Indrani Basu, TNN, Feb 26, 2011, 12.57am IST
NEW DELHI: It was a special campus placement session. Eight companies came calling and interviewed 46 candidates. Fourteen were given job offers while the rest hope to make the cut in the next couple of days. What's special about that? Well, the 'campus' was Delhi's Tihar jail and the candidates inmates serving time there.
At the end of the day, what the lucky 14 held in their hands weren't just job letters — they were tickets to a new life of dignity.
"This is not just an appointment letter. It is an assurance of a rehabilitated life in society which would have otherwise maybe shunned me. I can now hope for a speedy acquittal by sending this letter to the court to convince them to acquit me soon. I can assure my wife and children of a decent life in Delhi," said 40-year-old Sandeep Bhatnagar, an undertrial in Tihar for the past five years. Bhatnagar is accused of dressing up as a "human bomb" and conducting a bank robbery in Vikaspuri in May 2006.
Said Neeraj Kumar, DG (Prisons), "These 46 inmates were chosen for placement as they fulfilled three criteria. They had impeccable conduct inside the jail where they utilized their time to gain education and vocational skills. Two, they all expect to be released within a year or so, and three, they were keen to rehabilitate themselves and lead a new life."
"We are expecting 100% placement. The rest should be given letters in the next couple of days," said Tihar law officer Sunil Gupta. Among the companies which agreed to be part of this exceptional recruitment drive was Agarwal Packers and Movers, one of the country's largest companies in their field.
Many of the inmates who sat for placement have completed their education — from schooling to multiple graduation degrees — in jail. "After I was sent to jail, it was a painful and stressful time for me as I had no clue what to do next. However, I was motivated inside the jail by officials and NGOs. I studied day and night to finish 10 years of education in five years. Now I am assisting a Supreme Court lawyer Michael Peter and preparing for civil services. Michael fought my case and has been a great help," said 26-year-old Dilip Kumar, who was booked under narcotics Act in 2005.
Dilip came to Delhi from Madhubani in Bihar as a youth who had studied up to Class V. He worked as a sub-contractor at a parking site in Sarojini Nagar when he was arrested. Now acquitted after fighting the case as an undertrial for years, he is about to complete his Bachelors in Tourism Studies from IGNOU and is planning to pursue LLB. He was one of the 46 inmates who were up for placement on Friday.
The action started around 11am at jail number 3 of Tihar. The excitement was palpable. "I am extremely nervous. I am willing to take any type of job offer I get and this placement drive may just help me regain some of the acceptance and prestige that I lost after coming to jail," said 23-year-old Gaijaomei George Kamei.
George is undergoing trial for criminal conspiracy for murder. He was the first inmate to be given an appointment letter — as a research assistant for JRA & Associates. He also received an offer to be a marketing associate for ASP Sealing Products. "Two years in jail have taught me to be careful and not make rash decisions. I will weigh both options and decide," he said, beaming.
Siddharth Bhatnagar, 29, an undertrial for murder, was offered a marketing executive position.
While Agarwal Packers and Movers picked up seven inmates for positions such as marketing executive, assistant manager, supervisor and data entry operator, Vedanta Foundation and Good House Keeping recruited two inmates each. JRA & Associates and ASP Sealing products made an offer each.
Read more: At 'campus placement', 14 Tihar inmates get jobs - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/At-campus-placement-14-Tihar-inmates-get-jobs/articleshow/7576940.cms#ixzz1F44nz1Ni
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Germany's policies prove that renewable sources of energy are a viable option
Frontline, Volume 28 - Issue 05 :: Feb. 26-Mar. 11, 2011.
Green power
LYLA BAVADAM
Germany's policies prove that renewable sources of energy are a viable option.
IN September 2010, the German Federal Environment Agency announced that by 2050 the country would be in a position to meet all of its electricity requirements from renewable energy sources as opposed to the present 16 per cent.
This did not come as a surprise since Germany has always considered renewable energy sources a viable option and not gimmicky alternatives. The country has been using renewable energy technologies since 1990. And given the current status of the technology, Germany is probably the first and only major economy in the world to use renewable energy to its full potential. It has about 13 million square metres of roofs and fields covered with solar panels and more than 21,300 wind turbines.
Government policies have largely been supportive of the initiatives. In the last two decades, solar photovoltaic (PV) installations have grown by more than 15,000 per cent, installed wind capacity by more than 2,000 per cent and biomass capacity by more than 500 per cent.
Federal Minister for Education and Research Prof. Dr Annette Schavan told Frontline that Germany's success story stemmed from a larger set of economic, security and environmental policy considerations. For instance, concerns over rising import prices of oil, regulatory obligations of the European Union and a growing awareness among the electorate about the environment helped policymakers redirect their political energies towards renewables.
German law has consistently supported renewable sources of energy. The 1991 Electricity Feed Act was the first legal regularisation for renewables. Essentially, this placed an obligation on the grid operator to purchase electricity generated by renewables at a per kilowatt hour rate (what is called the feed-in tariff). This law was replaced in 2000 by the Renewable Energy Sources Act. The 2000 Act is different from the 1991 legislation in that it obliges grid operators to give priority to the purchase of energy from renewable sources. The Act also applies a ‘user pays' principle so that those who consume more electricity pay at a higher rate.
FIRST IMPETUS
The Act has been responsible for making Germany a world leader in the PV industry. Perhaps the greatest impetus to the industry came from Germany's commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent between 1990 and 2020. Germany has promoted international policy action to address climate change. At the domestic level, the country has affected changes to curtail its own production of greenhouse gases. E.U. policies push member-states to increase their use of renewables. The more technologically developed ones (such as Germany) are expected to make higher use of them.
“There are people in Germany who ask what will happen after the oil age. At the current rate of consumption today's oil reserves will last about 40 years. What after that?” says Dr Heiner Metzner of the Institute of Solid State Physics at the Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena. Memories of the oil-based energy crises of the mid-1970s and the Green movement have given a boost to renewables. At the University of Jena research is on to improve the technology, efficiency and pricing of solar cells and to explore other materials such as cadmium teleroid to replace silicon.
KAMAL NARANG
Opposition to renewable sources was inevitable. The goal of integrating renewable energy into the national economy could be achieved only if the use of conventional sources was reduced. In Germany, this meant cutting down on coal extraction, and the initial resistance to renewables naturally came from the coal industry. It was only after the industry extracted its share of subsidies that a key amendment to the Renewable Energy Act was allowed to be passed in 2003. While the subsidies did benefit the coal industry workforce, it came with the disadvantage of extending the life of many mines. Matthias Seidel, the sales manager of Europe East of Roth & Rau AG, which supplies equipment to the PV industry, said it was “not very competitive because it is dirty and inefficient coal” that was being produced. Coal-based power plants contribute about 40 per cent of the country's greenhouse gases.
Strong opposition to renewables also came from the nuclear lobby. In the early 1980s, nuclear power dominated research and development in energy and about one-third of Germany's electricity supply came from nuclear reactors. The previous government, under Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, had committed to a complete phaseout by 2020. This was reversed completely by the new energy plan released in September last year.
Ironically, while the new energy plan is favourable to renewables it also extends the life of 17 nuclear reactors by an average of 12 years.
The present coalition government, under Chancellor Angela Merkel, insists that nuclear energy will serve as a “bridge technology” that will actually help Germany achieve its renewable energy goal. To soften the blow, Merkel has promised subsidies for wind, solar and biomass technologies, adding that part of the profits from nuclear stations will be routed towards building up renewables.
Annette Schavan said she saw nuclear energy as “renewable, efficient and climate-friendly since it didn't emit CO {-2}” but agreed that it was “a huge responsibility”. Nuclear energy was included in the new plan with the promise that it would help Germany achieve its target of reducing CO {-2} emissions by four-fifths by 2050. As far as the disposal of nuclear waste was concerned, the Minister said, “At the moment nuclear toxic waste disposal is still a matter of dumping at a site. We are just hunting for dumping sites.”
The nuclear and conventional energy lobbies also hard-sell the fact that energy from renewables is more expensive. They argue that the customer ends up paying higher prices and the government pays subsidies. For instance, critics of wind energy (which contributes the highest mega wattage among renewables) say that Germany's entire power grid will have to be rebuilt to route power from offshore wind turbines to the rest of the country. The nuclear lobby is using the price factor to denounce the renewables industry. While renewables have proved to be technologically and environmentally sound, finance remains a hurdle. It is estimated that the transition from conventional to green energy will take about €3 trillion. Conversely, what the renewables industry has in its favour is that it has provided about 300,000 jobs in the last decade.
Subsidies, which kick-started the industry, are now a millstone. Solar power has been heavily subsidised in Germany, which is why the industry has been witnessing a boom. But the new energy plan is trying to put the brakes on this industry. Those who own and operate solar panels receive a fixed tariff for every kilowatt hour of power they produce. The tariff is higher than that of conventional energy. It was meant to encourage production, but no one had foreseen the extent of the solar boom.
Enthused by guaranteed returns, thousands of homeowners and farmers installed solar panels, with the result that in the last decade the government paid between €60 and 80 billion in subsidies. This met just 1.1 per cent of the electricity requirements of the country. If the installation of solar panels continues the subsidies paid out will also increase. The government is trying to slow down solar farms in its new energy plan. The challenge before the solar energy industry then is to bring down costs.
At a high technology site in Freiberg, machines with long limbs perform break dance-like motions as they lay out solar wafers and cells by the thousands. This is SolarWorld AG, the world's largest manufacturer of solar panels with an investment of €500 million in its core business of PV technology. The plant has an annual wafer capacity of one gigawatt, proof of the huge demand for solar power.
SolarWorld aims to reduce production costs by 30 per cent every year. At present, one solar wafer costs €5 and one solar cell costs €10. Solar panels to cover an average-sized roof needs many of these, and the cost of installation is high for most people.
It is to the credit of German policymakers that the subsidies have encouraged householders to install solar panels. The glitch seems to lie in the fact that subsidies have been given to research and not to production. This is perhaps the gap that needs to be bridged.
The economics of production also seems to be opposed to the need to scale up. One of the things that prevents the price from coming down is the continuing use of silicon. Silicon is a common mineral, but as Matthias Seidel explained, “it is market economics that keeps the prices high, otherwise it's possible to make a wafer for less than five euros”. Roth & Rau are equipment suppliers for the PV industry. “The demand for photovoltaics the world over is great. In 2001 we made machines that produced 1,600 wafers per hour. In 2010 this went up to 2,400,” said Dr Bernd Rau, senior vice-president.
