A few questions...

I feel bad that i am writing after so long. But better late than never is my encouragement at this moment. This time I don't want to say anything but to ask the following questions;

(1) Why was Narendra Modi's speech not telecast on DD National (please correct me if i am wrong)

My opinion: No sane person would dig one's own grave.

(2) Why there is a complete silence on the all party collusive burial being given to the CIC judgment* by way of an amendment in the Act?

My opinion: Because they are all hand in glove when it comes to sharing the source of their exploits.

(3) When Modi said that coalition is difficult to run, does he mean to say that if BJP doesn't cross 272 in the Lok Sabha elections, he won't form the government?

My Opinion: Even he knows that its NDA who may come to power not BJP, but its just playing on the present scheme of things.

(4) Why Congress is so ideologically flexible that its views can change overnight over the dubious ordinance?

My opinion: It was a Congressian ploy to show that even Rahul Gandhi has a bit of understanding about politics.

(5) Was it decent for Navjot Singh Siddhu to have spoken about AAP that its like a insect on a dhoti?

My opinion: Politicians should chose more decent words in their censure of their political adversaries.

*On 'political parties' being treated as public authorities under the RTI Act

DELHI’S CHILLING INDIFFERENCE

Every winter, hundreds of homeless poor people die of cold in Delhi. This year,  a conservative estimate of the number of dead hangs around 100. The inaction and lackadaisical attitude portrayed by the government towards these lives is inhumane. It definitely does not reflect the manner in which a socialist and egalitarian society thrives and so the uncertainty looming large over the fates of these homeless people must be exterminated through an action plan.

And for that it becomes vital to know the extant mechanism which the Delhi government has in place to deal with this evil in a quest to make winters as enjoyable to the destitute as it is to the rich. The adequacy and implementation of the existing laws is another concern.

As per a newspaper  report in 2010,  Delhi had 40 night shelters back then, of which 25 were run by the Muncipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the remaining temporary structures were run by the Delhi government. These structures could accommodate around 1,50,000 homeless people. Only two of these 40 night shelters were meant for women and children. And because they were not properly maintained, even the available capacity was far from being fully utilized.

Till 2010,  MCD used to have a “Slum Dweller and JJ Department” which was overtaken by the Delhi government through passing of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board  (DUSIB) Act, 2010. The objective of this Act was to form a DUSIB board which would provide shelter to the people living in slums and JJ colonies. The name must have rung a bell in your mind. Yes, the night shelter scam of Rs. 20 Crore about which we heard in January this year was perpetrated by the Babus working in the DUSIB constituted under this very Act. The scam had been unfolding over two decades and finally was discovered in January this year. The long overdue CBI inquiry is now underway and let us hope that the guilty get punished. So, the problem here is not of inadequacy of law but of implementation.

Delhi's poor fight the dipping mercury

Possible remedies by the enforcement of existing law or through PIL

In 1990 while deciding Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totale, [AIR 1990 SC 630] it was laid down by the sentinel of our fundamental rights, the Supreme Court of India that the right to decent environment and reasonable accommodation to live in is a subset of our bigger right, i.e., right to life. The Court went on to observe that the difference between a human being and an animal is, that for the latter, mere protection of its bare body serves wells but the former needs much more (suitable accommodation allowing to him to grow physically, mentally and intellectually). But what we see in practice is glaring indifference! Delhi government has not even afforded protection to the bare bodies of its people from the wrath of the weather.

Again in 1995, the apex court, in State of Karnataka v. Narasimhamurthy [1995 (5) SCC 524] held that right to shelter constitutes a fundamental right  under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution (which provides that all citizens shall have the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India) in the manner that the State has to provide facilities and opportunity to build houses for poor, who otherwise will be unable to exercise their right under article 19(1)(e). Moreover, land acquired by the state for the purpose of housing the underprivileged was interpreted as a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court went to the extent of saying that it is a constitutional duty of the State to provide house sites to the poor.

