एक आवेदन से सामने आई है l
उर्वशी ने गाजियाबाद के अपर जिलाधिकारी कार्यालय से सूचना माँगी थी और सूचना न मिलने पर उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य सूचना आयॊग में अपील दायर की थी l पहले इस अपील की सुनवाई उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य सूचना आयॊग लखनऊ में 14-08-13 को होनी थी किन्तु आयोग के 'तुगलकी निर्णय' की बजह से उर्वशी की इस अपील की सुनवाई अब 01-08-13 को कलेक्ट्रेट स्थित मीटिंग हाल में मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त द्वारा की जायेगी l पत्रांक
S-1-2244/C/13-3314 के माध्यम से उर्वशी के नाम जारी आयॊग के नोटिस की भाषा के अनुसार उर्वशी को सूचित किया गया है कि दिनांक 01-08-13 को सुनवाई हेतु यदि वे चाहें तो गाजियाबाद के कलेक्ट्रेट स्थित मीटिंग हाल में उपस्थित हो सकती हैं अन्यथा यह समझा जायेगा कि उनको सूचनाएं प्राप्त हो गयी हैं और वे उससे संतुष्ट हैं ,तदनुसार इस मामले को निस्तारित कर दिया जायेगा l
सूचना आयोग के इस निर्णय पर क्षोभ प्रकट करते हुए उर्वशी ने कहा कि सूचना आयोग के इस निर्णय से सूचना मांगने बाले वादी हतोत्साहित होंगे और यह .................................................
read full story at http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/blog-post_30.html
दरअसल बीते दिनों राज्य सूचना आयोग ने उत्तर प्रदेश के गाजियाबाद, मथुरा जैसे प्रमुख जिलों में जाकर सुनवाई करने का निर्णय लिया था| तब इस निर्णय की जानकारी होने पर इन जिलों के सूचना मांगने बाले नागरिकों के साथ साथ सूचना अधिकार कार्यकर्ताओं ने भी हर्ष व्यक्त किया था किन्तु सूचना आयोग के लखनऊ से बाहर जाकर सुनवाई करने के निर्णय की हकीकत कुछ और ही है, जो लखनऊ निवासी सामजिक
कार्यकत्री उर्वशी शर्मा के एक आवेदन से सामने आई है l
उर्वशी ने गाजियाबाद के अपर जिलाधिकारी कार्यालय से सूचना माँगी थी और सूचना न मिलने पर उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य सूचना आयॊग में अपील दायर की थी l पहले इस अपील की सुनवाई उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य सूचना आयॊग लखनऊ में 14-08-13 को होनी थी किन्तु आयोग के 'तुगलकी निर्णय' की बजह से उर्वशी की इस अपील की सुनवाई अब 01-08-13 को कलेक्ट्रेट स्थित मीटिंग हाल में मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त द्वारा की जायेगी l पत्रांक
S-1-2244/C/13-3314 के माध्यम से उर्वशी के नाम जारी आयॊग के नोटिस की भाषा के अनुसार उर्वशी को सूचित किया गया है कि दिनांक 01-08-13 को सुनवाई हेतु यदि वे चाहें तो गाजियाबाद के कलेक्ट्रेट स्थित मीटिंग हाल में उपस्थित हो सकती हैं अन्यथा यह समझा जायेगा कि उनको सूचनाएं प्राप्त हो गयी हैं और वे उससे संतुष्ट हैं ,तदनुसार इस मामले को निस्तारित कर दिया जायेगा l
सूचना आयोग के इस निर्णय पर क्षोभ प्रकट करते हुए उर्वशी ने कहा कि सूचना आयोग के इस निर्णय से सूचना मांगने बाले वादी हतोत्साहित होंगे और यह .................................................
read full story at http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/blog-post_30.html
Amendments have been moved to the Act to exempt parties from being obliged to share details of their funding or how they choose their candidates. These amendments are likely to be scrutinized at a cabinet meeting on Thursday.
Amendments have been moved to the Act to exempt parties from being obliged to share details of their funding or how they choose their candidates. These amendments are likely to be scrutinized at a cabinet meeting on Thursday.
find details here http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/government-moves-to-keep-political.html
find details here http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/government-moves-to-keep-political.html
Monday, July 29, 2013
UPSIC moves hearing to respondent’s office
CRITICISM : Commission draws flak by experts who say the move would discourage applicants and favour respondents
LUCKNOW: In a move that may discourage those seeking information under the RTI Act the UP State Information Commission (UPSIC) has issued a notice to an applicant to appear at the respondent's office in Ghaziabad for the hearing of her case.
The case of Lucknow based activist Urvashi Sharma was listed at the UPSIC office in Jawahar Bhawan on August 14. In a notice (S-1-2244/C/2013) recently sent to her, Sharma has been informed the same case concerning a revenue matter in Ghaziabad district would now come up for hearing...................................................................................................................
Read full HT story at
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/upsic-moves-hearing-to-respondents.html
LUCKNOW: In a move that may discourage those seeking information under the RTI Act the UP State Information Commission (UPSIC) has issued a notice to an applicant to appear at the respondent's office in Ghaziabad for the hearing of her case.
The case of Lucknow based activist Urvashi Sharma was listed at the UPSIC office in Jawahar Bhawan on August 14. In a notice (S-1-2244/C/2013) recently sent to her, Sharma has been informed the same case concerning a revenue matter in Ghaziabad district would now come up for hearing...................................................................................................................
Read full HT story at
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/upsic-moves-hearing-to-respondents.html
In India Criminal charges mean more likely to get elected, gain assets
Wealth of most of the candidates contesting more than once in a decade has grown "abnormally" by up to 1,000 per cent, especially for the ones with serious criminal charges who also have greater chance of winning compared to clean candidates, according to a survey.
An analysis of self-sworn affidavits of the candidates by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch (NEW) has found that wealth of 317 candidates, who re-contested the elections, had grown by over 1,000 per cent.
Between 2004 and 2013, in 10 years, a total of 62,847 candidates.......................................
Read full story here http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/in-india-criminal-charges-mean-more.html
An analysis of self-sworn affidavits of the candidates by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch (NEW) has found that wealth of 317 candidates, who re-contested the elections, had grown by over 1,000 per cent.
Between 2004 and 2013, in 10 years, a total of 62,847 candidates.......................................
Read full story here http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/in-india-criminal-charges-mean-more.html
Sunday, July 28, 2013
RTI effect: Political parties are chary of making their account books public
Lack of unanimity among political parties may have held up many a crucial bill such as the women's reservation bill in Parliament, but there will be no so such stumbling block if the government were to decide to tweak the law tomorrow to exempt parties from the pale of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
There's political unanimity on keeping parties, especially their account books, away from public scrutiny..............................................
read full story at given link http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/rti-effect-political-parties-are-chary.html
There's political unanimity on keeping parties, especially their account books, away from public scrutiny..............................................
read full story at given link http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/rti-effect-political-parties-are-chary.html
Friday, July 26, 2013
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
सपा को RTI दायरे में लाने का मामला आयोग पहुंचा
लखनऊ : उत्तर प्रदेश में सत्तारूढ़ समाजवादी पार्टी (सपा) को सूचना का अधिकार (आरटीआई) के दायरे में लाने का मामला राज्य सूचना आयोग तक पहुंच गया है, जिस पर आयोग उचित कार्यवाही करने में जुट गया है। गौर हो कि मुलायम सिंह यादव समाजवादी पार्टी के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष हैं।
दरअसल, लखनऊ की आरटीआई कार्यकर्ता उर्वशी शर्मा ने 13 जून को सपा के लखनऊ कार्यालय से सूचना मांगी थी। उन्होंने शहर के 19, विक्रमादित्य मार्ग स्थित पार्टी के प्रदेश कार्यालय पर जनसूचना अधिकारी के नाम से पंजीकृत पत्र भेजा था। उर्वशी के मुताबिक, उनका पत्र इस नोट के साथ वापस आ गया कि .....................................................................................................................................
read full story at http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/zee-news-rti.html
दरअसल, लखनऊ की आरटीआई कार्यकर्ता उर्वशी शर्मा ने 13 जून को सपा के लखनऊ कार्यालय से सूचना मांगी थी। उन्होंने शहर के 19, विक्रमादित्य मार्ग स्थित पार्टी के प्रदेश कार्यालय पर जनसूचना अधिकारी के नाम से पंजीकृत पत्र भेजा था। उर्वशी के मुताबिक, उनका पत्र इस नोट के साथ वापस आ गया कि .....................................................................................................................................
read full story at http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/zee-news-rti.html
Monday, July 22, 2013
Alas! Uttar Pradesh is the 'Crime-by-Police' Capital of India : Demand raised to safeguard Human Rights in State
Please find complete details at
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/alas-uttar-pradesh-is-crime-by-police.html
It's a shame on State of Uttar pradesh that as per CMS data updated on
03-05-13 , in year 2010-11,massive 1546 cases of illegal ARRESTS by
police were registered in Uttar Pradesh alone as against total 1716
cases in India.In 2011-12 it was 1101 out of 1249,589 out of 703 in
2012-13 & 48 out of 55 in 2013-14 ( up to 30-04-13 ). This means from
2010-11 to 2013-14 total 3284 cases of illegal ARRESTS by police were
registered in Uttar Pradesh alone as against total 3723 cases in
India. This is staggering 87%.
It's even more shameful to the State of Uttar pradesh that as per CMS
data updated on 03-05-13 , in year 2010-11,massive 728 cases of
illegal DETENTIONS by police were registered in Uttar Pradesh alone as
against total 1058 cases in India.In 2011-12 it was 889 out of
1161,1331 out of 1596 in 2012-13 & 123 out of 140 in 2013-14 ( up to
30-04-13 ). This means from 2010-11 to 2013-14,Total 3071 cases of
illegal DETENTIONS by police were registered in Uttar Pradesh alone as
against total 3955 cases in India. This is again a staggering 76%.
Please find complete details at
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/alas-uttar-pradesh-is-crime-by-police.html
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/alas-uttar-pradesh-is-crime-by-police.html
It's a shame on State of Uttar pradesh that as per CMS data updated on
03-05-13 , in year 2010-11,massive 1546 cases of illegal ARRESTS by
police were registered in Uttar Pradesh alone as against total 1716
cases in India.In 2011-12 it was 1101 out of 1249,589 out of 703 in
2012-13 & 48 out of 55 in 2013-14 ( up to 30-04-13 ). This means from
2010-11 to 2013-14 total 3284 cases of illegal ARRESTS by police were
registered in Uttar Pradesh alone as against total 3723 cases in
India. This is staggering 87%.
It's even more shameful to the State of Uttar pradesh that as per CMS
data updated on 03-05-13 , in year 2010-11,massive 728 cases of
illegal DETENTIONS by police were registered in Uttar Pradesh alone as
against total 1058 cases in India.In 2011-12 it was 889 out of
1161,1331 out of 1596 in 2012-13 & 123 out of 140 in 2013-14 ( up to
30-04-13 ). This means from 2010-11 to 2013-14,Total 3071 cases of
illegal DETENTIONS by police were registered in Uttar Pradesh alone as
against total 3955 cases in India. This is again a staggering 76%.