In Bremerhaven, which Britta Rollert, public relations manager of the Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy Systems Technology IWES, describes as “the windy edge of Germany”, there is an annual budget of €20 million set aside for research in wind technology. About two to seven million of this income is from industry, proving just how seriously businesses take wind energy. In fact, India-based Suzlon is a client of the rotor blade testing site of the institute.
Researchers such as Isabel Koprek at the Fraunhofer Institute have come to the conclusion that “the future of wind energy lies offshore where the wind is 40 per cent higher than on shore”. The costs are high. Increasing offshore farms can cost as much as € 75 billion over the next 20 years. Offshore wind farms are possibly the most expensive in terms of construction and maintenance.
Special engineering and a completely new grid system account for enormous costs but the interest being shown in them is proved by the investment. The new energy plan has promised to invest €5 billion through low interest loans. Both, the Swedish government and the European Investment Bank have invested heavily in offshore wind farms in Germany.
But wind energy scientists have some old battles that seem unwinnable. Public antagonism to wind turbines persists. Dr Arnoldus van Wingerde, head of the competence centre for rotor blade at the Fraunhofer Institute, said, “People say the turbines make a noise, that birds are killed, that there is suction from the blades, the turbines are ugly… there are always objections and not always valid ones but I say look at the benefits.”
VOLKER LANNERT
THE EXPERIMENTAL OFFSHORE wind turbine of DEWI, the German wind energy institute.
Thomas Neumann of DEWI, the German wind energy institute, said “the latest turbines give five times more energy than they did ten years ago”. Research has also come a long way from the traditional four-bladed windmill. Three-bladed turbines have been found to give optimum performance, reaching speeds as high as 200 kilometre per hour. The three blades also reduce noise, as does the proper placement of turbines (turbulence is generated when one turbine is placed in the shadow of another).
Storage problem
One insurmountable problem in the field of energy has been storage. Wingerde said, “Theoretically you can store wind energy in batteries but practically you cannot because of the number and size of batteries required.” To a great extent, the problem of storing energy has been overcome by the ingenious system of using a lake as storage – what is referred to as a pumped-storage plant. In Norway, when wind energy is strong, it is used to pump water to heights where it is stored in a lake. Then, when the wind drops, the water from the lake is released and hydro power is used to generate electricity.”
BIOMASS ENERGY
Biomass is an energy source that is not as well known as solar or wind energy. The most important source of biomass in Germany comes from waste wood. At RWE Innogy Cogen's biomass utility in Berlin-Neukölln, waste wood is broken into chips. This combined heat-and-power plant (which is Germany's biggest cogeneration plant) delivers heat to about 50,000 inhabitants of the neighbouring region and generates 200 MW of electricity for the main grid. The plant prides itself on its climate friendly principles. The main fuel is wood chips from waste wood. So not only is waste wood being recycled but using wood as fuel is also considered being CO {-2} neutral. The chips are delivered by boat and offloaded alongside the plant so that transport costs are kept low. “Not bad – all this is from 250,000 tonnes of wood chips. We call it green electricity,” joked Stefan Lühr, the plant manager. One offside to biomass is that it is interfering with food prices as farmers tend to cultivate wheat and corn more since they can be used for both food and fuel.
VOLKER LANNERT
STEFAN LšHR, MANAGER of RWE Innogy Cogen, Germany's biggest biomass plant. It burns waste wood to generate heat for 50,000 local residents.
The energy form that has been most ignored is geothermal. The Schorfheide forest north-east of Berlin used to be the hunting grounds of Prussian royalty. It is now part of a biosphere reserve and in part private land. Pointing to the in situ research well in a clearing in the forest, Ernst Huenges, Director of the International Centre for Geothermal Research at Gross Schonebeck, explained: “We are on a learning curve for geothermal energy.” Extolling the virtues of geothermal energy, he described it as “decentralised, cheap, use local energy and produce almost zero carbon emissions”. It is also efficient because “every 100 KW hour put into a pump gives 30 MW of geothermal heat”. But despite a high coefficient of performance of 100:1000, sustainability and reliability are two questions that geothermal researchers struggle with.
The fear that geothermal exploration can trigger seismic activity was countered by Huenges who said Italy, which first used this resource 100 years ago, had not experienced seismicity-related problems. Although the project gets federal funding, Huenges said geothermal exploration faced political hurdles. “You put in millions of euros to dig a well and its life could be about 30 years. Can the cost be justified? I think so but many do not,” he said. German know-how is being shared with countries such as Indonesia where geothermal energy is being tapped profitably.
Indonesia has seven operational projects, one of which has been connected to the national grid since 1983. Forty more sites are being explored. Dr Nenny Saptadji of the geothermal department at the Institut Teknologi in Bandung, Indonesia, told Frontline that Indonesia had an energy potential of 28 GW. She said the added benefit of geothermal energy was the low CO {-2} emissions. India is planning a project in the sub-Himalayan region.
Renewable energy structures and equipment are visible all over Germany. Wind turbines have the most dramatic presence. They cover vast areas of land stretching into the distance in some regions. In the sea, they loom like Don Quixote's giants.
Solar panels with their ubiquitous blue reflective surfaces are almost an integral part of the architecture of homes and commercial buildings. Sometimes they are laid out over entire fields, slowly rotating like sunflowers, following the path of the sun. Apart from demonstrating the high level of acceptance renewable energy has in Germany, the structures prove that renewable sources can be a successful solution to the increasing energy demands of the world.
Green power
LYLA BAVADAM
Germany's policies prove that renewable sources of energy are a viable option.
IN September 2010, the German Federal Environment Agency announced that by 2050 the country would be in a position to meet all of its electricity requirements from renewable energy sources as opposed to the present 16 per cent.
This did not come as a surprise since Germany has always considered renewable energy sources a viable option and not gimmicky alternatives. The country has been using renewable energy technologies since 1990. And given the current status of the technology, Germany is probably the first and only major economy in the world to use renewable energy to its full potential. It has about 13 million square metres of roofs and fields covered with solar panels and more than 21,300 wind turbines.
Government policies have largely been supportive of the initiatives. In the last two decades, solar photovoltaic (PV) installations have grown by more than 15,000 per cent, installed wind capacity by more than 2,000 per cent and biomass capacity by more than 500 per cent.
Federal Minister for Education and Research Prof. Dr Annette Schavan told Frontline that Germany's success story stemmed from a larger set of economic, security and environmental policy considerations. For instance, concerns over rising import prices of oil, regulatory obligations of the European Union and a growing awareness among the electorate about the environment helped policymakers redirect their political energies towards renewables.
German law has consistently supported renewable sources of energy. The 1991 Electricity Feed Act was the first legal regularisation for renewables. Essentially, this placed an obligation on the grid operator to purchase electricity generated by renewables at a per kilowatt hour rate (what is called the feed-in tariff). This law was replaced in 2000 by the Renewable Energy Sources Act. The 2000 Act is different from the 1991 legislation in that it obliges grid operators to give priority to the purchase of energy from renewable sources. The Act also applies a ‘user pays' principle so that those who consume more electricity pay at a higher rate.
FIRST IMPETUS
The Act has been responsible for making Germany a world leader in the PV industry. Perhaps the greatest impetus to the industry came from Germany's commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent between 1990 and 2020. Germany has promoted international policy action to address climate change. At the domestic level, the country has affected changes to curtail its own production of greenhouse gases. E.U. policies push member-states to increase their use of renewables. The more technologically developed ones (such as Germany) are expected to make higher use of them.
“There are people in Germany who ask what will happen after the oil age. At the current rate of consumption today's oil reserves will last about 40 years. What after that?” says Dr Heiner Metzner of the Institute of Solid State Physics at the Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena. Memories of the oil-based energy crises of the mid-1970s and the Green movement have given a boost to renewables. At the University of Jena research is on to improve the technology, efficiency and pricing of solar cells and to explore other materials such as cadmium teleroid to replace silicon.
KAMAL NARANG
Opposition to renewable sources was inevitable. The goal of integrating renewable energy into the national economy could be achieved only if the use of conventional sources was reduced. In Germany, this meant cutting down on coal extraction, and the initial resistance to renewables naturally came from the coal industry. It was only after the industry extracted its share of subsidies that a key amendment to the Renewable Energy Act was allowed to be passed in 2003. While the subsidies did benefit the coal industry workforce, it came with the disadvantage of extending the life of many mines. Matthias Seidel, the sales manager of Europe East of Roth & Rau AG, which supplies equipment to the PV industry, said it was “not very competitive because it is dirty and inefficient coal” that was being produced. Coal-based power plants contribute about 40 per cent of the country's greenhouse gases.
Strong opposition to renewables also came from the nuclear lobby. In the early 1980s, nuclear power dominated research and development in energy and about one-third of Germany's electricity supply came from nuclear reactors. The previous government, under Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, had committed to a complete phaseout by 2020. This was reversed completely by the new energy plan released in September last year.
Ironically, while the new energy plan is favourable to renewables it also extends the life of 17 nuclear reactors by an average of 12 years.
The present coalition government, under Chancellor Angela Merkel, insists that nuclear energy will serve as a “bridge technology” that will actually help Germany achieve its renewable energy goal. To soften the blow, Merkel has promised subsidies for wind, solar and biomass technologies, adding that part of the profits from nuclear stations will be routed towards building up renewables.
Annette Schavan said she saw nuclear energy as “renewable, efficient and climate-friendly since it didn't emit CO {-2}” but agreed that it was “a huge responsibility”. Nuclear energy was included in the new plan with the promise that it would help Germany achieve its target of reducing CO {-2} emissions by four-fifths by 2050. As far as the disposal of nuclear waste was concerned, the Minister said, “At the moment nuclear toxic waste disposal is still a matter of dumping at a site. We are just hunting for dumping sites.”
The nuclear and conventional energy lobbies also hard-sell the fact that energy from renewables is more expensive. They argue that the customer ends up paying higher prices and the government pays subsidies. For instance, critics of wind energy (which contributes the highest mega wattage among renewables) say that Germany's entire power grid will have to be rebuilt to route power from offshore wind turbines to the rest of the country. The nuclear lobby is using the price factor to denounce the renewables industry. While renewables have proved to be technologically and environmentally sound, finance remains a hurdle. It is estimated that the transition from conventional to green energy will take about €3 trillion. Conversely, what the renewables industry has in its favour is that it has provided about 300,000 jobs in the last decade.