There is a legion of other Supreme Court and High Court judgments recognizing the right to shelter of all citizens which hold that the right finds its genesis in the conjoint reading of article 19(1)(e) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Moreover on 9^th Jan, 2012, acting upon a PIL filed by Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties, Supreme Court issued a directive to the Delhi Government thereby asking it to ensure that  no deaths were caused because of cold.

To conclude, the problem can be remedied by concerted executive act under the DUSIB Act, 2010 or by petitioning Supreme Court by vigilant citizenry or NGOs like PUCL. But something must be done because our inaction is costing us human lives….

Popular Reaction to Political Arrogance: From Submission to Confrontation

In the recent past, the Indian populace has forced the Indian politics to take a giant leap towards a regime of responsibility and accountability. There is ample evidence backing this assertion be it the Delhi Medical Students’ protest against quota or reservation policy, or the Lokpal Movement or the Delhi gang-rape case etc.

Activists have been disclosing harsh facts, consequently enraging people to hurl abuses and shoes at politicians like Suresh Kalmadi, Chidambram, Sharad Pawar (who was even slapped). Ministers have been jailed, executive policies like first come serve (2G scam), challenged in the courts of law. The whole sentiment can be summarized as a pro-change missive requiring rulers to come out of their comfort zone and behave as responsible leaders.

But amidst all this, there are still a few things happening which should have gone anachronistic by now. In West Bengal, Mamta Banerjee secured the arrest of Professor Ambikesh Mahapatra under section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 for his caricature depicting her and Mukul Roy as conspirators behind Dinesh Trivedi’s ouster from Railway Ministry. In Tamil Nadu, a small time industrialist in Chennai tweeted that P. Chidambram’s son Karti Chidambram had amassed more wealth than Robert Vadra but instead of that comment forming a basis of any enquiry, the man was arrested for making an offensive comment again under Section 66A. Similarly, same provision was invoked to appease Shiv Sainiks by way of arrest of the two girls for expressing their view on the stillness in Mumbai brought out by Bal Thackeray’s death. Then Salman Khurshid publicly issued a life threat to Arvind Kejriwal and his supporters for their propective campaigning in his constituency Farrukhabad. Also, Assem Trivedi the cartoonist was arrested for a cartoon against corrupt politicians posted by him on his blog. The latest addition to the fray being Nitin Gadkari, he lambasted Income Tax Officials for proceeding against him and his Purti Group and said that they would get to see the ramifications of their misdoing during NDA’s tenure. But the uncommon commonality among all these is defiance. None among them bowed down before these mighty politicians but firmly stood their ground. 

This arrogance of politicians is not acceptable and they must be brought to book for their reckless attitude. There are provisions in law that can be pressed into service to contain such behavior but it’s never done probably because till now we have been accustomed to this kind of unchallenged submission. Why is the scope of legislative net expanded to nab the common man for raising his voice but contracted when it's target is a politician. Why the scope of reasonable restrictions, imposed on the Constitutional right of Right to freedom of speech and expression of a common man wider than that imposed on the same, of a politician? Why S. 505 of Indian Penal Code is not invoked when Sushil Kumar Shinde blames RSS and BJP for terrorism? I understand that the section can’t be invoked just because a political party has been hurt but then why treat same situation differently. I mean to say that at the time of Bal Thackeray’s death, the Palghar girls’ comment offended only the Shiv Sena, which is again ‘just’ a political party. This ‘why’ deserves an answer because it’s high time now. Being a law student, I have read that law is the king of kings and I believe that that the day is not far when it will act like king and not as an instrumentality of a king. Political arrogance is not acceptable in any society because it means betraying the faith of very people who elected them. If they want to show arrogance and deal with issues in a stern manner, then they should speak and act boldly on real issues like beheading of Indian soldiers at LOC, China’s building of infrastructure across LAC, rising inflation, corruption in politics, their swiss bank accounts etc. 

After 65 years of independence it will be very tough for the political class to continue to enslave and hijack this nation’s intellectual faculties and if they want to hold on, then they must perform their duties.