Please find complete details at
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/alas-uttar-pradesh-is-crime-by-police.html
Saturday, July 20, 2013
उत्तर प्रदेश की सरकारी योजनाओं की ‘ढोल की पोल’ उजागर
14 फरवरी 2012 को उत्तर प्रदेश के राज्यपाल ने राज्य विधान मंडल के एकसाथ समवेत दोनों सदनों को संबोधित करते हुए राज्य सरकार की उपलब्धियों का उल्लेख करते हुए कहा था "बेरोजगारी भत्ता,कन्या विद्याधन,निः शुल्क लैपटॉप व टेबलेट दिए जाने की महत्वाकांक्षी योजना प्रारंभ हो चुकी है lलाखों लोगों को बेरोजगारी भत्ता,कन्या विद्याधन उपलब्ध कराने के आलावा हमारी बेटी उसका कल योजना के तहत
हजारों बच्चियों को लाभान्वित किया जा चुका है lसाथ ही 'पढ़ें बेटियां बढ़ें बेटियां' योजना भी लागू की गयी है l"
उप शिक्षा निदेशक सान्त्वना तिवारी ने अपने पत्र दिनांक 15-07-13 द्वारा लगभग पांच माह बाद मुझे सूचित किया है कि अखिलेश यादव के शपथ ग्रहण से 22-02-13 तक कोई भी लैपटॉप नहीं बांटा गया, मात्र 1,03,207 छात्राओं को 309.62 करोड़ रुपये कन्या विद्याधन योजना के अंतर्गत वितरित हुए एवं मात्र 98 छात्राओं को 0.294 करोड़ रुपये 'पढ़ें बेटियां बढ़ें बेटियां' के अंतर्गत वितरित हुए l
यदि राज्यपाल महोदय अपने अभिभाषण को अभिलेखों की कसौटी पर परखवा लेते तो शायद ...............................
read complete details with rti documents at given link
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/blog-post_20.html
हजारों बच्चियों को लाभान्वित किया जा चुका है lसाथ ही 'पढ़ें बेटियां बढ़ें बेटियां' योजना भी लागू की गयी है l"
उप शिक्षा निदेशक सान्त्वना तिवारी ने अपने पत्र दिनांक 15-07-13 द्वारा लगभग पांच माह बाद मुझे सूचित किया है कि अखिलेश यादव के शपथ ग्रहण से 22-02-13 तक कोई भी लैपटॉप नहीं बांटा गया, मात्र 1,03,207 छात्राओं को 309.62 करोड़ रुपये कन्या विद्याधन योजना के अंतर्गत वितरित हुए एवं मात्र 98 छात्राओं को 0.294 करोड़ रुपये 'पढ़ें बेटियां बढ़ें बेटियां' के अंतर्गत वितरित हुए l
यदि राज्यपाल महोदय अपने अभिभाषण को अभिलेखों की कसौटी पर परखवा लेते तो शायद ...............................
read complete details with rti documents at given link
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/blog-post_20.html
Thursday, July 18, 2013
DOPT issues guidelines on awareness generation and capacity building components of the centrally sponsored scheme on " Improving Transparency and accountability in Government through effective implementation of Right to Information act" for the year 2013-14 to 2015-16
DOPT issues guidelines on awareness generation and capacity building components of the centrally sponsored scheme on " Improving Transparency and accountability in Government through effective implementation of Right to Information act" for the year 2013-14 to 2015-16
details at given link
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/dopt-issues-guidelines-on-awareness.html
details at given link
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/dopt-issues-guidelines-on-awareness.html
Govt's inaction in appointing information commissioners irks HC
LUCKNOW: The Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court on Thursday expressed displeasure over the state government's inaction in filling eight vacant posts of information commissioners in UP despite its order.
The government on Thursday moved an application before the bench seeking an extension. It stated that the apex court has reserved the verdict on a review application filed in Namit Sharma case in which the apex court had made a detailed criteria and qualifications for appointments in the commission.
The bench said there was no stay order on the appointments and hence the inaction of the state government was unfortunate.
Read Full Story at http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/govts-inaction-in-appointing.html
The government on Thursday moved an application before the bench seeking an extension. It stated that the apex court has reserved the verdict on a review application filed in Namit Sharma case in which the apex court had made a detailed criteria and qualifications for appointments in the commission.
The bench said there was no stay order on the appointments and hence the inaction of the state government was unfortunate.
Read Full Story at http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/govts-inaction-in-appointing.html
Principal secretary, housing, Uttar Pradesh Cadre IAS Sadakant accused of perjury
The Chak Ganjaria Farmland project has now landed in Supreme Court. A local NGO 'We The People', which is opposing the State Government's move to develop a hi-tech/IT City and other institutes on the farm land, has filed a Special Leave Petition before the apex court accusing principal secretary, housing, Sadakant of perjury.
"The affidavit filed by principal secretary contains information which is false and contradicts the state government's own contention on the issue. Hence, we have moved an application for perjury under section 343 of criminal procedure code against the officer and challenged the May 13, of the Allahabad high court vacating the stay on the project," said Prince Lenin, the advocate for the NGO.
read full hindustantimes story at
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/special-leave-petition-before-apex.html
"The affidavit filed by principal secretary contains information which is false and contradicts the state government's own contention on the issue. Hence, we have moved an application for perjury under section 343 of criminal procedure code against the officer and challenged the May 13, of the Allahabad high court vacating the stay on the project," said Prince Lenin, the advocate for the NGO.
read full hindustantimes story at
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/special-leave-petition-before-apex.html
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Akhilesh Yadav wastes lakhs but Maya still holds the record
Compared to Mayawati's opulence, Akhilesh Yadav's indulgence can be termed as small diversion. Though wasteful expenditure cannot be condoned, there are some details about these politicians that need to go beyond RTI disclosures.
Within a year of coming to power Chief Minister Akhilesh has spent Rs 43.50 lakh to renovate the official residence of the chief minister. The official residence of Uttar Pradesh chief minister is at 5, Kalidas Marg, Lucknow, and it has always be showered with funds for remodeling or renovation. Akhilesh's 43 against Mayawati's 23 Mayawati, who stayed here for few years (2007-11) spent about Rs 23 lakh for redoing the residence.
This amount may seem less if one takes into account the bill run by Akhilesh (Rs 43.50 lakh). But the real spending by Mayawati is somewhere else. And the bill ran into crores.
Read full story at given link
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/one-india-news-akhilesh-yadav-wastes.html
Within a year of coming to power Chief Minister Akhilesh has spent Rs 43.50 lakh to renovate the official residence of the chief minister. The official residence of Uttar Pradesh chief minister is at 5, Kalidas Marg, Lucknow, and it has always be showered with funds for remodeling or renovation. Akhilesh's 43 against Mayawati's 23 Mayawati, who stayed here for few years (2007-11) spent about Rs 23 lakh for redoing the residence.
This amount may seem less if one takes into account the bill run by Akhilesh (Rs 43.50 lakh). But the real spending by Mayawati is somewhere else. And the bill ran into crores.
Read full story at given link
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/one-india-news-akhilesh-yadav-wastes.html
Monday, July 15, 2013
Deccanherald : Akhilesh trumps Maya in opulence
Nowhere does the rivalry between Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party seem more intense than the penchant of their respective chief ministers for profligacy in decorating the official residence.
If the latest revelations are anything, the bragging rights now rest with the young Akhilesh Yadav who has outspent his predecessor Mayawati in spending tax payer's money on the official residence at 5, Kalidas Marg.
An RTI petition by Lucknow-based activist Urvashi Sharma querying officials on the amount spent on the chief minister's residence during the fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13 has shown that ..............................................................................................
Read full story at
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/deccanherald-akhilesh-trumps-maya-in.html
If the latest revelations are anything, the bragging rights now rest with the young Akhilesh Yadav who has outspent his predecessor Mayawati in spending tax payer's money on the official residence at 5, Kalidas Marg.
An RTI petition by Lucknow-based activist Urvashi Sharma querying officials on the amount spent on the chief minister's residence during the fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13 has shown that ..............................................................................................
Read full story at
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/deccanherald-akhilesh-trumps-maya-in.html
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Akhilesh Yadav 200% Prodigal to Mayawati!
Akhilesh Yadav 200% Prodigal to Mayawati!
find and download details from given link :
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/akhilesh-yadav-200-prodigal-to-mayawati.html
find and download details from given link :
http://social-reformist.blogspot.in/2013/07/akhilesh-yadav-200-prodigal-to-mayawati.html
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Amendment to RTI Act, 2005 will be contempt of assurance given in Parliament: Lokesh Batra
RTI activist Commodore Lokesh Batra has written a letter to President Pranab Mukherjee in which he has said that amendment to RTI Act, 2005 will be contempt of assurance given in Parliament.
read full story at given link .........................
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/amendment-to-rti-act-2005-will-be.html
read full story at given link .........................
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/amendment-to-rti-act-2005-will-be.html
Government decides against moving an ordinance to amend RTI Act
The UPA government has decided against moving an ordinance to amend the Right to Information or RTI Act. It will now bring an amendment to the RTI Act in the form of a bill during the monsoon session of Parliament. The decision was taken after consultation with political parties.