Subsidies, which kick-started the industry, are now a millstone. Solar power has been heavily subsidised in Germany, which is why the industry has been witnessing a boom. But the new energy plan is trying to put the brakes on this industry. Those who own and operate solar panels receive a fixed tariff for every kilowatt hour of power they produce. The tariff is higher than that of conventional energy. It was meant to encourage production, but no one had foreseen the extent of the solar boom.
Enthused by guaranteed returns, thousands of homeowners and farmers installed solar panels, with the result that in the last decade the government paid between €60 and 80 billion in subsidies. This met just 1.1 per cent of the electricity requirements of the country. If the installation of solar panels continues the subsidies paid out will also increase. The government is trying to slow down solar farms in its new energy plan. The challenge before the solar energy industry then is to bring down costs.
At a high technology site in Freiberg, machines with long limbs perform break dance-like motions as they lay out solar wafers and cells by the thousands. This is SolarWorld AG, the world's largest manufacturer of solar panels with an investment of €500 million in its core business of PV technology. The plant has an annual wafer capacity of one gigawatt, proof of the huge demand for solar power.
SolarWorld aims to reduce production costs by 30 per cent every year. At present, one solar wafer costs €5 and one solar cell costs €10. Solar panels to cover an average-sized roof needs many of these, and the cost of installation is high for most people.
It is to the credit of German policymakers that the subsidies have encouraged householders to install solar panels. The glitch seems to lie in the fact that subsidies have been given to research and not to production. This is perhaps the gap that needs to be bridged.
The economics of production also seems to be opposed to the need to scale up. One of the things that prevents the price from coming down is the continuing use of silicon. Silicon is a common mineral, but as Matthias Seidel explained, “it is market economics that keeps the prices high, otherwise it's possible to make a wafer for less than five euros”. Roth & Rau are equipment suppliers for the PV industry. “The demand for photovoltaics the world over is great. In 2001 we made machines that produced 1,600 wafers per hour. In 2010 this went up to 2,400,” said Dr Bernd Rau, senior vice-president.
In Bremerhaven, which Britta Rollert, public relations manager of the Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy Systems Technology IWES, describes as “the windy edge of Germany”, there is an annual budget of €20 million set aside for research in wind technology. About two to seven million of this income is from industry, proving just how seriously businesses take wind energy. In fact, India-based Suzlon is a client of the rotor blade testing site of the institute.
Researchers such as Isabel Koprek at the Fraunhofer Institute have come to the conclusion that “the future of wind energy lies offshore where the wind is 40 per cent higher than on shore”. The costs are high. Increasing offshore farms can cost as much as € 75 billion over the next 20 years. Offshore wind farms are possibly the most expensive in terms of construction and maintenance.
Special engineering and a completely new grid system account for enormous costs but the interest being shown in them is proved by the investment. The new energy plan has promised to invest €5 billion through low interest loans. Both, the Swedish government and the European Investment Bank have invested heavily in offshore wind farms in Germany.
But wind energy scientists have some old battles that seem unwinnable. Public antagonism to wind turbines persists. Dr Arnoldus van Wingerde, head of the competence centre for rotor blade at the Fraunhofer Institute, said, “People say the turbines make a noise, that birds are killed, that there is suction from the blades, the turbines are ugly… there are always objections and not always valid ones but I say look at the benefits.”
VOLKER LANNERT
THE EXPERIMENTAL OFFSHORE wind turbine of DEWI, the German wind energy institute.
Thomas Neumann of DEWI, the German wind energy institute, said “the latest turbines give five times more energy than they did ten years ago”. Research has also come a long way from the traditional four-bladed windmill. Three-bladed turbines have been found to give optimum performance, reaching speeds as high as 200 kilometre per hour. The three blades also reduce noise, as does the proper placement of turbines (turbulence is generated when one turbine is placed in the shadow of another).
Storage problem
One insurmountable problem in the field of energy has been storage. Wingerde said, “Theoretically you can store wind energy in batteries but practically you cannot because of the number and size of batteries required.” To a great extent, the problem of storing energy has been overcome by the ingenious system of using a lake as storage – what is referred to as a pumped-storage plant. In Norway, when wind energy is strong, it is used to pump water to heights where it is stored in a lake. Then, when the wind drops, the water from the lake is released and hydro power is used to generate electricity.”
BIOMASS ENERGY
Biomass is an energy source that is not as well known as solar or wind energy. The most important source of biomass in Germany comes from waste wood. At RWE Innogy Cogen's biomass utility in Berlin-Neukölln, waste wood is broken into chips. This combined heat-and-power plant (which is Germany's biggest cogeneration plant) delivers heat to about 50,000 inhabitants of the neighbouring region and generates 200 MW of electricity for the main grid. The plant prides itself on its climate friendly principles. The main fuel is wood chips from waste wood. So not only is waste wood being recycled but using wood as fuel is also considered being CO {-2} neutral. The chips are delivered by boat and offloaded alongside the plant so that transport costs are kept low. “Not bad – all this is from 250,000 tonnes of wood chips. We call it green electricity,” joked Stefan Lühr, the plant manager. One offside to biomass is that it is interfering with food prices as farmers tend to cultivate wheat and corn more since they can be used for both food and fuel.
VOLKER LANNERT
STEFAN LšHR, MANAGER of RWE Innogy Cogen, Germany's biggest biomass plant. It burns waste wood to generate heat for 50,000 local residents.
The energy form that has been most ignored is geothermal. The Schorfheide forest north-east of Berlin used to be the hunting grounds of Prussian royalty. It is now part of a biosphere reserve and in part private land. Pointing to the in situ research well in a clearing in the forest, Ernst Huenges, Director of the International Centre for Geothermal Research at Gross Schonebeck, explained: “We are on a learning curve for geothermal energy.” Extolling the virtues of geothermal energy, he described it as “decentralised, cheap, use local energy and produce almost zero carbon emissions”. It is also efficient because “every 100 KW hour put into a pump gives 30 MW of geothermal heat”. But despite a high coefficient of performance of 100:1000, sustainability and reliability are two questions that geothermal researchers struggle with.
The fear that geothermal exploration can trigger seismic activity was countered by Huenges who said Italy, which first used this resource 100 years ago, had not experienced seismicity-related problems. Although the project gets federal funding, Huenges said geothermal exploration faced political hurdles. “You put in millions of euros to dig a well and its life could be about 30 years. Can the cost be justified? I think so but many do not,” he said. German know-how is being shared with countries such as Indonesia where geothermal energy is being tapped profitably.
Indonesia has seven operational projects, one of which has been connected to the national grid since 1983. Forty more sites are being explored. Dr Nenny Saptadji of the geothermal department at the Institut Teknologi in Bandung, Indonesia, told Frontline that Indonesia had an energy potential of 28 GW. She said the added benefit of geothermal energy was the low CO {-2} emissions. India is planning a project in the sub-Himalayan region.
Renewable energy structures and equipment are visible all over Germany. Wind turbines have the most dramatic presence. They cover vast areas of land stretching into the distance in some regions. In the sea, they loom like Don Quixote's giants.
Solar panels with their ubiquitous blue reflective surfaces are almost an integral part of the architecture of homes and commercial buildings. Sometimes they are laid out over entire fields, slowly rotating like sunflowers, following the path of the sun. Apart from demonstrating the high level of acceptance renewable energy has in Germany, the structures prove that renewable sources can be a successful solution to the increasing energy demands of the world.
Education as legal right Some issues need to be sorted out
The tribune editorial, 6 Jan 2011
THE Right to Education Act requires private schools to admit 25 per cent students in the 6-14 age group belonging to marginalised sections of society from the 2011-12 academic session. The government will pay for the education of this section at the rate prevalent in government schools. No seats will be left vacant and admissions will be made through draw of lots. The aim is to provide education to every possible child by involving government and private schools without discrimination of any kind and ensure schools and teachers meet the laid-down guidelines. Since private schools often get subsidised land and are not required to pay taxes, they should not drag their feet in undertaking this noble cause.
The RTE Act is bound to erode private schools’ profitability and force them to hire more teachers, the cost of which will be borne by the other students. Each school is required to furnish details of the expenditure incurred on the education of every child. This will make their accounts public — something private schools hate to do. But it will also ensure greater transparency and curb fleecing of parents on one excuse or the other. Parents and local bodies will have a greater role in the management of private schools.
After initial hesitation private schools in Chandigarh have agreed to implement the Act. Some issues remain to be sorted out. If an underprivileged student drops out midway, will the government still pay the subsidy? The Act empowers the local authorities to ensure compliance of the specified norms. This may encourage bureaucratic interference as well as corruption in the functioning of private schools and discourage innovation in teaching. Officials should not be allowed to destroy good private schools. Besides, will children from modest backgrounds be able to cope with the examination-driven system without adequate financial and academic support from their families? In the absence of a level-playing field they may lag behind and face psycho-social pressures. A flexible, thoughtful approach is required for removing irritants and implementing an otherwise well-meaning Act.
THE Right to Education Act requires private schools to admit 25 per cent students in the 6-14 age group belonging to marginalised sections of society from the 2011-12 academic session. The government will pay for the education of this section at the rate prevalent in government schools. No seats will be left vacant and admissions will be made through draw of lots. The aim is to provide education to every possible child by involving government and private schools without discrimination of any kind and ensure schools and teachers meet the laid-down guidelines. Since private schools often get subsidised land and are not required to pay taxes, they should not drag their feet in undertaking this noble cause.
The RTE Act is bound to erode private schools’ profitability and force them to hire more teachers, the cost of which will be borne by the other students. Each school is required to furnish details of the expenditure incurred on the education of every child. This will make their accounts public — something private schools hate to do. But it will also ensure greater transparency and curb fleecing of parents on one excuse or the other. Parents and local bodies will have a greater role in the management of private schools.
After initial hesitation private schools in Chandigarh have agreed to implement the Act. Some issues remain to be sorted out. If an underprivileged student drops out midway, will the government still pay the subsidy? The Act empowers the local authorities to ensure compliance of the specified norms. This may encourage bureaucratic interference as well as corruption in the functioning of private schools and discourage innovation in teaching. Officials should not be allowed to destroy good private schools. Besides, will children from modest backgrounds be able to cope with the examination-driven system without adequate financial and academic support from their families? In the absence of a level-playing field they may lag behind and face psycho-social pressures. A flexible, thoughtful approach is required for removing irritants and implementing an otherwise well-meaning Act.