..................................read full story at given link
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/government-decides-against-moving.html
..................................read full story at given link
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/government-decides-against-moving.html
Friday, July 12, 2013
राष्ट्रध्वज अपमान प्रकरण में न्यायालय ने उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार,सुब्रत राय और सहारा इंडिया परिवार को नोटिस जारी किया है l प्रदेश सरकार,सुब्रत राय और सहारा इंडिया परिवार के विरुद्ध मेरे द्वारा योजित फौजदारी निगरानी वाद सुनवाई हेतु दिनांक 12-08-13 को पेश होगा lउल्टा राष्ट्रध्वज लिए खड़े सुब्रत राय और समारोह में पैरों तले रौंदते /कुचलते राष्ट्रध्वज की समाचार पत्रों में छपी तस्वीरें मैंने प्रमाण के रूप में जिला एवं सत्र न्यायालय में पेश की हैं l मेरे अनुसार राष्ट्रभावना नहीं अपितु सस्ती लोकप्रियता पाने के लिए सुब्रत राय और सहारा इंडिया परिवार द्वारा भारत भावना दिवस का आयोजन किया गया था l --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- लखनऊ के रमाबाई मैदान में सोमबार दिनांक 06-05-13 को सहारा इंडिया परिवार द्वारा आयोजित भारत भावना दिवस में राष्ट्रध्वज के अपमान के लिए सुब्रत राय एवं सहारा इंडिया परिवार के उत्तरदायी अधिकारियों एवं कार्मिकों के विरुद्ध राष्ट्रीय गौरव अपमान अधिनियम 1971 की धारा-2 के तहत प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज कर कानूनी कार्यवाही के लिए मैंने प्रार्थना पत्र थाना तालकटोरा लखनऊ को 09-05-13 को दिया था l थानाध्यक्ष तालकटोरा ने प्रकरण पर टालमटोल करते हुए प्रकरण के सम्बन्ध में मुझे थाना आशियाना से संपर्क करने की हिदायत दी l दिनांक 11-05-13 को प्रकरण में प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज कर कानूनी कार्यवाही के लिए मैंनेप्रार्थना पत्र थाना आशियाना लखनऊ को को दिया l थाना आशियाना द्वारा कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की गयी और बाध्य होकर मैंने 15-05-13 को प्रकरण में प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज कर कानूनी कार्यवाही के लिए प्रार्थना पत्र लखनऊ के एसo एसo पीo को भी दिया परन्तु बड़े बड़े दावे करने बाले वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक द्वारा भी उनके स्तर से राष्ट्रध्वज के सम्मान से खिलवाड़ के इस मामले में कोई भी कार्यवाही नहीं की गयी l मैं यह मानती हूँ कि भारत के प्रत्येक नागरिक को राष्ट्र गौरव का प्रतीक मानते हुए अपने राष्ट्रीय ध्वज का पूरा सम्मान करना चाहिए। राष्ट्रीय गौरव अपमान अधिनियम 1971 , राष्ट्रीय गौरव अपमान निवारण(संशोधन) अधिनियम 2005 की की धारा-2 के तहत यह एक दंडनीय अपराध है, जिसके लिए 3 वर्ष तक की सजा या जुर्माना या दोनों से दंडित किया जा सकता है l क्योंकि सहारा का ये कार्यक्रम सार्वजनिक रूप से सहारा इंडिया परिवार द्वारा आयोजित कर कार्यक्रम की सफलता का श्रेय सुब्रत राय और सहारा इंडिया परिवार द्वारा लिया गया इसलिए कार्यक्रम में राष्ट्रीय ध्वज के घनघोर अपमान के लिए कार्यक्रम की आयोजक संस्था सहारा इंडिया परिवार और सुब्रत राय ही उत्तरदायी हैl राष्ट्रीय प्रतीक का सार्वजनिक अपमान सुब्रत राय और सहारा इंडिया परिवार द्वारा किया गया जघन्यतम अपराध है और इनको इनके किये की सजा मिलनी ही चाहिए l यदि कार्यक्रम की सफलता का श्रेय लेते हुए सुब्रत राय गिनीज बुक का प्रमाणपत्र स्वयं लेते हैं तो उसी कार्यक्रम में राष्ट्र ध्वज के अपमान के कुकृत्य की जिम्मेवारी भी उनको ही लेनी चाहिए l मेरे अनुसार सुब्रत राय और सहारा इंडिया परिवार ने इस कार्यक्रम का आयोजन सस्ती लोकप्रियता पाने के लिए ही किया था l यदि सुब्रत राय और सहारा इंडिया परिवार ने इस कार्यक्रम का आयोजन राष्ट्रभावना से प्रेरित होकर किया होता तो न तो सुब्रत राय स्वयं राष्ट्ध्वज को उल्टा पकड़कर उसका अपमान करते और न ही अपने कार्यक्रम में राष्ट्ध्वज को यूं पैरों तले कुचलने देते l मैंने प्रकरण की शिकायत सरकार के छोटे से बड़े सभी अधिकारियों से की लेकिन दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण रहा कि राष्ट्रीय प्रतीक के सार्वजनिक अपमान के इस प्रकरण में प्रदेश के मुख्य सचिव, पुलिस महानिदेशक ,लखनऊ के डीआईजी , एसएसपी, थानाध्यक्ष थाना तालकटोरा और थानाध्यक्ष थाना आशियाना ने कोई ध्यान नहीं दिया और न ही प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट की प्रति ही उपलब्ध करवाई।तब विवश होकर मैंने न्यायलय की शरण ली और राष्ट्रध्वज का अपमान करने के आरोप का इस्तगासा जुडिशयल मजिस्ट्रेट द्वितीय की अदालत में 20-05-13 को दायर किया । परिवाद का अवलोकन करने के बाद न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट द्वितीय रश्मि सिंह ने मामले की जांच के लिए परिवाद को आशियाना थाने भेजने के आदेश के साथ एक सप्ताह में आख्या तलब की l थाने ने न्यायालय को प्रेषित अपनी आख्या में थाने पर कोई अभियोग पंजीकृत न होना सूचित किया l न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट द्वितीय रश्मि सिंह ने 156(3) CrPc का वाद संख्या 70/13 अपने आदेश दिनांक 12-06-13 के द्वारा ख़ारिज कर दिया l अवर न्यायालय के इस आदेश के विरुद्ध मैंने लखनऊ के जिला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश के सम्मुख फौजदारी निगरानी वाद संख्या 286/13 दिनांक 09-07-13 को दायर किया l मेरे अधिवक्ता त्रिभुवन कुमार गुप्ता ने मुझे बताया है कि जिला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश के0 के0 शर्मा ने अवर न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक 12-06-13 एवं फौजदारी निगरानी वाद का अवलोकन कर वाद को फौजदारी निगरानी के रूप में अंगीकृत कर अभियुक्तगणों को नोटिस जारी करने एवं मेरे इस वाद को सुनवाई हेतु दिनांक 12-08-13 को पेश करने का आदेश पारित किया है l मैंने इतिहास में पढ़ा है कि कैसे गुलाम भारत में अंग्रेज शासक तिरंगे का अपमान करते थे और कैसे हमारे देश के राष्ट्रभक्त तिरंगे की आन-वान-शान की रक्षा के लिए हँसते हँसते अपनी जान तक न्योछावर कर देते थे l आज हम 65 वर्षों से अधिक समय से आजाद है l क्या हमारे पूर्वज स्वतंत्रता-सेनानियों ने आजाद भारत में ऐसे शाशन की कल्पना भी की होगी ? शत प्रतिशत नहीं lदुर्भाग्य से वस्तुस्थिति तो हम सबके सामने है ही l फौजदारी निगरानी वाद की टाइप कॉपी ,अवर न्यायालय के आदेश की प्रति और उल्टा राष्ट्र ध्वज लिए सुब्रत राय के फोटो की समाचार पत्र की कटिंग संलग्न है l अन्य प्रपत्र वेबलिंक पर क्लिक कर डाउनलोड किये जा सकते हैं l http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/1971-2.html उल्टा राष्ट्र ध्वज लिए सुब्रत राय के फोटो की समाचार पत्र की कटिंग इस वेबलिंक पर है http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/blog-post_12.html उर्वशी शर्मा ( सामाजिक कार्यकत्री एवं आर0 टी0 आई0 एक्टिविस्ट ) मोबाइल 9369613513 , 8081898081 , 9455553838
तस्वीरें मैंने प्रमाण के रूप में जिला एवं सत्र न्यायालय में पेश की हैं l
मेरे अनुसार राष्ट्रभावना नहीं अपितु सस्ती लोकप्रियता पाने के लिए सुब्रत राय और सहारा इंडिया परिवार द्वारा भारत भावना दिवस का आयोजन किया गया था l
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
लखनऊ के रमाबाई मैदान में सोमबार दिनांक 06-05-13 को सहारा इंडिया परिवार द्वारा आयोजित भारत भावना दिवस में राष्ट्रध्वज के अपमान के लिए सुब्रत राय एवं सहारा इंडिया परिवार के उत्तरदायी अधिकारियों एवं कार्मिकों के विरुद्ध राष्ट्रीय गौरव अपमान अधिनियम 1971 की धारा-2 के तहत प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज कर कानूनी कार्यवाही के लिए मैंने प्रार्थना पत्र थाना तालकटोरा लखनऊ को 09-05-13 को
दिया था l थानाध्यक्ष तालकटोरा ने प्रकरण पर टालमटोल करते हुए प्रकरण के सम्बन्ध में मुझे थाना आशियाना से संपर्क करने की हिदायत दी l दिनांक 11-05-13 को प्रकरण में प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज कर कानूनी कार्यवाही के लिए मैंनेप्रार्थना पत्र थाना आशियाना लखनऊ को को दिया l थाना आशियाना द्वारा कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की गयी और बाध्य होकर मैंने 15-05-13 को प्रकरण में प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट
दर्ज
कर कानूनी कार्यवाही के लिए प्रार्थना पत्र लखनऊ के एसo एसo पीo को भी दिया परन्तु बड़े
बड़े दावे करने बाले वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक द्वारा भी उनके स्तर से राष्ट्रध्वज के सम्मान से खिलवाड़ के इस मामले में कोई भी कार्यवाही नहीं की गयी l
मैं यह मानती हूँ कि भारत के प्रत्येक नागरिक को राष्ट्र गौरव का प्रतीक मानते हुए अपने राष्ट्रीय ध्वज का पूरा सम्मान करना चाहिए। राष्ट्रीय गौरव अपमान अधिनियम 1971 , राष्ट्रीय गौरव अपमान निवारण(संशोधन) अधिनियम 2005 की की धारा-2 के तहत यह एक दंडनीय अपराध है, जिसके लिए 3 वर्ष तक की सजा या जुर्माना या दोनों से दंडित किया जा सकता है l क्योंकि सहारा का ये कार्यक्रम सार्वजनिक रूप से
सहारा इंडिया परिवार द्वारा आयोजित कर कार्यक्रम की सफलता का श्रेय सुब्रत राय और सहारा इंडिया परिवार द्वारा लिया गया इसलिए कार्यक्रम में राष्ट्रीय ध्वज के घनघोर अपमान के लिए कार्यक्रम की आयोजक संस्था सहारा इंडिया परिवार और सुब्रत राय ही उत्तरदायी हैl राष्ट्रीय प्रतीक का सार्वजनिक अपमान सुब्रत राय और सहारा इंडिया परिवार द्वारा किया गया जघन्यतम अपराध है और
इनको
इनके किये की सजा मिलनी ही चाहिए l यदि कार्यक्रम की सफलता का श्रेय लेते हुए सुब्रत राय गिनीज बुक का प्रमाणपत्र स्वयं लेते हैं तो उसी कार्यक्रम में राष्ट्र ध्वज के अपमान के कुकृत्य की
जिम्मेवारी भी उनको ही लेनी चाहिए l
मेरे अनुसार सुब्रत राय और सहारा इंडिया परिवार ने इस कार्यक्रम का आयोजन सस्ती लोकप्रियता पाने के लिए ही किया था l यदि सुब्रत राय और सहारा इंडिया परिवार ने इस कार्यक्रम का आयोजन राष्ट्रभावना से प्रेरित होकर किया होता तो न तो सुब्रत राय स्वयं राष्ट्ध्वज को उल्टा पकड़कर उसका अपमान करते और न ही अपने कार्यक्रम में राष्ट्ध्वज को यूं पैरों तले कुचलने देते l
मैंने प्रकरण की शिकायत सरकार के छोटे से बड़े सभी अधिकारियों से की लेकिन दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण रहा कि राष्ट्रीय प्रतीक के सार्वजनिक अपमान के इस प्रकरण में प्रदेश के मुख्य सचिव, पुलिस महानिदेशक ,लखनऊ के डीआईजी , एसएसपी, थानाध्यक्ष थाना तालकटोरा और थानाध्यक्ष थाना आशियाना ने कोई
ध्यान नहीं दिया और न ही प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट की प्रति ही उपलब्ध करवाई।तब विवश होकर मैंने न्यायलय की शरण ली और राष्ट्रध्वज का अपमान करने के आरोप का इस्तगासा जुडिशयल मजिस्ट्रेट द्वितीय की अदालत में 20-05-13 को दायर किया । परिवाद का अवलोकन करने के बाद न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट द्वितीय रश्मि सिंह ने मामले की जांच के लिए परिवाद को आशियाना थाने भेजने के आदेश के साथ एक सप्ताह में
आख्या तलब की l थाने ने न्यायालय को प्रेषित अपनी आख्या में थाने पर कोई अभियोग पंजीकृत न होना सूचित किया l न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट द्वितीय रश्मि सिंह ने 156(3) CrPc का वाद संख्या 70/13 अपने आदेश दिनांक 12-06-13 के द्वारा ख़ारिज कर दिया l
अवर न्यायालय के इस आदेश के विरुद्ध मैंने लखनऊ के जिला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश के सम्मुख फौजदारी निगरानी वाद संख्या 286/13 दिनांक 09-07-13 को दायर किया l
मेरे अधिवक्ता त्रिभुवन कुमार गुप्ता ने मुझे बताया है कि जिला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश के0 के0 शर्मा ने अवर न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक 12-06-13 एवं फौजदारी निगरानी वाद का अवलोकन कर वाद को फौजदारी निगरानी के रूप में अंगीकृत कर अभियुक्तगणों को नोटिस जारी करने एवं मेरे इस वाद को सुनवाई हेतु दिनांक 12-08-13 को पेश करने का आदेश पारित किया है l
मैंने इतिहास में पढ़ा है कि कैसे गुलाम भारत में अंग्रेज शासक तिरंगे का अपमान करते थे और कैसे हमारे देश के राष्ट्रभक्त तिरंगे की आन-वान-शान की रक्षा के लिए हँसते हँसते अपनी जान तक न्योछावर कर देते थे l आज हम 65 वर्षों से अधिक समय से आजाद है l क्या हमारे पूर्वज स्वतंत्रता-सेनानियों ने आजाद भारत में ऐसे शाशन की कल्पना भी की होगी ? शत प्रतिशत नहीं lदुर्भाग्य से वस्तुस्थिति तो हम
सबके सामने है ही l
फौजदारी निगरानी वाद की टाइप कॉपी ,अवर न्यायालय के आदेश की प्रति और उल्टा राष्ट्र ध्वज लिए सुब्रत राय के फोटो की समाचार पत्र की कटिंग संलग्न है l अन्य प्रपत्र वेबलिंक पर क्लिक कर डाउनलोड किये जा सकते हैं l
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/1971-2.html
उल्टा राष्ट्र ध्वज लिए सुब्रत राय के फोटो की समाचार पत्र की कटिंग इस वेबलिंक पर है
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/blog-post_12.html
उर्वशी शर्मा
( सामाजिक कार्यकत्री एवं आर0 टी0 आई0 एक्टिविस्ट )
मोबाइल 9369613513 , 8081898081 , 9455553838
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Complete Text of Supreme court Judgement : Convicted elected representative cannot continue in office and the conviction will lead to instant disqualification of the elected representative
Find Complete Text of Supreme court Judgement : Convicted elected representative cannot continue in office and the conviction will lead to instant disqualification of the elected representative at given link :
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/convicted-elected-representative-cannot.html
==================================================================================================
Findings of the Court
14.
We will first decide the issue raised before us in these
writ petitions that Parliament lacked the legislative power to
enact sub-section (4) of Sectio
n 8 of the Act as this issue
was not at all considered by th
e Constitution Bench of this
Court in the aforesaid case of
K. Prabhakaran
(supra). In
The Empress
v. Burah and Another
[(1878) 5 I.A. 178] the
Privy Council speaking through
Selborne J. laid down the
following fundamental principles for interpretation of a
written constitution laying down the powers of the Indian
Legislature:
24
"The Indian Legislature has powers
expressly limited by th
e Act of the Imperial
Parliament which create
d it; and it can, of
course, do nothing beyond the limits
which circumscribes these powers. But,
when acting within thes
e limits, it is not in
any sense an agent or delegate of the
Imperial Parliament, but has, and was
intended to have, plenary powers of
legislation, as large, and of the same
nature, as those of Pa
rliament itself. The
established Courts of Justice, when a
question arises whether the prescribed
limits have been exceeded, must of
necessity determine that question; and the
only way in which they
can properly do so,
is by looking to the terms of the
instrument by which, affirmatively, the
legislative powers were created, and by
which, negatively, they are restricted. If
what has been done is legislation within
the general scope of the affirmative words
which give the power, an
d if it violates no
express condition or
restriction by which
that power is limited
(in which category
would, of course, be
included any Act of
the Imperial Parliament at variance with
it), it is not for any Court of Justice to
inquire further, or to enlarge
constructively those conditions and
restrictions."
The correctness of the aforesai
d principles with regard to
interpretation of a written cons
titution has been re-affirmed
by the majority of Judges in
Kesavananda Bharti
v.
State of
Kerala
(AIR 1973 SC 1465) (See the
Constitutional Law of
India
, H.M. Seervai, Fourth Editio
n, Vol.I, para 2.4 at page
25
174). Hence, when a question
is raised whether Parliament
has exceeded the limits
of its powers, courts have to decide
the question by looking to th
e terms of the instrument by
which affirmatively, the legislat
ive powers were created, and
by which negatively, they are restricted.
15.
We must first consider the argument of Mr. Luthra,
learned Additional Solicitor Ge
neral, that th
e legislative
power to enact sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is
located in Article 246(1) read with Entry 97 of List I of the
Seventh Schedule and Article 24
8 of the Constitution, if not
in Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1
)(e) of the Constitution.
Articles 246 and 248
of the Constitution are placed in
Chapter I of Part XI of the Consti
tution of India. Part XI is
titled "Relations between th
e Union and the States" and
Chapter I of Part XI is titled
"Legislative Relations". In
Chapter I of Part XI, under
the heading "Distribution of
Legislative Powers" Articles 245
to 255 have been placed. A
reading of Articles 245
to 255 would show that these relate
to distribution of legislative powers between the Union and
the Legislatures of
the States. Article
246(1) provides that
Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect
26
to any of the matters enumer
ated in List I in the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution an
d under Entry 97 of List I of
the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution, Parliament has
exclusive power to make law
with respect to any other
matter not enumerated in List
II or List III. Article 248
similarly provides that Parliament has exclusive power to
make any law with respect to
any matter not enumerated in
the Concurrent List (List III)
or State List (List II) of the
Seventh Schedule of the Consti
tution. Therefore, Article
246(1) read with Entry 97 and
Article 248 only provide that
in residuary matters (o
ther than matters enumerated in List
II and List III) Parliament will
have power to make law. To
quote from Commentary on th
e Constitution of India by
Durga Das Basu (8
th
Edition) Volume 8 at page 8988:
"In short, the principle underlying Article
248, read with Entry 97 of List I, is that a
written Constitution, which divides
legislative power as between two
legislatures in a federation, cannot intend
that neither of such
Legislatures shall go
without power to legislate with respect of
any subject simply b
ecause that subject
has not been specifically mentioned nor
can be reasonably comprehended by
judicial interpretatio
n to be included in
any of the Entries in the Legislative Lists.
To meet such a situ
ation, a residuary
power is provided, and in the Indian
27
Constitution, this residuary power is
vested in the Union Legislature. Once,
therefore, it is found that a particular
subject-matter has not been assigned to
the competence of the State Legislature,
"it leads to the irresistible inference that
(the Union) Parliament would have
legislative competence
to deal with the
subject-matter in question."
Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e)
of the Constitution, on the
other hand, have conferred specifi
c powers on Parliament to
make law providing disqualifi
cations for membership of
either House of Parliament
or Legislative Assembly or
Legislative Council of the State other than those specified in
sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d
) of clause (1) of Articles 102
and 191 of the Constitution. We
may note that no power is
vested in the State Legislature
to make law laying down
disqualifications of membership
of the Legislative Assembly
or Legislative Council of the State and power is vested in
Parliament to make law laying
down disqualifications also in
respect of members of th
e Legislative Assembly or
Legislative Council of the State.
For these reasons, we are
of the considered opinion th
at the legislative power of
Parliament to enact any law re
lating to disqualification for
membership of either House of
Parliament or Legislative
28
Assembly or Legislative Council of the State can be located
only in Articles 102(1)(e) and 191
(1)(e) of the Constitution
and not in Articles 246(1) read with Entry 97 of List I of the
Seventh Schedule and Article 24
8 of the Constitution. We
do not, therefore, accept the contention of Mr. Luthra that
the power to enact sub-section (4
) of Section 8 of the Act is
vested in Parliament under Arti
cles 246(1) read with Entry
97 of List I of the Seventh
Schedule and 248 of the
Constitution, if not in Articles 10
2 (1)(e) and 191 (1)(e) of the
Constitution.
16.
Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution,
which contain the only source of legislative power to lay
down disqualifications for memb
ership of eith
er House of
Parliament and Legislative Asse
mbly or Legislative Council
of a State, provide as follows:
"102(1)(e). A person shall be disqualified
for being chosen as, and for being, a
member of either Hous
e of Parliament-(e)
if he is so disquali
fied by or under any
law made by Parliament."
"191(1)(e). "A person shall be disqualified
for being chosen as, and for being, a
member of the Legisl
ative Assembly or
Legislative Council of a State—(e) if he is
29
so disqualified by or under any law made
by Parliament.
A reading of the aforesaid two pr
ovisions in Articles 102(1)(e)
and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution would make it abundantly
clear that Parliament is to ma
ke one law for a person to be
disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of
either House of Parliament
or Legislative Assembly or
Legislative Council of the Stat
e. In the language of the
Constitution Bench of this Court in
Election Commission,
India
v. Saka Venkata Rao
(supra), Article 191(1) [which is
identically worded as Article 10
2(1)] lays down "the same set
of disqualifications
for election as well as
for continuing as a
member". Parliament thus
does not have the power under
Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of
the Constitution to make
different laws for a person to be disqualified for being
chosen as a member and for a pe
rson to be disqualified for
continuing as a member of
Parliament or the State
Legislature. To put it differently, if because of a
disqualification a person canno
t be chosen as a member of
Parliament or State Legi
slature, for the same
disqualification, he cannot
continue as a member of
Parliament or the State Legislat
ure. This is so because the
30
language of Articles 102(
1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the
Constitution is such that th
e disqualification for both a
person to be chosen as a memb
er of a House of Parliament
or the State Legislature or fo
r a person to continue as a
member of Parliament or the St
ate Legislature has to be the
same.
17.