MPs & lobbyists: The dividing line
As the matter has serious ramifications for parliamentary democracy, there is need for a national debate, says Subhash C. Kashyap
The Tribune, Sunday, January 9, 2011, Chandigarh, India
UNION MINISTER of State for Environment and Forests (Independent charge) Jairam Ramesh recently wrote to the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman raising some vital issues involving the conduct of Members of Parliament.
He complained that some of them were acting as lobbyists, either to promote the interests of their own concerns or for others. The Minister pointed out how his own Ministry was sought to be pressurised by some members to further certain interests. The matter has serious ramifications and calls for a national debate. That such things happen has always been widely suspected but the Minister’s allegations are vague, in very general terms and not actionable. If anything, they tend to further erode the falling respect and esteem of the people for their own elected representatives. It is very much like some academics and social activists alleging that all politicians are corrupt and source of all our societal ills.
Perhaps, the hangover of Mr Ramesh’s own academic past got the better of him to make such remarks. Unless the precise names are given and specific instances cited with proper documentation and evidence, no meaningful action can be expected to follow the Minister’s epistles to the Presiding Officers of Parliament.
In all fairness to the Members of Parliament and parliamentary institutions, the Minister must come forward with facts and details of the information in his possession so that appropriate action under the Constitution, laws and rules of the Houses can be initiated to ensure that our elected representatives – Members of Parliament – do not degenerate into serving their own personal or family business interests or becoming power brokers, middlemen, influence-peddlers, liaison men, commission agents or lobbyists for vested interests.
One view that is advanced and debated is that Members of Parliament work under tremendous pressure. They are approached by many people for help as their legitimate communication links with Parliament and the government. Often, the members have got to write to the Ministers. It should be entirely the responsibility of the Minister to have the matters examined and decisions taken on merits.
This would not be an appropriate approach. Communications from the Members of Parliament are entitled to due respect in the chambers of Ministers. But, that also casts a tremendous responsibility on the shoulders of the members. They should not blindly sign any missives to Ministers. As for members trying to directly influence government officials, that is entirely impermissible. In some quarters, it is advocated that in the context of economic liberalisation and free market policies adopted by us, lobbying should be accepted as an essential concomitant and legalised on the US pattern.
In the United States, for instance, almost every interest group has its lobbyist on the Capitol Hill to protect and promote its interests in the portals of the US Congress and in the government. The lobbyists have to be registered under the Registration of Lobbies Act. The lobbyists interact with the members of the Congress and build pressure groups to influence policy in the interest of their clients. Sometimes these pressure groups and lobbies play a more potent role in policy formulation, legislation and implementation than even the political parties. No wonder, the lobbyists in the US are some of the most highly paid people.
Here again, our situation in many respects and our polity are very different from the United States. In the context of vast sections of our people still suffering from poverty, backwardness and deprivation, it would not at all be possible in foreseeable future to have lobbyists for all interest groups. Any law permitting lobbying would only legitimise and promote some of the most unfair practices including payment of bribes and commissions. The lobbyists would become the middlemen. The dividing line between a lobbyist and a broker is very thin.
In our parliamentary system, several procedural devices are available to members to seek information from the Ministers and to raise matters of public importance in the parliamentary fora. Every member is a Member of Parliament of India. He cannot be confined to concerns of his constituency. He can raise matters of concern to any or every part of the nation and pertaining to the public interest of any section of the people.
However, if a Member of Parliament has any personal, direct or pecuniary interest in any matters coming up before the House or a Committee of which he is a member, he is expected to inform the Speaker/Chairman of his interest in advance of his taking part in the proceedings concerned.
Under Rule 255 in the Lok Sabha, objection may be taken to the inclusion of a member in a Committee on the ground that the member has a personal, pecuniary or direct interest of such an intimate character that it may prejudicially affect the consideration of any matters to be considered by the Committee.
If the Speaker holds that the member, against whose appointment objection has been taken, has a personal, pecuniary or direct interest in the matter before the Committee, he shall cease to be a member thereof forthwith.
For purposes of this rule, the interest of the member should be direct, personal or pecuniary and separately belong to the person whose inclusion in the Committee is objected to and not in common with the public in general or with any class or section thereof or on a matter of state policy. There have been several instances where action has been actually taken by the Speaker.
Under Lok Sabha Rule 371, vote of a Member on the floor of the House may be challenged on the ground of personal, pecuniary or direct interest in the matter. The Speaker shall decide whether the vote of the member should be disallowed.
Norms of Parliamentary Decorum and Etiquette to be followed by Members are contained in the code of conduct which is part of the Rules of the House (Rules 349 to 359 and Directions 115A and 115C, Lok Sabha). But, this largely covers the members conduct in the matter of the maintenance of parliamentary decorum in the proceedings of the House.
Besides, under the law of parliamentary privileges flowing from Article 105 of the Constitution, any misconduct in the presence of the House or a Committee thereof, including that by members themselves, constitutes contempt of the House. Members found guilty of such contempt can be punished by admonition, reprimand, suspension from membership for a particular period, commitment to prison or even expulsion from the House.
Members generally are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that they maintain the dignity of the House to which they belong and not to indulge in any conduct unbecoming of Members of Parliament or inconsistent or derogatory to the dignity of the House. Thus, it is considered the duty of each member to refrain from any course of action prejudicial to his privilege of freedom of speech in the House. It is irregular for a member to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting his complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament.
The extent and amplitude of the words “conduct of a member” have not been defined exhaustively, but it is within the powers of the House in each case to determine whether a member has acted in an unbecoming manner or has acted in a manner unworthy of a Member of Parliament.
Thus, even though the facts of a particular case do not come within any of the recognised heads of breach of privilege or contempt of the House, the conduct of a member may be considered by the House as unbecoming and derogatory to the dignity of the House.
The first such case which is often cited occurred as early as in 1951 during the Provisional Parliament period. The House decided on September 24, 1951, that the conduct of a member (H.C. Mudgal) in undertaking to canvass “support” and to make “propaganda in Parliament” on behalf of the Bombay Bullion Exchange, in return for financial or business advantages, was “derogatory to the dignity of the House and inconsistent with the standard which Parliament is entitled to expect from its Members”. The House by a resolution determined that Mudgal deserved expulsion from the House.
During the Eighth Lok Sabha (1985-89), 96 notices of questions relating to drug manufacturing companies, their products and formulations for different dates were received from seven members. From the format, language and typing of those questions, it appeared that the source of all of them was the same and they appeared to be rather sponsored questions to lobby for or against certain multinational drug companies.
The questions, instead of asking information, gave information and no public interest appeared to be involved. It also appeared that the medium of question procedure was being abused and, therefore, was violative of Rule 43 (1). All these notices were disallowed.
Again, a large number of questions relating to drug manufacturing companies, their products and formulations from almost the same set of members were received. Except a few which were found admissible on merit and were accordingly admitted, all other questions were disallowed. Some of the members represented against disallowance of their questions. These members were asked to see the Speaker. Only one member turned up. He was told by the Speaker to desist from accepting questions from private companies indiscriminately and without personal scrutiny.
More recently, during the Fourteenth Lok Sabha period, in a sensational expose on camera, ten Members of Lok Sabha and one Member of Rajya Sabha were shown on TV as accepting money for asking questions in Parliament. Acting swiftly, the Chairman of Rajya Sabha suspended the member and referred the matter to the Ethics Committee of the House. The Lok Sabha Speaker asked the ten MPs not to attend the House till the matter was settled and he appointed a Special five-member Committee. Within a week, the two committees reported – both holding the members guilty and recommending expulsion from their respective Houses. On December 23, 2005, motions were passed in the two Houses expelling all the 11 members from their respective Houses for conduct lowering the dignity and credibility of Parliament.
There are many established parliamentary customs and conventions which a member has to make himself familiar with. These customs and conventions are based on the past precedents, the rulings of Presiding Officers and on the unrecorded traditions of Parliament. These are put together in a Handbook for Members of Parliament and inter alia include:
Information given to members in confidence or by virtue of their being members of Parliamentary Committees should not be divulged to anyone nor used by them directly or indirectly in the profession in which they are engaged, such as in their capacity as editors or correspondents of newspapers or proprietors of business firms and so on.
A member should not try to secure business from the government for a firm, company or organisation with which he is directly or indirectly concerned.
A member should not give certificates which are not based on facts.
A member should not unduly influence the government officials or the Ministers in a case in which he is interested financially either directly or indirectly.
A member should not receive hospitality of any kind for any work he desires or proposes to do from a person or organisation on whose behalf the work is to be done by him.
A member should not in his capacity as a lawyer or a legal adviser or a counsel or a solicitor appear before a Minister or an executive officer exercising quasi-judicial powers.
A member should verify the facts before proceeding to take action on behalf of his constituents.
A member should not elicit any official information in an unauthorised manner by inducing a government employee to give information to him which in the course of his normal functions he should not give, nor encourage any such person to speak to him against his senior officials on matters of public importance and policy.
A member should not write recommendatory letters or speak to government officials for employment or business contacts for any of his relations or other persons in whom he is directly or indirectly interested.
The Members of Parliament should not take action on behalf of their constituents on some insufficient or baseless facts or without verifying the veracity of facts nor should they allow themselves to be used as ready supporters of individual grievances. If the legislator feels that the cause is just and legitimate but the normal channels would get delayed justice, he can approach the civil servant concerned and bring the matter to his notice, but with decorum and in a manner not in any way amounting to pressurising or exercising undue influence.
The conduct of a member involving corruption in the execution of his office as a member is treated by the House as a breach of privilege. Thus, acceptance of any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of or opposition to any Bill, resolution or matter submitted or proposed to be submitted to the House or any Committee thereof is a breach of privilege. It would also be a breach of privilege and misconduct on the part of a member to enter into an agreement with another person for any reward to advocate and prosecute in the House the claims of such person.
The Handbook also provides details of the appropriate procedure for members communicating with Ministers, whom to write for seeking information, for complaining etc.
So far as the present missives by Minister Ramesh to the Speaker and Chairman are concerned, presumably, he would be asked to substantiate his allegations with specific references to the names of Members and details of their attempts to influence him or his Ministry officials.
If that is done, it would be a fit case for further action and can be referred to the Ethics Committee or the Privileges Committee of the House concerned or even a Special Committee may be constituted to inquire and report to the House.
The House can then discuss the report and decide upon appropriate action to be taken against the members found guilty of conduct unbecoming of Members of Parliament.