Mr. Luthra and Mr. Kuhad,
however, contended that
the disqualifications laid down
in sub-sections (1),(2) and (3)
of Section 8 of the Act are th
e same for persons who are to
continue as members of Parlia
ment or a State Legislature
and sub-section (4) of Section 8
of the Act does not lay down
a different set of disqualificat
ions for sitting members but
merely states that the same disq
ualifications will have effect
only after the appeal or revisi
on, as the case may be, against
the conviction is decided by th
e Appellate or the Revisional
Court if such appeal or revi
sion is filed within 3 months
from the date of conviction
. We cannot accept this
contention also because of
the provisions of Articles
101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the
Constitution which are quoted
hereinbelow:
31
"
101(3)(a).
Vacation of seats
.-
(1) .......
(2) .......
(3) If a member of either House of Parliament-
(a) becomes subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) or
clause (2) of article 102.
his seat shall thereu
pon become vacant"
"
190(3)(a).
Vacation of seats
.-
(1) .......
(2) .......
(3) If a member of a Ho
use of the Legislature
of a State- (a) becomes subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) or
clause (2) of article 191.
his seat shall thereu
pon become vacant"
Thus, Article 101(3)(a) provides
that if a member of either
House of Parliament becom
es subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in
clause (1), his seat shall
thereupon become vacant and
similarly Article 190(3)(a)
provides that if a member of
a House of the Legislature of a
State becomes subject to an
y of the disqualifications
mentioned in clause (1), hi
s seat shall thereupon become
vacant. This is the effect of
a disqualification under Articles
102(1) and 190(1) in
curred by a member
of either House of
Parliament or a House of the St
ate Legislature. Accordingly,
once a person who was a memb
er of either House of
Parliament or House of the State Legislature becomes
32
disqualified by or under any
law made by Parliament under
Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e)
of the Constitution, his seat
automatically falls vacant by vi
rtue of Articles 101(3)(a) and
190(3)(a) of the Constitution
and Parliament cannot make a
provision as in sub-section (4)
of Section 8 of the Act to
defer the date on which the disqualification of a sitting
member will have effect an
d prevent his seat becoming
vacant on account of the disqualification under Article
102(1)(e) or Article 191(1
)(e) of the Constitution.
18. We cannot also accept the submission of Mr. Kuhad
that until the decision is take
n by the President or Governor
on whether a member of Parlia
ment or State Legislature has
become subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in
clause (1) of Article 102 and Ar
ticle 191 of the Constitution,
the seat of the member alleged to
have been disqualified will
not become vacant under Articl
es 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of
the Constitution. Articles
101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the
Constitution provide that if
a member of the House becomes
subject to any of the disquali
fications mentioned in clause
(1), "his seat shall thereupon
become vacant". Hence, the
seat of a member who become
s subject to any of the
33
disqualifications mentioned in cl
ause (1) will fall vacant on
the date on which the member
incurs the disqualification
and cannot await the decision
of the President or the
Governor, as the case may be
, under Articles 103 and 192
respectively of the Constitution
. The filling of the seat which
falls vacant, however, may await the decision of the
President or the Governor under Articles 103 and 192
respectively of the Constitution
and if the President or the
Governor takes a view that
the member has not become
subject to any of the disqua
lifications mentioned in clause
(1) of Articles 102
and 191 respectively of the Constitution,
it has to be held that the seat
of the member so held not to
be disqualified did not become
vacant on the date on which
the member was alleged to
have been subject to the
disqualification.
19. The result of our aforesa
id discussion is that the
affirmative words used in Ar
ticles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e)
confer power on Parliament to
make one law laying down
the same disqualifications for a
person who is to be chosen
as member of either House of
Parliament or as a member of
the Legislative Assembly or Le
gislative Council of a State
34
and for a person who is a sitt
ing member of a House of
Parliament or a House of th
e State Legislature and the
words in Articles 101(3)(a) and
190(3)(a) of the Constitution
put express limitations on such
powers of the Parliament to
defer the date on which the disqualifications would have
effect. Accordingly, sub-section
(4) of Section 8 of the Act
which carves out a saving in th
e case of sitting members of
Parliament or State Legislatur
e from the disqualifications
under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3
) of Section 8
of the Act or
which defers the date on whic
h the disqualification will take
effect in the case of a sittin
g member of Parliament or a
State Legislature is beyond the powers conferred on
Parliament by the Constitution.
20.
Looking at the affirmative
terms of Articles 102(1)(e)
and 191(1)(e) of the Constituti
on, we hold that Parliament
has been vested with the powers
to make law laying down
the same disqualifications for
person to be chosen as a
member of Parliament or a
State Legislature and for a
sitting member of a House of
Parliament or a House of a
State Legislature. We also hold
that the provisions of Article
101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the
Constitution expressly prohibit
35
Parliament to defer the date
from which the disqualification
will come into effect in ca
se of a sitting member of
Parliament or a State Legislat
ure. Parliament, therefore,
has exceeded its powers confer
red by the Constitution in
enacting sub-section (4) of
Section 8 of the Act and
accordingly sub-section (4) of
Section 8 of the Act is
ultra
vires
the Constitution.
21.
We do not also find merit in the submission of Mr.
Luthra and Mr. Kuhad that if a sitting member of
Parliament or the State Legisl
ature suffers from a frivolous
conviction by the trial court
for an offence given under sub-
section (1), (2) or (3) of Sect
ion 8 of the Act, he will be
remediless and he will suffer i
mmense hardship as he would
stand disqualified on account of such conviction in the
absence of sub-section (4) of Se
ction 8 of the Act. A three-
Judge Bench of this Court in
Rama Narang v. Ramesh
Narang & Ors.
[(1995) 2 SCC 513] has held that when an
appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure [for short
'the Code'] the appeal is
against both the conviction and
sentence and,
therefore, the
Appellate Court in exercise of
its power under Section 389(1)
36
of the Code can also stay the order of conviction and the
High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code can also
stay the conviction if the
power was not to be found in Sect
ion 389(1) of the Code. In
Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali
[(2007) 1 SCC
673], a three-Judge Bench of th
is Court, however, observed:
"It deserves to be clarifie
d that an order granting
stay of conviction is
not the rule but is an
exception to be resort
ed to in rare cases
depending upon the fact
s of a case. Where the
execution of the sentence is stayed, the conviction
continues to operate. Bu
t where the conviction
itself is stayed, the effect
is that the conviction will
not be operative from the date of stay. An order of
stay, of course, does not render the conviction
non-existent, but only non-operative. Be that as it
may. Insofar as the present case is concerned, an
application was filed specif
ically seeking stay of
the order of convicti
on specifying the
consequences if conviction
was not stayed, that is,
the appellant would incur
disqualification to
contest the election.
The High Court after
considering the special re
ason, granted the order
staying the conviction. As
the conviction itself is
stayed in contrast to a stay of execution of the
sentence, it is not possible to accept the
contention of the re
spondent that the
disqualification arising ou
t of conviction continues
to operate even after
stay of conviction.
In the aforesaid case, a cont
ention was raised by the
respondents that the appella
nt was disqualified from
37
contesting the election to th
e Legislative Assembly under
sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act as he had been
convicted for an offence punish
able under Sections 366 and
376 of the Indian Penal Code
and it was held by the three-
Judge Bench that as the High
Court for special reasons had
passed an order staying the co
nviction, the disqualification
arising out of the conviction ceased to operate after the stay
of conviction. Therefore, the disqualification under sub-
section (1), (2) or (3
) of Section 8 of the
Act will not operate
from the date of order of stay
of conviction passed by the
Appellate Court under Section 38
9 of the Code or the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code.
22. As we have held that Parl
iament had no power to enact
sub-section (4) of Section 8 of
the Act and accordingly sub-
section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is
ultra vires
the
Constitution, it is not necessar
y for us to go into the other
issue raised in these writ petitions that sub-section (4) of
Section 8 of the Act is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It would have been
necessary for us to go into
this question only if sub-secti
on (4) of Sectio
n 8 of the Act
was held to be within the powers
of the Parliame
nt. In other
38
words, as we can declare sub-
section (4) of Section 8 of the
Act as
ultra vires
the Constitution without going into the
question as to whether sub-sect
ion (4) of Section 8 of the
Act is violative of Article 14
of the Constitution, we do not
think it is necessary to decide the question as to whether
sub-section (4) of Section 8 of
the Act is violative of Article
14 of the Constitution.
23. The only question that remains to be decided is
whether our declaration in th
is judgment that sub-section
(4) of Section 8 of the Act is
ultra vires
the Constitution
should affect disqualificatio
ns already incurred under sub-
sections (1), (2) and (3) of S
ection 8 of the Act by sitting
members of Parliament and St
ate Legislatures who have
filed appeals or revisions aga
inst their conviction within a
period of three months and their appeals and revisions are
still pending before the co
ncerned court. Under sub-
sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act, the
disqualification takes effect from the date of conviction for
any of the offences mentione
d in the sub-sections and
remains in force for the periods mentioned in the sub-
sections. Thus, there may be
several sitting members of
39
Parliament and State Legislatures who have already
incurred disqualification by vi
rtue of a conviction covered
under sub-section (1), or sub-
section (2) or
sub-section (3)
of Section 8 of the Act. In
Golak Nath and Others
vs.
State
of Punjab and Another
(AIR 1967 SC 1643), Subba Rao, C.J.
speaking on behalf of himsel
f, Shah, Sikri, Shelat and
Vaidialingam, JJ. has held that
Articles 32, 141, 142 of the
Constitution are couched in su
ch a wide and elastic terms
as to enable this Court to formulate legal doctrines to meet
the ends of justice and has furt
her held that this Court has
the power not only to declare the law but also to restrict the
operation of the law as decl
ared to future and save the
transactions, whether statutor
y or otherwise, that were
effected on the basis of the ea
rlier law. Sitting members of
Parliament and State Legislature who have already been
convicted for any of the o
ffences mentioned in sub-section
(1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and who have filed
appeals or revisions which ar
e pending and are accordingly
saved from the disqualifications
by virtue of sub-section (4)
of Section 8 of the Act shou
ld not, in our considered
opinion, be affected by the de
claration now made by us in
40
this judgment. This is b
ecause the knowledge that sitting
members of Parliament or State
Legislatures will no longer
be protected by sub-section (4) of
Section 8 of
the Act will be
acquired by all concerned only
on the date this judgment is
pronounced by this Court.
As has been observed by this
Court in
Harla
v. State of Rajasthan
(AIR 1951 SC 467):
"........it would be against the principles of
natural justice to permit the subjects of a
State to be punished or
penalized by laws
of which they had no
knowledge and of
which they could not
even with exercise
of due diligence have acquired any
knowledge."
However, if any sitting member
of Parliament or a State
Legislature is convicted of any of the offences mentioned in
sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of
Section 8 of the Act and by
virtue of such conviction
and/or sentence suffers the
disqualifications mentioned in su
b-sections (1),
(2) and (3) of
Section 8 of the Act after the pronouncement of this
judgment, his membership of
Parliament or the State
Legislature, as the case may be
, will not be saved by sub-
section (4) of Section 8 of th
e Act which we have by this
judgment declared as
ultra vires
the Constitution
41
notwithstanding that he files th
e appeal or revision against
the conviction and /or sentence.
24. With the aforesaid declaration, the writ petitions are
allowed. No costs.
...............................................J.
(A. K. Patnaik)
.............................
.................J.
(Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)
New Delhi,
July 10, 2013.
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/convicted-elected-representative-cannot.html
==================================================================================================
Findings of the Court
14.
We will first decide the issue raised before us in these
writ petitions that Parliament lacked the legislative power to
enact sub-section (4) of Sectio
n 8 of the Act as this issue
was not at all considered by th
e Constitution Bench of this
Court in the aforesaid case of
K. Prabhakaran
(supra). In
The Empress
v. Burah and Another
[(1878) 5 I.A. 178] the
Privy Council speaking through
Selborne J. laid down the
following fundamental principles for interpretation of a
written constitution laying down the powers of the Indian
Legislature:
24
"The Indian Legislature has powers
expressly limited by th
e Act of the Imperial
Parliament which create
d it; and it can, of
course, do nothing beyond the limits
which circumscribes these powers. But,
when acting within thes
e limits, it is not in
any sense an agent or delegate of the
Imperial Parliament, but has, and was
intended to have, plenary powers of
legislation, as large, and of the same
nature, as those of Pa
rliament itself. The
established Courts of Justice, when a
question arises whether the prescribed
limits have been exceeded, must of
necessity determine that question; and the
only way in which they
can properly do so,
is by looking to the terms of the
instrument by which, affirmatively, the
legislative powers were created, and by
which, negatively, they are restricted. If
what has been done is legislation within
the general scope of the affirmative words
which give the power, an
d if it violates no
express condition or
restriction by which
that power is limited
(in which category
would, of course, be
included any Act of
the Imperial Parliament at variance with
it), it is not for any Court of Justice to
inquire further, or to enlarge
constructively those conditions and
restrictions."
The correctness of the aforesai
d principles with regard to
interpretation of a written cons
titution has been re-affirmed
by the majority of Judges in
Kesavananda Bharti
v.
State of
Kerala
(AIR 1973 SC 1465) (See the
Constitutional Law of
India
, H.M. Seervai, Fourth Editio
n, Vol.I, para 2.4 at page
25
174). Hence, when a question
is raised whether Parliament
has exceeded the limits
of its powers, courts have to decide
the question by looking to th
e terms of the instrument by
which affirmatively, the legislat
ive powers were created, and
by which negatively, they are restricted.
15.
We must first consider the argument of Mr. Luthra,
learned Additional Solicitor Ge
neral, that th
e legislative
power to enact sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is
located in Article 246(1) read with Entry 97 of List I of the
Seventh Schedule and Article 24
8 of the Constitution, if not
in Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1
)(e) of the Constitution.
Articles 246 and 248
of the Constitution are placed in
Chapter I of Part XI of the Consti
tution of India. Part XI is
titled "Relations between th
e Union and the States" and
Chapter I of Part XI is titled
"Legislative Relations". In
Chapter I of Part XI, under
the heading "Distribution of
Legislative Powers" Articles 245
to 255 have been placed. A
reading of Articles 245
to 255 would show that these relate
to distribution of legislative powers between the Union and
the Legislatures of
the States. Article
246(1) provides that
Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect
26
to any of the matters enumer
ated in List I in the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution an
d under Entry 97 of List I of
the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution, Parliament has
exclusive power to make law
with respect to any other
matter not enumerated in List
II or List III. Article 248
similarly provides that Parliament has exclusive power to
make any law with respect to
any matter not enumerated in
the Concurrent List (List III)
or State List (List II) of the
Seventh Schedule of the Consti
tution. Therefore, Article
246(1) read with Entry 97 and
Article 248 only provide that
in residuary matters (o
ther than matters enumerated in List
II and List III) Parliament will
have power to make law. To
quote from Commentary on th
e Constitution of India by
Durga Das Basu (8
th
Edition) Volume 8 at page 8988:
"In short, the principle underlying Article
248, read with Entry 97 of List I, is that a
written Constitution, which divides
legislative power as between two
legislatures in a federation, cannot intend
that neither of such
Legislatures shall go
without power to legislate with respect of
any subject simply b
ecause that subject
has not been specifically mentioned nor
can be reasonably comprehended by
judicial interpretatio
n to be included in
any of the Entries in the Legislative Lists.
To meet such a situ
ation, a residuary
power is provided, and in the Indian
27
Constitution, this residuary power is
vested in the Union Legislature. Once,
therefore, it is found that a particular
subject-matter has not been assigned to
the competence of the State Legislature,
"it leads to the irresistible inference that
(the Union) Parliament would have
legislative competence
to deal with the
subject-matter in question."
Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e)
of the Constitution, on the
other hand, have conferred specifi
c powers on Parliament to
make law providing disqualifi
cations for membership of
either House of Parliament
or Legislative Assembly or
Legislative Council of the State other than those specified in
sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d
) of clause (1) of Articles 102
and 191 of the Constitution. We
may note that no power is
vested in the State Legislature
to make law laying down
disqualifications of membership
of the Legislative Assembly
or Legislative Council of the State and power is vested in
Parliament to make law laying
down disqualifications also in
respect of members of th
e Legislative Assembly or
Legislative Council of the State.
For these reasons, we are
of the considered opinion th
at the legislative power of
Parliament to enact any law re
lating to disqualification for
membership of either House of
Parliament or Legislative
28
Assembly or Legislative Council of the State can be located
only in Articles 102(1)(e) and 191
(1)(e) of the Constitution
and not in Articles 246(1) read with Entry 97 of List I of the
Seventh Schedule and Article 24
8 of the Constitution. We
do not, therefore, accept the contention of Mr. Luthra that
the power to enact sub-section (4
) of Section 8 of the Act is
vested in Parliament under Arti
cles 246(1) read with Entry
97 of List I of the Seventh
Schedule and 248 of the
Constitution, if not in Articles 10
2 (1)(e) and 191 (1)(e) of the
Constitution.
16.
Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution,
which contain the only source of legislative power to lay
down disqualifications for memb
ership of eith
er House of
Parliament and Legislative Asse
mbly or Legislative Council
of a State, provide as follows:
"102(1)(e). A person shall be disqualified
for being chosen as, and for being, a
member of either Hous
e of Parliament-(e)
if he is so disquali
fied by or under any
law made by Parliament."
"191(1)(e). "A person shall be disqualified
for being chosen as, and for being, a
member of the Legisl
ative Assembly or
Legislative Council of a State—(e) if he is
29
so disqualified by or under any law made
by Parliament.
A reading of the aforesaid two pr
ovisions in Articles 102(1)(e)
and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution would make it abundantly
clear that Parliament is to ma
ke one law for a person to be
disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of
either House of Parliament
or Legislative Assembly or
Legislative Council of the Stat
e. In the language of the
Constitution Bench of this Court in
Election Commission,
India
v. Saka Venkata Rao
(supra), Article 191(1) [which is
identically worded as Article 10
2(1)] lays down "the same set
of disqualifications
for election as well as
for continuing as a
member". Parliament thus
does not have the power under
Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of
the Constitution to make
different laws for a person to be disqualified for being
chosen as a member and for a pe
rson to be disqualified for
continuing as a member of
Parliament or the State
Legislature. To put it differently, if because of a
disqualification a person canno
t be chosen as a member of
Parliament or State Legi
slature, for the same
disqualification, he cannot
continue as a member of
Parliament or the State Legislat
ure. This is so because the
30
language of Articles 102(
1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the
Constitution is such that th
e disqualification for both a
person to be chosen as a memb
er of a House of Parliament
or the State Legislature or fo
r a person to continue as a
member of Parliament or the St
ate Legislature has to be the
same.
17.
Mr. Luthra and Mr. Kuhad,
however, contended that
the disqualifications laid down
in sub-sections (1),(2) and (3)
of Section 8 of the Act are th
e same for persons who are to
continue as members of Parlia
ment or a State Legislature
and sub-section (4) of Section 8
of the Act does not lay down
a different set of disqualificat
ions for sitting members but
merely states that the same disq
ualifications will have effect
only after the appeal or revisi
on, as the case may be, against
the conviction is decided by th
e Appellate or the Revisional
Court if such appeal or revi
sion is filed within 3 months
from the date of conviction
. We cannot accept this
contention also because of
the provisions of Articles
101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the
Constitution which are quoted
hereinbelow:
31
"
101(3)(a).
Vacation of seats
.-
(1) .......
(2) .......
(3) If a member of either House of Parliament-
(a) becomes subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) or
clause (2) of article 102.
his seat shall thereu
pon become vacant"
"
190(3)(a).
Vacation of seats
.-
(1) .......
(2) .......
(3) If a member of a Ho
use of the Legislature
of a State- (a) becomes subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) or
clause (2) of article 191.
his seat shall thereu
pon become vacant"
Thus, Article 101(3)(a) provides
that if a member of either
House of Parliament becom
es subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in
clause (1), his seat shall
thereupon become vacant and
similarly Article 190(3)(a)
provides that if a member of
a House of the Legislature of a
State becomes subject to an
y of the disqualifications
mentioned in clause (1), hi
s seat shall thereupon become
vacant. This is the effect of
a disqualification under Articles
102(1) and 190(1) in
curred by a member
of either House of
Parliament or a House of the St
ate Legislature. Accordingly,
once a person who was a memb
er of either House of
Parliament or House of the State Legislature becomes
32
disqualified by or under any
law made by Parliament under
Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e)
of the Constitution, his seat
automatically falls vacant by vi
rtue of Articles 101(3)(a) and
190(3)(a) of the Constitution
and Parliament cannot make a
provision as in sub-section (4)
of Section 8 of the Act to
defer the date on which the disqualification of a sitting
member will have effect an
d prevent his seat becoming
vacant on account of the disqualification under Article
102(1)(e) or Article 191(1
)(e) of the Constitution.
18. We cannot also accept the submission of Mr. Kuhad
that until the decision is take
n by the President or Governor
on whether a member of Parlia
ment or State Legislature has
become subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in
clause (1) of Article 102 and Ar
ticle 191 of the Constitution,
the seat of the member alleged to
have been disqualified will
not become vacant under Articl
es 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of
the Constitution. Articles
101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the
Constitution provide that if
a member of the House becomes
subject to any of the disquali
fications mentioned in clause
(1), "his seat shall thereupon
become vacant". Hence, the
seat of a member who become
s subject to any of the
33
disqualifications mentioned in cl
ause (1) will fall vacant on
the date on which the member
incurs the disqualification
and cannot await the decision
of the President or the
Governor, as the case may be
, under Articles 103 and 192
respectively of the Constitution
. The filling of the seat which
falls vacant, however, may await the decision of the
President or the Governor under Articles 103 and 192
respectively of the Constitution
and if the President or the
Governor takes a view that
the member has not become
subject to any of the disqua
lifications mentioned in clause
(1) of Articles 102
and 191 respectively of the Constitution,
it has to be held that the seat
of the member so held not to
be disqualified did not become
vacant on the date on which
the member was alleged to
have been subject to the
disqualification.