If any bribery or other corrupt practice violative of any law including the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act etc. is involved, the members can also be hauled up by the law enforcement agencies of the state and proceeded against like any other citizen. In the new atmosphere of the dawn of some political will to take action, one can hope for the best and remain prepared for the worst.
In all fairness to the Members of Parliament and parliamentary institutions, the Union Environment Minister must come forward with details of the information in his possession so that appropriate action under the Constitution, laws and rules of the Houses can be initiated to ensure that our elected representatives – Members of Parliament – do not degenerate into serving their own personal or family business interests or becoming power brokers, middlemen, influence-peddlers, liaison men, commission agents or lobbyists for vested interests
If any bribery or other corrupt practice violative of any law is involved, the Members of Parliament can be hauled up by the law enforcement agencies of the state and proceeded against like any other citizen
The writer, a noted constitutional expert, is a former Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha
The Tribune, Sunday, January 9, 2011, Chandigarh, India
UNION MINISTER of State for Environment and Forests (Independent charge) Jairam Ramesh recently wrote to the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman raising some vital issues involving the conduct of Members of Parliament.
He complained that some of them were acting as lobbyists, either to promote the interests of their own concerns or for others. The Minister pointed out how his own Ministry was sought to be pressurised by some members to further certain interests. The matter has serious ramifications and calls for a national debate. That such things happen has always been widely suspected but the Minister’s allegations are vague, in very general terms and not actionable. If anything, they tend to further erode the falling respect and esteem of the people for their own elected representatives. It is very much like some academics and social activists alleging that all politicians are corrupt and source of all our societal ills.
Perhaps, the hangover of Mr Ramesh’s own academic past got the better of him to make such remarks. Unless the precise names are given and specific instances cited with proper documentation and evidence, no meaningful action can be expected to follow the Minister’s epistles to the Presiding Officers of Parliament.
In all fairness to the Members of Parliament and parliamentary institutions, the Minister must come forward with facts and details of the information in his possession so that appropriate action under the Constitution, laws and rules of the Houses can be initiated to ensure that our elected representatives – Members of Parliament – do not degenerate into serving their own personal or family business interests or becoming power brokers, middlemen, influence-peddlers, liaison men, commission agents or lobbyists for vested interests.
One view that is advanced and debated is that Members of Parliament work under tremendous pressure. They are approached by many people for help as their legitimate communication links with Parliament and the government. Often, the members have got to write to the Ministers. It should be entirely the responsibility of the Minister to have the matters examined and decisions taken on merits.
This would not be an appropriate approach. Communications from the Members of Parliament are entitled to due respect in the chambers of Ministers. But, that also casts a tremendous responsibility on the shoulders of the members. They should not blindly sign any missives to Ministers. As for members trying to directly influence government officials, that is entirely impermissible. In some quarters, it is advocated that in the context of economic liberalisation and free market policies adopted by us, lobbying should be accepted as an essential concomitant and legalised on the US pattern.
In the United States, for instance, almost every interest group has its lobbyist on the Capitol Hill to protect and promote its interests in the portals of the US Congress and in the government. The lobbyists have to be registered under the Registration of Lobbies Act. The lobbyists interact with the members of the Congress and build pressure groups to influence policy in the interest of their clients. Sometimes these pressure groups and lobbies play a more potent role in policy formulation, legislation and implementation than even the political parties. No wonder, the lobbyists in the US are some of the most highly paid people.
Here again, our situation in many respects and our polity are very different from the United States. In the context of vast sections of our people still suffering from poverty, backwardness and deprivation, it would not at all be possible in foreseeable future to have lobbyists for all interest groups. Any law permitting lobbying would only legitimise and promote some of the most unfair practices including payment of bribes and commissions. The lobbyists would become the middlemen. The dividing line between a lobbyist and a broker is very thin.
In our parliamentary system, several procedural devices are available to members to seek information from the Ministers and to raise matters of public importance in the parliamentary fora. Every member is a Member of Parliament of India. He cannot be confined to concerns of his constituency. He can raise matters of concern to any or every part of the nation and pertaining to the public interest of any section of the people.
However, if a Member of Parliament has any personal, direct or pecuniary interest in any matters coming up before the House or a Committee of which he is a member, he is expected to inform the Speaker/Chairman of his interest in advance of his taking part in the proceedings concerned.
Under Rule 255 in the Lok Sabha, objection may be taken to the inclusion of a member in a Committee on the ground that the member has a personal, pecuniary or direct interest of such an intimate character that it may prejudicially affect the consideration of any matters to be considered by the Committee.
If the Speaker holds that the member, against whose appointment objection has been taken, has a personal, pecuniary or direct interest in the matter before the Committee, he shall cease to be a member thereof forthwith.
For purposes of this rule, the interest of the member should be direct, personal or pecuniary and separately belong to the person whose inclusion in the Committee is objected to and not in common with the public in general or with any class or section thereof or on a matter of state policy. There have been several instances where action has been actually taken by the Speaker.
Under Lok Sabha Rule 371, vote of a Member on the floor of the House may be challenged on the ground of personal, pecuniary or direct interest in the matter. The Speaker shall decide whether the vote of the member should be disallowed.
Norms of Parliamentary Decorum and Etiquette to be followed by Members are contained in the code of conduct which is part of the Rules of the House (Rules 349 to 359 and Directions 115A and 115C, Lok Sabha). But, this largely covers the members conduct in the matter of the maintenance of parliamentary decorum in the proceedings of the House.
Besides, under the law of parliamentary privileges flowing from Article 105 of the Constitution, any misconduct in the presence of the House or a Committee thereof, including that by members themselves, constitutes contempt of the House. Members found guilty of such contempt can be punished by admonition, reprimand, suspension from membership for a particular period, commitment to prison or even expulsion from the House.
Members generally are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that they maintain the dignity of the House to which they belong and not to indulge in any conduct unbecoming of Members of Parliament or inconsistent or derogatory to the dignity of the House. Thus, it is considered the duty of each member to refrain from any course of action prejudicial to his privilege of freedom of speech in the House. It is irregular for a member to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting his complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament.
The extent and amplitude of the words “conduct of a member” have not been defined exhaustively, but it is within the powers of the House in each case to determine whether a member has acted in an unbecoming manner or has acted in a manner unworthy of a Member of Parliament.
Thus, even though the facts of a particular case do not come within any of the recognised heads of breach of privilege or contempt of the House, the conduct of a member may be considered by the House as unbecoming and derogatory to the dignity of the House.
The first such case which is often cited occurred as early as in 1951 during the Provisional Parliament period. The House decided on September 24, 1951, that the conduct of a member (H.C. Mudgal) in undertaking to canvass “support” and to make “propaganda in Parliament” on behalf of the Bombay Bullion Exchange, in return for financial or business advantages, was “derogatory to the dignity of the House and inconsistent with the standard which Parliament is entitled to expect from its Members”. The House by a resolution determined that Mudgal deserved expulsion from the House.
During the Eighth Lok Sabha (1985-89), 96 notices of questions relating to drug manufacturing companies, their products and formulations for different dates were received from seven members. From the format, language and typing of those questions, it appeared that the source of all of them was the same and they appeared to be rather sponsored questions to lobby for or against certain multinational drug companies.
The questions, instead of asking information, gave information and no public interest appeared to be involved. It also appeared that the medium of question procedure was being abused and, therefore, was violative of Rule 43 (1). All these notices were disallowed.
Again, a large number of questions relating to drug manufacturing companies, their products and formulations from almost the same set of members were received. Except a few which were found admissible on merit and were accordingly admitted, all other questions were disallowed. Some of the members represented against disallowance of their questions. These members were asked to see the Speaker. Only one member turned up. He was told by the Speaker to desist from accepting questions from private companies indiscriminately and without personal scrutiny.
More recently, during the Fourteenth Lok Sabha period, in a sensational expose on camera, ten Members of Lok Sabha and one Member of Rajya Sabha were shown on TV as accepting money for asking questions in Parliament. Acting swiftly, the Chairman of Rajya Sabha suspended the member and referred the matter to the Ethics Committee of the House. The Lok Sabha Speaker asked the ten MPs not to attend the House till the matter was settled and he appointed a Special five-member Committee. Within a week, the two committees reported – both holding the members guilty and recommending expulsion from their respective Houses. On December 23, 2005, motions were passed in the two Houses expelling all the 11 members from their respective Houses for conduct lowering the dignity and credibility of Parliament.
There are many established parliamentary customs and conventions which a member has to make himself familiar with. These customs and conventions are based on the past precedents, the rulings of Presiding Officers and on the unrecorded traditions of Parliament. These are put together in a Handbook for Members of Parliament and inter alia include:
Information given to members in confidence or by virtue of their being members of Parliamentary Committees should not be divulged to anyone nor used by them directly or indirectly in the profession in which they are engaged, such as in their capacity as editors or correspondents of newspapers or proprietors of business firms and so on.
A member should not try to secure business from the government for a firm, company or organisation with which he is directly or indirectly concerned.
A member should not give certificates which are not based on facts.
A member should not unduly influence the government officials or the Ministers in a case in which he is interested financially either directly or indirectly.
A member should not receive hospitality of any kind for any work he desires or proposes to do from a person or organisation on whose behalf the work is to be done by him.
A member should not in his capacity as a lawyer or a legal adviser or a counsel or a solicitor appear before a Minister or an executive officer exercising quasi-judicial powers.
A member should verify the facts before proceeding to take action on behalf of his constituents.
A member should not elicit any official information in an unauthorised manner by inducing a government employee to give information to him which in the course of his normal functions he should not give, nor encourage any such person to speak to him against his senior officials on matters of public importance and policy.
A member should not write recommendatory letters or speak to government officials for employment or business contacts for any of his relations or other persons in whom he is directly or indirectly interested.
The Members of Parliament should not take action on behalf of their constituents on some insufficient or baseless facts or without verifying the veracity of facts nor should they allow themselves to be used as ready supporters of individual grievances. If the legislator feels that the cause is just and legitimate but the normal channels would get delayed justice, he can approach the civil servant concerned and bring the matter to his notice, but with decorum and in a manner not in any way amounting to pressurising or exercising undue influence.
The conduct of a member involving corruption in the execution of his office as a member is treated by the House as a breach of privilege. Thus, acceptance of any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of or opposition to any Bill, resolution or matter submitted or proposed to be submitted to the House or any Committee thereof is a breach of privilege. It would also be a breach of privilege and misconduct on the part of a member to enter into an agreement with another person for any reward to advocate and prosecute in the House the claims of such person.
The Handbook also provides details of the appropriate procedure for members communicating with Ministers, whom to write for seeking information, for complaining etc.
So far as the present missives by Minister Ramesh to the Speaker and Chairman are concerned, presumably, he would be asked to substantiate his allegations with specific references to the names of Members and details of their attempts to influence him or his Ministry officials.
If that is done, it would be a fit case for further action and can be referred to the Ethics Committee or the Privileges Committee of the House concerned or even a Special Committee may be constituted to inquire and report to the House.
The House can then discuss the report and decide upon appropriate action to be taken against the members found guilty of conduct unbecoming of Members of Parliament.
If any bribery or other corrupt practice violative of any law including the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act etc. is involved, the members can also be hauled up by the law enforcement agencies of the state and proceeded against like any other citizen. In the new atmosphere of the dawn of some political will to take action, one can hope for the best and remain prepared for the worst.
In all fairness to the Members of Parliament and parliamentary institutions, the Union Environment Minister must come forward with details of the information in his possession so that appropriate action under the Constitution, laws and rules of the Houses can be initiated to ensure that our elected representatives – Members of Parliament – do not degenerate into serving their own personal or family business interests or becoming power brokers, middlemen, influence-peddlers, liaison men, commission agents or lobbyists for vested interests
If any bribery or other corrupt practice violative of any law is involved, the Members of Parliament can be hauled up by the law enforcement agencies of the state and proceeded against like any other citizen
The writer, a noted constitutional expert, is a former Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha
Thursday, February 24, 2011
"A tale of two cases" : A Frontline story on judicial controversy
CONTROVERSY
A tale of two cases
V. VENKATESAN
Frontline, Volume 28 - Issue 05 :: Feb. 26-Mar. 11, 2011
The Supreme Court rejects the doctrine of ‘guilt by association', but the Chhattisgarh High Court applies it to deny Binayak Sen bail.
DR BINAYAK SEN. The High Court insinuates that the PUCL, whose Chhattisgarh unit Sen heads, did not ask the naxalite groups to stop violence.
THE two cases were similar in facts and reasoning. In the first case, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra held on February 3 that the mere membership of a banned organisation did not incriminate a person unless he resorted to or incited violence. In the second, a Chhattisgarh High Court Bench comprising Justices T.P. Sharma and R.L. Jhanwar rejected on February 10 the bail applications of Binayak Sen and Piyush Guha on the grounds that the trial court had found them guilty of sedition by association and had sentenced them to life imprisonment.
The Supreme Court's judgment must have been binding on the High Court. However, the High Court, though it cited the Supreme Court's February 3 judgment, apparently misinterpreted it to justify its rejection of bail to Sen and Guha.
In the first case, Arup Bhuyan was alleged to be a member of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), a banned organisation. The evidence against him was the confessional statement he made before the Superintendent of Police. Confession to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. But it was admissible under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), 1987, which has since been repealed. Bhuyan was booked and tried under TADA as cases registered under the Act when it was in force continued to be tried under it even after its repeal. The Designated Court under TADA found Bhuyan guilty in 2007.
The Supreme Court upheld Bhuyan's appeal against the TADA court's order. Interestingly, both the Designated Court and the Supreme Court agreed that despite Section 15 of TADA, confessional statements to a police officer cannot be acted upon as the sole basis for conviction of an accused. In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that confession was a very weak kind of evidence as the widespread and rampant practice of the police in India was to use third-degree methods to extract confessions from the accused.
Hence, the Bench said that where the prosecution case rested mainly on the confessional statement made to the police by the accused, in the absence of corroborative material the courts had to be hesitant in accepting such extrajudicial confessional statements.
The Designated Court, however, found Bhuyan guilty under Section 3(5) of TADA, which makes the mere membership of a banned organisation criminal. Bhuyan denied that he was a member of ULFA. The Supreme Court said in its judgment: “Even assuming that he was a member of ULFA, it has not been proved that he was an active member and not a mere passive member.”
'Guilt by association'
The Bench then explained how the doctrine of “guilt by association” could not be used to convict an accused. It said: “Section 3(5) [of TADA] cannot be read literally, otherwise it will violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.”
To sustain its view, the Bench relied on the judgments delivered by the United States Supreme Court in Elfbrandt vs Russell (1966), Clarence Brandenburg vs State of Ohio (1969) and United States vs Eugene Frank Robel (1967). In its view, the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution are similar to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court had rejected the doctrine of guilt by association in these cases.
The Bench's agreement with the U.S. Supreme Court's judgment in Clarence Brandenburg is significant. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the mere “‘advocacy or teaching the duty, necessity, or propriety' of violence as a means of accomplishing political or industrial reform, or publishing or circulating or displaying any book or paper containing such advocacy, or justifying the commission of violent acts with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism, or to voluntarily assemble with a group formed ‘to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism' is not per se illegal. It will become illegal only if it incites to imminent lawless action.”
In his February 3 judgment, Justice Katju referred to another judgment rendered by him on January 3 this year. In State of Kerala vs Raneef, Justice Katju granted bail to the dentist Dr Raneef, who had treated one of the injured alleged assailants of Prof. T.J. Joseph of Newman College, Thodupuzha, Kerala. The assailants had chopped off Joseph's right palm in retaliation for allegedly incorporating a question criticising the Prophet Muhammad and Islam in an internal examination in his college.
Justice Katju said: “The book entitled ‘Jihad' said to have been found in his house was a Malayalam translation of a book written in Urdu in 1927 by a well known and respected religious scholar, Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi, and has been in circulation for 83 years, and is available in many bookshops. Raneef, being a doctor, was under the Hippocratic oath to attempt to heal a patient. Just as it is the duty of a lawyer to defend an accused, so also it is the duty of a doctor to heal. Even a dentist can apply stitches in an emergency.”
Raneef was alleged to belong to the radical Popular Front of India (PFI). Justice Katju said there was no evidence yet to prove that the PFI was a terrorist organisation, and that even assuming that it was an illegal organisation, the court was yet to examine whether all members of such an organisation could be automatically held to be guilty.
Justice Katju quoted in agreement from the U.S. Supreme Court's judgment in Elfbrandt vs Russell: “Those who join an organisation but do not share its unlawful purpose and who do not participate in its unlawful activities surely pose no threat, either as citizens or as public employees. A law which applies to membership without the ‘specific intent' to further the illegal aims of the organisation infringes unnecessarily on protected freedoms. It rests on the doctrine of ‘guilt by association' which has no place here.'”
SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA
AT DELHI UNIVERSITY on January 19, a performance by members of the All India Students' Association as part of a nationwide campaign against corruption and state repression held against the backdrop of the Raipur Sessions Court verdict sentencing Binayak Sen to life imprisonment.
Justice Katju also cited Justice Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court having observed in another case: “In days of great tension when feelings run high, it is a temptation to take shortcuts by borrowing from the totalitarian techniques of our opponents. But when we do, we set in motion a subversive influence of our own design that destroys us from within.”
Striking similarity
The similarities in the cases of Arup Bhuyan, Dr Raneef and Dr Binayak Sen are striking. Yet, the Chhattisgarh High Court, which rejected Sen's bail application, found no reason to see the Supreme Court's observations in these cases as binding on it. After observing that the court was only required to ascertain whether the conviction of Sen and Guha was well founded on the basis of admissible evidence, the High Court rather unconvincingly rejected the arguments that it was not.
In Paragraph 33, the High Court recalled the prosecution case in a nutshell: “Co-accused Narayan Sanyal is a hardcore naxalite and member of banned organisations. He was having close intimacy with appellant Binayak Sen…. Binayak Sen visited Raipur jail (where Sanyal was lodged after arrest) for meeting Sanyal for 33 times…. Piyush Guha made confession before police that those three letters (Articles 8, 9, and 10 found in his possession by the police) were given by Sanyal to Sen for sending the same to Kolkata through him.”
The High Court agreed that this part of the evidence, that is, the confessional statement made to a police officer, was not admissible as evidence. Yet it gave no explanation as to how the trial court could find Guha and Sen guilty on the basis of this confession.
In Paragraph 43, the High Court has especially given credence to the doctrine of “guilt by association” by suggesting that both Guha and Sanyal are members of a “Maoist group” (which is not an organisation that has been banned), are involved in naxalite activities, created disloyalty, and enticed the public against the State machinery resulting in large-scale death of members of the armed forces and robbery of arms and ammunition from the police.
The High Court also found that Sen was closely associated with Sanyal and other “alleged” (the court itself has conceded that it was only alleged) hardcore naxalites, namely, Shankar Singh, Amita Shrivastava and Malti aka K.S. Priya, who are absconding after the arrest of the appellants, Sen and Guha. From the court's own judgment, it is not at all clear whether there is any arrest warrant pending against the so-called hardcore naxalites.
In Paragraph 45, the High Court mentions that the hard copy of the computer record found in possession of Sen reveals the names of Shankar Singh, Malti and Prafull Jha, against whom cases of the “aforesaid nature” are pending. But no details have been given.
In Paragraph 47, the High Court insinuates that the People's Union for Civil Liberties, whose Chhattisgarh unit Sen heads, did not ask the naxalite groups to stop violence. This is contrary to facts. The High Court makes a similar allegation against Sen himself in Paragraph 51, which again is untrue.
The High Court does not explain how the documents seized from Sen and Guha, which have already been in the public domain, are seditious. Its conclusion that the case of Arup Bhuyan is distinguishable in facts from that of Sen and Guha is surprising in view of the broad similarities in facts and reasoning.
A tale of two cases
V. VENKATESAN
Frontline, Volume 28 - Issue 05 :: Feb. 26-Mar. 11, 2011
The Supreme Court rejects the doctrine of ‘guilt by association', but the Chhattisgarh High Court applies it to deny Binayak Sen bail.
DR BINAYAK SEN. The High Court insinuates that the PUCL, whose Chhattisgarh unit Sen heads, did not ask the naxalite groups to stop violence.
THE two cases were similar in facts and reasoning. In the first case, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra held on February 3 that the mere membership of a banned organisation did not incriminate a person unless he resorted to or incited violence. In the second, a Chhattisgarh High Court Bench comprising Justices T.P. Sharma and R.L. Jhanwar rejected on February 10 the bail applications of Binayak Sen and Piyush Guha on the grounds that the trial court had found them guilty of sedition by association and had sentenced them to life imprisonment.