19. The result of our aforesa
id discussion is that the
affirmative words used in Ar
ticles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e)
confer power on Parliament to
make one law laying down
the same disqualifications for a
person who is to be chosen
as member of either House of
Parliament or as a member of
the Legislative Assembly or Le
gislative Council of a State
34
and for a person who is a sitt
ing member of a House of
Parliament or a House of th
e State Legislature and the
words in Articles 101(3)(a) and
190(3)(a) of the Constitution
put express limitations on such
powers of the Parliament to
defer the date on which the disqualifications would have
effect. Accordingly, sub-section
(4) of Section 8 of the Act
which carves out a saving in th
e case of sitting members of
Parliament or State Legislatur
e from the disqualifications
under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3
) of Section 8
of the Act or
which defers the date on whic
h the disqualification will take
effect in the case of a sittin
g member of Parliament or a
State Legislature is beyond the powers conferred on
Parliament by the Constitution.
20.
Looking at the affirmative
terms of Articles 102(1)(e)
and 191(1)(e) of the Constituti
on, we hold that Parliament
has been vested with the powers
to make law laying down
the same disqualifications for
person to be chosen as a
member of Parliament or a
State Legislature and for a
sitting member of a House of
Parliament or a House of a
State Legislature. We also hold
that the provisions of Article
101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the
Constitution expressly prohibit
35
Parliament to defer the date
from which the disqualification
will come into effect in ca
se of a sitting member of
Parliament or a State Legislat
ure. Parliament, therefore,
has exceeded its powers confer
red by the Constitution in
enacting sub-section (4) of
Section 8 of the Act and
accordingly sub-section (4) of
Section 8 of the Act is
ultra
vires
the Constitution.
21.
We do not also find merit in the submission of Mr.
Luthra and Mr. Kuhad that if a sitting member of
Parliament or the State Legisl
ature suffers from a frivolous
conviction by the trial court
for an offence given under sub-
section (1), (2) or (3) of Sect
ion 8 of the Act, he will be
remediless and he will suffer i
mmense hardship as he would
stand disqualified on account of such conviction in the
absence of sub-section (4) of Se
ction 8 of the Act. A three-
Judge Bench of this Court in
Rama Narang v. Ramesh
Narang & Ors.
[(1995) 2 SCC 513] has held that when an
appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure [for short
'the Code'] the appeal is
against both the conviction and
sentence and,
therefore, the
Appellate Court in exercise of
its power under Section 389(1)
36
of the Code can also stay the order of conviction and the
High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code can also
stay the conviction if the
power was not to be found in Sect
ion 389(1) of the Code. In
Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali
[(2007) 1 SCC
673], a three-Judge Bench of th
is Court, however, observed:
"It deserves to be clarifie
d that an order granting
stay of conviction is
not the rule but is an
exception to be resort
ed to in rare cases
depending upon the fact
s of a case. Where the
execution of the sentence is stayed, the conviction
continues to operate. Bu
t where the conviction
itself is stayed, the effect
is that the conviction will
not be operative from the date of stay. An order of
stay, of course, does not render the conviction
non-existent, but only non-operative. Be that as it
may. Insofar as the present case is concerned, an
application was filed specif
ically seeking stay of
the order of convicti
on specifying the
consequences if conviction
was not stayed, that is,
the appellant would incur
disqualification to
contest the election.
The High Court after
considering the special re
ason, granted the order
staying the conviction. As
the conviction itself is
stayed in contrast to a stay of execution of the
sentence, it is not possible to accept the
contention of the re
spondent that the
disqualification arising ou
t of conviction continues
to operate even after
stay of conviction.
In the aforesaid case, a cont
ention was raised by the
respondents that the appella
nt was disqualified from
37
contesting the election to th
e Legislative Assembly under
sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act as he had been
convicted for an offence punish
able under Sections 366 and
376 of the Indian Penal Code
and it was held by the three-
Judge Bench that as the High
Court for special reasons had
passed an order staying the co
nviction, the disqualification
arising out of the conviction ceased to operate after the stay
of conviction. Therefore, the disqualification under sub-
section (1), (2) or (3
) of Section 8 of the
Act will not operate
from the date of order of stay
of conviction passed by the
Appellate Court under Section 38
9 of the Code or the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code.
22. As we have held that Parl
iament had no power to enact
sub-section (4) of Section 8 of
the Act and accordingly sub-
section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is
ultra vires
the
Constitution, it is not necessar
y for us to go into the other
issue raised in these writ petitions that sub-section (4) of
Section 8 of the Act is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It would have been
necessary for us to go into
this question only if sub-secti
on (4) of Sectio
n 8 of the Act
was held to be within the powers
of the Parliame
nt. In other
38
words, as we can declare sub-
section (4) of Section 8 of the
Act as
ultra vires
the Constitution without going into the
question as to whether sub-sect
ion (4) of Section 8 of the
Act is violative of Article 14
of the Constitution, we do not
think it is necessary to decide the question as to whether
sub-section (4) of Section 8 of
the Act is violative of Article
14 of the Constitution.
23. The only question that remains to be decided is
whether our declaration in th
is judgment that sub-section
(4) of Section 8 of the Act is
ultra vires
the Constitution
should affect disqualificatio
ns already incurred under sub-
sections (1), (2) and (3) of S
ection 8 of the Act by sitting
members of Parliament and St
ate Legislatures who have
filed appeals or revisions aga
inst their conviction within a
period of three months and their appeals and revisions are
still pending before the co
ncerned court. Under sub-
sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act, the
disqualification takes effect from the date of conviction for
any of the offences mentione
d in the sub-sections and
remains in force for the periods mentioned in the sub-
sections. Thus, there may be
several sitting members of
39
Parliament and State Legislatures who have already
incurred disqualification by vi
rtue of a conviction covered
under sub-section (1), or sub-
section (2) or
sub-section (3)
of Section 8 of the Act. In
Golak Nath and Others
vs.
State
of Punjab and Another
(AIR 1967 SC 1643), Subba Rao, C.J.
speaking on behalf of himsel
f, Shah, Sikri, Shelat and
Vaidialingam, JJ. has held that
Articles 32, 141, 142 of the
Constitution are couched in su
ch a wide and elastic terms
as to enable this Court to formulate legal doctrines to meet
the ends of justice and has furt
her held that this Court has
the power not only to declare the law but also to restrict the
operation of the law as decl
ared to future and save the
transactions, whether statutor
y or otherwise, that were
effected on the basis of the ea
rlier law. Sitting members of
Parliament and State Legislature who have already been
convicted for any of the o
ffences mentioned in sub-section
(1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and who have filed
appeals or revisions which ar
e pending and are accordingly
saved from the disqualifications
by virtue of sub-section (4)
of Section 8 of the Act shou
ld not, in our considered
opinion, be affected by the de
claration now made by us in
40
this judgment. This is b
ecause the knowledge that sitting
members of Parliament or State
Legislatures will no longer
be protected by sub-section (4) of
Section 8 of
the Act will be
acquired by all concerned only
on the date this judgment is
pronounced by this Court.
As has been observed by this
Court in
Harla
v. State of Rajasthan
(AIR 1951 SC 467):
"........it would be against the principles of
natural justice to permit the subjects of a
State to be punished or
penalized by laws
of which they had no
knowledge and of
which they could not
even with exercise
of due diligence have acquired any
knowledge."
However, if any sitting member
of Parliament or a State
Legislature is convicted of any of the offences mentioned in
sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of
Section 8 of the Act and by
virtue of such conviction
and/or sentence suffers the
disqualifications mentioned in su
b-sections (1),
(2) and (3) of
Section 8 of the Act after the pronouncement of this
judgment, his membership of
Parliament or the State
Legislature, as the case may be
, will not be saved by sub-
section (4) of Section 8 of th
e Act which we have by this
judgment declared as
ultra vires
the Constitution
41
notwithstanding that he files th
e appeal or revision against
the conviction and /or sentence.
24. With the aforesaid declaration, the writ petitions are
allowed. No costs.
...............................................J.
(A. K. Patnaik)
.............................
.................J.
(Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)
New Delhi,
July 10, 2013.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Government starts appointment process for ICs :TNN | Jul 5, 2013, 03.25 PM IST
Government starts appointment process for ICs
Neha Shukla, TNN | Jul 5, 2013, 03.25 PM IST
LUCKNOW: Acting on the directions of the high court to fill all the vacant posts of the information commissioners within three months, UP government has started the process for appointment of information commissioners (ICs) in the UP State Information Commission (UPSIC). The government has started the process of appointment "as per the directions of the high court and the Supreme Court order".
The under-secretary, UP government, Bhavesh Ranjan said, "The process to appoint ICs ...................................
Read full story with original RTI reply at given link :
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/government-starts-appointment-process.html
Neha Shukla, TNN | Jul 5, 2013, 03.25 PM IST
LUCKNOW: Acting on the directions of the high court to fill all the vacant posts of the information commissioners within three months, UP government has started the process for appointment of information commissioners (ICs) in the UP State Information Commission (UPSIC). The government has started the process of appointment "as per the directions of the high court and the Supreme Court order".
The under-secretary, UP government, Bhavesh Ranjan said, "The process to appoint ICs ...................................