The Supreme Court's judgment must have been binding on the High Court. However, the High Court, though it cited the Supreme Court's February 3 judgment, apparently misinterpreted it to justify its rejection of bail to Sen and Guha.
In the first case, Arup Bhuyan was alleged to be a member of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), a banned organisation. The evidence against him was the confessional statement he made before the Superintendent of Police. Confession to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. But it was admissible under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), 1987, which has since been repealed. Bhuyan was booked and tried under TADA as cases registered under the Act when it was in force continued to be tried under it even after its repeal. The Designated Court under TADA found Bhuyan guilty in 2007.
The Supreme Court upheld Bhuyan's appeal against the TADA court's order. Interestingly, both the Designated Court and the Supreme Court agreed that despite Section 15 of TADA, confessional statements to a police officer cannot be acted upon as the sole basis for conviction of an accused. In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that confession was a very weak kind of evidence as the widespread and rampant practice of the police in India was to use third-degree methods to extract confessions from the accused.
Hence, the Bench said that where the prosecution case rested mainly on the confessional statement made to the police by the accused, in the absence of corroborative material the courts had to be hesitant in accepting such extrajudicial confessional statements.
The Designated Court, however, found Bhuyan guilty under Section 3(5) of TADA, which makes the mere membership of a banned organisation criminal. Bhuyan denied that he was a member of ULFA. The Supreme Court said in its judgment: “Even assuming that he was a member of ULFA, it has not been proved that he was an active member and not a mere passive member.”
'Guilt by association'
The Bench then explained how the doctrine of “guilt by association” could not be used to convict an accused. It said: “Section 3(5) [of TADA] cannot be read literally, otherwise it will violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.”
To sustain its view, the Bench relied on the judgments delivered by the United States Supreme Court in Elfbrandt vs Russell (1966), Clarence Brandenburg vs State of Ohio (1969) and United States vs Eugene Frank Robel (1967). In its view, the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution are similar to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court had rejected the doctrine of guilt by association in these cases.
The Bench's agreement with the U.S. Supreme Court's judgment in Clarence Brandenburg is significant. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the mere “‘advocacy or teaching the duty, necessity, or propriety' of violence as a means of accomplishing political or industrial reform, or publishing or circulating or displaying any book or paper containing such advocacy, or justifying the commission of violent acts with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism, or to voluntarily assemble with a group formed ‘to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism' is not per se illegal. It will become illegal only if it incites to imminent lawless action.”
In his February 3 judgment, Justice Katju referred to another judgment rendered by him on January 3 this year. In State of Kerala vs Raneef, Justice Katju granted bail to the dentist Dr Raneef, who had treated one of the injured alleged assailants of Prof. T.J. Joseph of Newman College, Thodupuzha, Kerala. The assailants had chopped off Joseph's right palm in retaliation for allegedly incorporating a question criticising the Prophet Muhammad and Islam in an internal examination in his college.
Justice Katju said: “The book entitled ‘Jihad' said to have been found in his house was a Malayalam translation of a book written in Urdu in 1927 by a well known and respected religious scholar, Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi, and has been in circulation for 83 years, and is available in many bookshops. Raneef, being a doctor, was under the Hippocratic oath to attempt to heal a patient. Just as it is the duty of a lawyer to defend an accused, so also it is the duty of a doctor to heal. Even a dentist can apply stitches in an emergency.”
Raneef was alleged to belong to the radical Popular Front of India (PFI). Justice Katju said there was no evidence yet to prove that the PFI was a terrorist organisation, and that even assuming that it was an illegal organisation, the court was yet to examine whether all members of such an organisation could be automatically held to be guilty.
Justice Katju quoted in agreement from the U.S. Supreme Court's judgment in Elfbrandt vs Russell: “Those who join an organisation but do not share its unlawful purpose and who do not participate in its unlawful activities surely pose no threat, either as citizens or as public employees. A law which applies to membership without the ‘specific intent' to further the illegal aims of the organisation infringes unnecessarily on protected freedoms. It rests on the doctrine of ‘guilt by association' which has no place here.'”
SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA
AT DELHI UNIVERSITY on January 19, a performance by members of the All India Students' Association as part of a nationwide campaign against corruption and state repression held against the backdrop of the Raipur Sessions Court verdict sentencing Binayak Sen to life imprisonment.
Justice Katju also cited Justice Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court having observed in another case: “In days of great tension when feelings run high, it is a temptation to take shortcuts by borrowing from the totalitarian techniques of our opponents. But when we do, we set in motion a subversive influence of our own design that destroys us from within.”
Striking similarity
The similarities in the cases of Arup Bhuyan, Dr Raneef and Dr Binayak Sen are striking. Yet, the Chhattisgarh High Court, which rejected Sen's bail application, found no reason to see the Supreme Court's observations in these cases as binding on it. After observing that the court was only required to ascertain whether the conviction of Sen and Guha was well founded on the basis of admissible evidence, the High Court rather unconvincingly rejected the arguments that it was not.
In Paragraph 33, the High Court recalled the prosecution case in a nutshell: “Co-accused Narayan Sanyal is a hardcore naxalite and member of banned organisations. He was having close intimacy with appellant Binayak Sen…. Binayak Sen visited Raipur jail (where Sanyal was lodged after arrest) for meeting Sanyal for 33 times…. Piyush Guha made confession before police that those three letters (Articles 8, 9, and 10 found in his possession by the police) were given by Sanyal to Sen for sending the same to Kolkata through him.”
The High Court agreed that this part of the evidence, that is, the confessional statement made to a police officer, was not admissible as evidence. Yet it gave no explanation as to how the trial court could find Guha and Sen guilty on the basis of this confession.
In Paragraph 43, the High Court has especially given credence to the doctrine of “guilt by association” by suggesting that both Guha and Sanyal are members of a “Maoist group” (which is not an organisation that has been banned), are involved in naxalite activities, created disloyalty, and enticed the public against the State machinery resulting in large-scale death of members of the armed forces and robbery of arms and ammunition from the police.
The High Court also found that Sen was closely associated with Sanyal and other “alleged” (the court itself has conceded that it was only alleged) hardcore naxalites, namely, Shankar Singh, Amita Shrivastava and Malti aka K.S. Priya, who are absconding after the arrest of the appellants, Sen and Guha. From the court's own judgment, it is not at all clear whether there is any arrest warrant pending against the so-called hardcore naxalites.
In Paragraph 45, the High Court mentions that the hard copy of the computer record found in possession of Sen reveals the names of Shankar Singh, Malti and Prafull Jha, against whom cases of the “aforesaid nature” are pending. But no details have been given.
In Paragraph 47, the High Court insinuates that the People's Union for Civil Liberties, whose Chhattisgarh unit Sen heads, did not ask the naxalite groups to stop violence. This is contrary to facts. The High Court makes a similar allegation against Sen himself in Paragraph 51, which again is untrue.
The High Court does not explain how the documents seized from Sen and Guha, which have already been in the public domain, are seditious. Its conclusion that the case of Arup Bhuyan is distinguishable in facts from that of Sen and Guha is surprising in view of the broad similarities in facts and reasoning.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
One day I decided to quit...
A good piece from sulekha.com:
One day I decided to quit...
I quit my job, my relationships, my spirituality...
I wanted to quit my life.....
I went to the woods to have one last talk with God.
"God," I said, "Can you give me one good reason not to quit?"
His answer surprised me...
"Look around", He said. "Do you see the fern and the bamboo?"
"Yes", I replied.
"When I planted the fern and the bamboo seeds, I took very good care of them.
I gave them light. I gave them water.
The fern quickly grew from the earth.
Its brilliant green covered the floor.
Yet nothing came from the bamboo seed.
But I did not quit on the bamboo.
In the second year, the Fern grew more vibrant and plentiful.
And again, nothing came from the bamboo seed.
But I did not quit on the bamboo," He said.
"In the third year, there was still nothing from the bamboo seed. But I would not quit. In the fourth year, again, there was nothing from the bamboo seed." "I would not quit."
"Then in the fifth year, a tiny sprout emerged from the earth.
Compared to the fern it was seemingly small and insignificant... But just 6 months later, the bamboo rose to over 100 feet tall.
It had spent the five years growing roots.
Those roots made it strong and gave it what it needed to survive. I would not give any of my creations a challenge it could not handle."
He said to me. "Did you know my child, that all this time you have been struggling, you have actually been growing roots."
"I would not quit on the bamboo. I will never quit on you. Don't compare yourself to others ..." "The bamboo had a different purpose than the fern ... Yet, they both make the forest beautiful."
"Your time will come," God said to me. "You will rise high!"
"How high should I rise?" I asked.
"How high will the bamboo rise?" He asked in return.
"As high as it can? I questioned.
"Yes," He said, "Give me glory by rising as high as you can."
I left the forest and bring back this story.
I hope these words can help you see that God will never give up on you.
Never regret a day in your life.
Good days give you happiness;
Bad days give you experiences;
Both are essential to life.
Happiness keeps you Sweet!
Trials keep you Strong!!
Sorrows keep you Human!
Failures keep you Humble!!
Success keeps You Glowing!
But Only God keeps You Going!!
One day I decided to quit...
I quit my job, my relationships, my spirituality...
I wanted to quit my life.....
I went to the woods to have one last talk with God.
"God," I said, "Can you give me one good reason not to quit?"
His answer surprised me...
"Look around", He said. "Do you see the fern and the bamboo?"
"Yes", I replied.
"When I planted the fern and the bamboo seeds, I took very good care of them.
I gave them light. I gave them water.
The fern quickly grew from the earth.
Its brilliant green covered the floor.
Yet nothing came from the bamboo seed.
But I did not quit on the bamboo.
In the second year, the Fern grew more vibrant and plentiful.
And again, nothing came from the bamboo seed.
But I did not quit on the bamboo," He said.
"In the third year, there was still nothing from the bamboo seed. But I would not quit. In the fourth year, again, there was nothing from the bamboo seed." "I would not quit."
"Then in the fifth year, a tiny sprout emerged from the earth.
Compared to the fern it was seemingly small and insignificant... But just 6 months later, the bamboo rose to over 100 feet tall.
It had spent the five years growing roots.
Those roots made it strong and gave it what it needed to survive. I would not give any of my creations a challenge it could not handle."
He said to me. "Did you know my child, that all this time you have been struggling, you have actually been growing roots."