Read full story with original RTI reply at given link :
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/government-starts-appointment-process.html
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
उप्र में अदालत के आदेश पर होगी सूचना आयुक्तों की नियुक्ति
http://hindi.pardaphash.com/news/--735510/735510.html
उप्र में अदालत के आदेश पर होगी सूचना आयुक्तों की नियुक्ति
Tags: उत्तर प्रदेश , उर्वशी शर्मा , अदालत , सूचना आयुक्त
Published by: Sandeep Sharma
Published on: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 at 11:24 IST
लखनऊ। उत्तर प्रदेश में आठ सूचना आयुक्तों की नियुक्ति जल्द ही उच्च न्यायालय व सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के आदेशों के तहत ही होगी। यह जानकारी सूचना के अधिकार के तहत सामने आई है।
राजधानी लखनऊ निवासी आरटीआई कार्यकर्ता उर्वशी शर्मा ने उत्तर प्रदेश के आठ सूचना आयुक्तों की नियुक्ति के संबंध में मुख्यमंत्री कार्यालय से सूचना मांगी थी।
राज्य सूचना आयोग में सुनवाई के समय मुख्यमंत्री कार्यालय के अनुरोध पर मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त रणजीत सिंह पंकज ने उर्वशी की सूचना का पत्र उत्तर प्रदेश शासन के प्रशासनिक सुधार विभाग को स्थानांतरित किया था। इस पर उत्तर प्रदेश शासन के प्रशासनिक सुधार विभाग के अनु सचिव भवेश रंजन ने अपने पत्र के जरिए उर्वशी को सूचना दी है कि उत्तर प्रदेश के आठ सूचना आयुक्तों की नियुक्ति से
संबंधित प्रकरण में उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पीआईएल में 15 अप्रैल को दिए गए निर्णय तथा उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा एक पुनर्विचार याचिका में 16 अप्रैल को दिए गए निर्णय के अनुपालन में कार्यवाही उच्च स्तर पर प्रचलित है।
प्रशासनिक सुधार विभाग के इस पत्र से स्पष्ट है कि उत्तर प्रदेश में आठ सूचना आयुक्तों की नियुक्ति उच्च न्यायालय एवं उच्चतम न्यायालय के आदेशों के अनुसार शीघ्र ही होने की संभावना है।
उप्र में अदालत के आदेश पर होगी सूचना आयुक्तों की नियुक्ति
Tags: उत्तर प्रदेश , उर्वशी शर्मा , अदालत , सूचना आयुक्त
Published by: Sandeep Sharma
Published on: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 at 11:24 IST
लखनऊ। उत्तर प्रदेश में आठ सूचना आयुक्तों की नियुक्ति जल्द ही उच्च न्यायालय व सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के आदेशों के तहत ही होगी। यह जानकारी सूचना के अधिकार के तहत सामने आई है।
राजधानी लखनऊ निवासी आरटीआई कार्यकर्ता उर्वशी शर्मा ने उत्तर प्रदेश के आठ सूचना आयुक्तों की नियुक्ति के संबंध में मुख्यमंत्री कार्यालय से सूचना मांगी थी।
राज्य सूचना आयोग में सुनवाई के समय मुख्यमंत्री कार्यालय के अनुरोध पर मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त रणजीत सिंह पंकज ने उर्वशी की सूचना का पत्र उत्तर प्रदेश शासन के प्रशासनिक सुधार विभाग को स्थानांतरित किया था। इस पर उत्तर प्रदेश शासन के प्रशासनिक सुधार विभाग के अनु सचिव भवेश रंजन ने अपने पत्र के जरिए उर्वशी को सूचना दी है कि उत्तर प्रदेश के आठ सूचना आयुक्तों की नियुक्ति से
संबंधित प्रकरण में उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पीआईएल में 15 अप्रैल को दिए गए निर्णय तथा उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा एक पुनर्विचार याचिका में 16 अप्रैल को दिए गए निर्णय के अनुपालन में कार्यवाही उच्च स्तर पर प्रचलित है।
प्रशासनिक सुधार विभाग के इस पत्र से स्पष्ट है कि उत्तर प्रदेश में आठ सूचना आयुक्तों की नियुक्ति उच्च न्यायालय एवं उच्चतम न्यायालय के आदेशों के अनुसार शीघ्र ही होने की संभावना है।
If THE CONSTITUTION (FIFTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1985 shall be a big legal hurdle in the way of GOI’s move of taking political parties out of RTI ambit ?
If THE CONSTITUTION (FIFTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1985 shall be a big legal hurdle in the way of GOI's move of taking political parties out of RTI ambit ?
As per THE CONSTITUTION (FIFTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1985 , all National/regional Political parties are constitutional bodies. If THE CONSTITUTION (FIFTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1985 Can be used by us as a tool to legally counter GOI's intentions of taking political parties out of RTI ambit ?
THE CONSTITUTION (FIFTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1985 is available at this link http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/the-constitution-fifty-second-amendment.html
Onboard legal experts and RTI experts, Please enlighten the nation.
Regards,
Urvashi Sharma
Mobile-9369613513
As per THE CONSTITUTION (FIFTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1985 , all National/regional Political parties are constitutional bodies. If THE CONSTITUTION (FIFTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1985 Can be used by us as a tool to legally counter GOI's intentions of taking political parties out of RTI ambit ?
THE CONSTITUTION (FIFTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1985 is available at this link http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/the-constitution-fifty-second-amendment.html
Onboard legal experts and RTI experts, Please enlighten the nation.
Regards,
Urvashi Sharma
Mobile-9369613513
Monday, July 1, 2013
सूचना के अधिकार पर सपा का दोहरा मानदंड!
सूचना के अधिकार के दायरे में सियासी दलों को लाने के केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग के फैसले का यूं तो उत्तर प्रदेश में सत्तारूढ़ समाजवादी पार्टी (सपा) स्वागत कर रही है लेकिन हकीकत में स्वयं सपा ही स्वयं को सूचना के अधिकार के दायरे में लाने के प्रति गंभीर नहीं है। उत्तर प्रदेश की राजधानी लखनऊ निवासी आरटीआई कार्यकर्ता उर्वशी शर्मा ने यह खुलासा किया है।
उर्वशी ने बताया कि समाजवादी पार्टी की कथनी की सत्यता जांचने के लिए उन्होंने बीते 13 जून को पार्टी के लखनऊ कार्यालय से सूचना मांगी थी। उर्वशी ने ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................Read full story with scanned copy of returned envelope at given link http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/blog-post.html
N(O)AMENDMENT / N(O)ORDINANCE Protest-demonstration with Inverted UMBRELLAS in Lucknow at DHARNA STHAL opposite Vidhaan Sabha on Wednesday,17 July 2013
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/noamendment-noordinance-protest.html
N(O)AMENDMENT / N(O)ORDINANCE Protest-demonstration with Inverted UMBRELLAS in Lucknow at DHARNA STHAL opposite Vidhaan Sabha on Wednesday,17 July 2013
Dear all,
After a very long drawn battle, we, the Citizen of India got the Umbrella ( Right to Information Act 2005 ) to safeguard India from the unwanted rains ( of Corrupt Practices ).
To overturn the June 3 order of the Central Information Commission which said that six major political parties came within the ambit of the transparency law, all Political parties have come together to shut the door on sharing information with citizens and the Union government, buoyed by the near-consensus among the political class, is planning changes to the Right to Information Act. As we all know that GOI may take the amendment route or even promulgate an ordinance to keep political parties out of the ambit of the information act. This act of GOI is totally unconstitutional.
To register our protest against these unconstitutional intentions of GOI and also of all major political parties of India, the RTI activists under the Aegis of YAISHWARYAJ SEVA SANSTHAN shall hold a one day long NAMENDMENT / NORDINANCE Protest-demonstration with Inverted UMBRELLAS in Lucknow at DHARNA STHAL opposite Vidhaan Sabha on Wednesday,17 July 2013.
All are welcome to join YAISHWARYAJ in this protest-demonstration to help save RTI in India.
For More Information Please Contact :-
Urvashi Sharma – Protest-Demonstration Coordinator & Secretary of YAISHWARYAJ Seva Sansthan
Mobile – 9369613513
N(O)AMENDMENT / N(O)ORDINANCE Protest-demonstration with Inverted UMBRELLAS in Lucknow at DHARNA STHAL opposite Vidhaan Sabha on Wednesday,17 July 2013
Dear all,
After a very long drawn battle, we, the Citizen of India got the Umbrella ( Right to Information Act 2005 ) to safeguard India from the unwanted rains ( of Corrupt Practices ).
To overturn the June 3 order of the Central Information Commission which said that six major political parties came within the ambit of the transparency law, all Political parties have come together to shut the door on sharing information with citizens and the Union government, buoyed by the near-consensus among the political class, is planning changes to the Right to Information Act. As we all know that GOI may take the amendment route or even promulgate an ordinance to keep political parties out of the ambit of the information act. This act of GOI is totally unconstitutional.
To register our protest against these unconstitutional intentions of GOI and also of all major political parties of India, the RTI activists under the Aegis of YAISHWARYAJ SEVA SANSTHAN shall hold a one day long NAMENDMENT / NORDINANCE Protest-demonstration with Inverted UMBRELLAS in Lucknow at DHARNA STHAL opposite Vidhaan Sabha on Wednesday,17 July 2013.
All are welcome to join YAISHWARYAJ in this protest-demonstration to help save RTI in India.
For More Information Please Contact :-
Urvashi Sharma – Protest-Demonstration Coordinator & Secretary of YAISHWARYAJ Seva Sansthan
Mobile – 9369613513
N(O)AMENDMENT / N(O)ORDINANCE Protest-demonstration with Inverted UMBRELLAS in Lucknow at DHARNA STHAL opposite Vidhaan Sabha on Wednesday,17 July 2013
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2013/07/noamendment-noordinance-protest.html
N(O)AMENDMENT / N(O)ORDINANCE Protest-demonstration with Inverted UMBRELLAS in Lucknow at DHARNA STHAL opposite Vidhaan Sabha on Wednesday,17 July 2013
Dear all,
After a very long drawn battle, we, the Citizen of India got the Umbrella ( Right to Information Act 2005 ) to safeguard India from the unwanted rains ( of Corrupt Practices ).
To overturn the June 3 order of the Central Information Commission which said that six major political parties came within the ambit of the transparency law, all Political parties have come together to shut the door on sharing information with citizens and the Union government, buoyed by the near-consensus among the political class, is planning changes to the Right to Information Act. As we all know that GOI may take the amendment route or even promulgate an ordinance to keep political parties out of the ambit of the information act. This act of GOI is totally unconstitutional.
To register our protest against these unconstitutional intentions of GOI and also of all major political parties of India, the RTI activists under the Aegis of YAISHWARYAJ SEVA SANSTHAN shall hold a one day long NAMENDMENT / NORDINANCE Protest-demonstration with Inverted UMBRELLAS in Lucknow at DHARNA STHAL opposite Vidhaan Sabha on Wednesday,17 July 2013.
All are welcome to join YAISHWARYAJ in this protest-demonstration to help save RTI in India.
For More Information Please Contact :-
Urvashi Sharma – Protest-Demonstration Coordinator & Secretary of YAISHWARYAJ Seva Sansthan
Mobile – 9369613513
N(O)AMENDMENT / N(O)ORDINANCE Protest-demonstration with Inverted UMBRELLAS in Lucknow at DHARNA STHAL opposite Vidhaan Sabha on Wednesday,17 July 2013
Dear all,
After a very long drawn battle, we, the Citizen of India got the Umbrella ( Right to Information Act 2005 ) to safeguard India from the unwanted rains ( of Corrupt Practices ).
To overturn the June 3 order of the Central Information Commission which said that six major political parties came within the ambit of the transparency law, all Political parties have come together to shut the door on sharing information with citizens and the Union government, buoyed by the near-consensus among the political class, is planning changes to the Right to Information Act. As we all know that GOI may take the amendment route or even promulgate an ordinance to keep political parties out of the ambit of the information act. This act of GOI is totally unconstitutional.
To register our protest against these unconstitutional intentions of GOI and also of all major political parties of India, the RTI activists under the Aegis of YAISHWARYAJ SEVA SANSTHAN shall hold a one day long NAMENDMENT / NORDINANCE Protest-demonstration with Inverted UMBRELLAS in Lucknow at DHARNA STHAL opposite Vidhaan Sabha on Wednesday,17 July 2013.
All are welcome to join YAISHWARYAJ in this protest-demonstration to help save RTI in India.
For More Information Please Contact :-
Urvashi Sharma – Protest-Demonstration Coordinator & Secretary of YAISHWARYAJ Seva Sansthan
Mobile – 9369613513
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)