"I would not quit on the bamboo. I will never quit on you. Don't compare yourself to others ..." "The bamboo had a different purpose than the fern ... Yet, they both make the forest beautiful."
"Your time will come," God said to me. "You will rise high!"
"How high should I rise?" I asked.
"How high will the bamboo rise?" He asked in return.
"As high as it can? I questioned.
"Yes," He said, "Give me glory by rising as high as you can."
I left the forest and bring back this story.
I hope these words can help you see that God will never give up on you.
Never regret a day in your life.
Good days give you happiness;
Bad days give you experiences;
Both are essential to life.
Happiness keeps you Sweet!
Trials keep you Strong!!
Sorrows keep you Human!
Failures keep you Humble!!
Success keeps You Glowing!
But Only God keeps You Going!!
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Over 1 lakh phones are tapped every year
Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN, Feb 15, 2011, 01.15am IST
Read more: Over 1 lakh phones are tapped every year - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Over-1-lakh-phones-are-tapped-every-year/articleshow/7498154.cms#ixzz1Dzz2giau
NEW DELHI: Some startling figures tumbled out on rampant phone tapping in the country when telecom service provider Reliance Communications told the Supreme Court on Monday that the authorities had asked it to tap 1.51 lakh phone numbers in a five-year span between 2006 and 2010.
This works out to an average of over 30,000 telephone interceptions every year by a single service provider on the orders of various law enforcing agencies. Or, over 82 telephones were intercepted every day by a single service provider.
Reliance is the second-largest service provider with a subscriber base of 12.57 crore as in 2010. The biggest service provider, Bharti Airtel, had 15.25 crore subscribers in 2010, while Vodafone's subscriber base was just a shade lower than Reliance's at 12.43 crore. State-owned BSNL came fourth with 8.67 crore subscribers.
If Reliance's ratio of phones tapped to the number of its subscribers were to be taken as representative and applied to other service providers, it is a fair assumption that government agencies were tapping more than one lakh phones every year.
In Delhi alone, Reliance tapped a total of 3,588 phones in 2005 when the teledensity was low compared to today. It also included Amar Singh's number which was put under surveillance — allegedly on a forged letter from Delhi Police.
Four days back, a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly had expressed concern over the large number of interceptions being ordered by the agencies and the "grave danger" this posed to the citizen's right to privacy.
In an affidavit tendered by senior advocate Ram Jethmalani before the bench, Reliance Communications said: "The total number of interceptions in 2005 in respect of Delhi Service Area were 3,588. There were about 1.51 lakh number of cases for monitoring/interception during the period 2006-10 in all India."
Responding to the court's observation that no service provider worth its salt would intercept a phone based on a purported communication full of grammatical and spelling mistakes, Reliance said most of the genuine interception orders were identical to the now known forged letter as far as spelling and grammatical mistakes were concerned. It cited a genuine interception order of February 1, 2011, received from the Delhi Police to make its point.
After detailing the precautions it had taken, including writing to the authorities to authenticate the letter asking for interception of Amar Singh's phone, Reliance said it received no response, yet it was duty bound under a bona fide perception of the letter to continue interception for 15 days.
"A bare perusal of various letters sent by Ranjit Narayan (then Joint Commissioner of Delhi Police) and R Narayanswami (then Delhi home secretary) show that the letters dated October 22, 2005 and November 9, 2005 (both purportedly forged ones) were similar to other letters received from them," Reliance said while claiming its innocence in the interception controversy.
It said request for surveillance of a telephone from the law enforcement agencies could not be postponed based on spelling mistakes in the communication from agencies as it called for immediate action "for safety of general public at large and in the interest of the nation." It added: "Postponing compliance on the ground of inconsequential mistakes like spelling errors may conceivably lead to a serious terrorist attack and the blame may fall on us."
"The service providers are also required to provide assistance to law enforcement agencies as per the licence condition. Any violation of it can lead to a penalty of Rs 50 crore," Reliance said.
It said service providers do not keep a record of conversations taped from a phone under surveillance. Reliance Communication said it did not have the technology to record the conversations and that there was no law mandating the service provider to record the conversations and submit it to the law enforcement agencies.
Read more: Over 1 lakh phones are tapped every year - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Over-1-lakh-phones-are-tapped-every-year/articleshow/7498154.cms#ixzz1DzyvBxuW
Read more: Over 1 lakh phones are tapped every year - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Over-1-lakh-phones-are-tapped-every-year/articleshow/7498154.cms#ixzz1Dzz2giau
NEW DELHI: Some startling figures tumbled out on rampant phone tapping in the country when telecom service provider Reliance Communications told the Supreme Court on Monday that the authorities had asked it to tap 1.51 lakh phone numbers in a five-year span between 2006 and 2010.
This works out to an average of over 30,000 telephone interceptions every year by a single service provider on the orders of various law enforcing agencies. Or, over 82 telephones were intercepted every day by a single service provider.
Reliance is the second-largest service provider with a subscriber base of 12.57 crore as in 2010. The biggest service provider, Bharti Airtel, had 15.25 crore subscribers in 2010, while Vodafone's subscriber base was just a shade lower than Reliance's at 12.43 crore. State-owned BSNL came fourth with 8.67 crore subscribers.
If Reliance's ratio of phones tapped to the number of its subscribers were to be taken as representative and applied to other service providers, it is a fair assumption that government agencies were tapping more than one lakh phones every year.
In Delhi alone, Reliance tapped a total of 3,588 phones in 2005 when the teledensity was low compared to today. It also included Amar Singh's number which was put under surveillance — allegedly on a forged letter from Delhi Police.
Four days back, a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly had expressed concern over the large number of interceptions being ordered by the agencies and the "grave danger" this posed to the citizen's right to privacy.
In an affidavit tendered by senior advocate Ram Jethmalani before the bench, Reliance Communications said: "The total number of interceptions in 2005 in respect of Delhi Service Area were 3,588. There were about 1.51 lakh number of cases for monitoring/interception during the period 2006-10 in all India."
Responding to the court's observation that no service provider worth its salt would intercept a phone based on a purported communication full of grammatical and spelling mistakes, Reliance said most of the genuine interception orders were identical to the now known forged letter as far as spelling and grammatical mistakes were concerned. It cited a genuine interception order of February 1, 2011, received from the Delhi Police to make its point.
After detailing the precautions it had taken, including writing to the authorities to authenticate the letter asking for interception of Amar Singh's phone, Reliance said it received no response, yet it was duty bound under a bona fide perception of the letter to continue interception for 15 days.
"A bare perusal of various letters sent by Ranjit Narayan (then Joint Commissioner of Delhi Police) and R Narayanswami (then Delhi home secretary) show that the letters dated October 22, 2005 and November 9, 2005 (both purportedly forged ones) were similar to other letters received from them," Reliance said while claiming its innocence in the interception controversy.
It said request for surveillance of a telephone from the law enforcement agencies could not be postponed based on spelling mistakes in the communication from agencies as it called for immediate action "for safety of general public at large and in the interest of the nation." It added: "Postponing compliance on the ground of inconsequential mistakes like spelling errors may conceivably lead to a serious terrorist attack and the blame may fall on us."
"The service providers are also required to provide assistance to law enforcement agencies as per the licence condition. Any violation of it can lead to a penalty of Rs 50 crore," Reliance said.
It said service providers do not keep a record of conversations taped from a phone under surveillance. Reliance Communication said it did not have the technology to record the conversations and that there was no law mandating the service provider to record the conversations and submit it to the law enforcement agencies.
Read more: Over 1 lakh phones are tapped every year - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Over-1-lakh-phones-are-tapped-every-year/articleshow/7498154.cms#ixzz1DzyvBxuW
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Matrimony under senseless DV act: Husband & Wife
A good stuff on DV Act 2005.
W: How is the food today?
H: Good. Thanks.
W: (after tasting the food) but there is no salt! Perhaps I forgot. Why didn’t you point it out?
H: If I point out such things it may be considered as “humiliation” under DV act Section 5 (Chapter 5) - 3(a).
W: Why are you talking like that! I’m your wife! Don’t you love me? And stop telling me about your funny sections and numbers... I don’t know nothing about it.
H: Yes, I do love you.
W: I love you too. Now tell me how much do you love me?
H: Well, I wish I had an answer but I could not find the quality & quantity of love in DV Act that is required to be given by husband to his wife.
W: I don’t know what are you talking about!! Anyway, look outside, it’s raining... let’s get romantic and make love!
H: I would love to make love but nothing in DV Act defines the strategies, do’s & don’ts of making love, including the ones required to be complied with pre, during and post lovemaking. If I attempt to even show my affection towards you it might be misconstrued as “sexual” and “physical abuse”.
W: Darling !!! Don’t be such a bore... and I haven’t heard you calling me “honey” from long !?
H: I’m not a bore and you know that. However, being a true Indian it’s my duty to abide by the laws meant to protect women. I cannot call you “honey” coz it might come under “name calling” of DV Act. You might accuse me claiming that by calling “honey” I meant that you were the home of poisonous “honey” bees!
W: Was it a joke?
H: No no, it was not a joke. DV Act doesn’t allow me to joke with you as joking might be taken as “ridicule”.
W: I think you have gone mad !! Anyway, I know how to get you back on track. You know I got a call from my ex boy friend today when you were in office !!
H: Ok.
W: Ok? What ok? You used to feel jealous to know about any male calling me! I love your possessiveness towards me!
H: I’m afraid but the DV Act doesn’t allow me to stop you from talking to and/or meeting anybody you want to at any time... be it your ex boy friend or your new lover, be it at our home or outside. If I try to stop you it might be taken as “prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which you are entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of domestic relationship”. I don’t even have any rights to stop you from spending days & weeks with him, even if you plan that trip by selling all the items from our house and taking away my whole month’s salary!
W: This is going nowhere! I think you don’t love me anymore !! I don’t know what to do !! It’s better if we don’t talk at all for few days.
H: I do love you but the law has not provided me with relevant guidelines and suitable acts on the quality & quantity of love I am legally bound to give you. I don’t mind keeping quiet as per your instructions but one of the judgements by Supreme Court says that “spouse’s silence may amount to cruelty”. I am helpless in the hands of law.
W: To hell with your law !! For God’s sake... can’t you be your normal self with me !??
H: I am normal, but if I do not suppress my normalcy under the requirements of DV Act you might send me to jail !! I’m just trying to be a good citizen of India and serve you & the womankind. You can have me either as your normal husband or as a dog controlled by women biased laws. Tell me which one do you want?
W: I want my original and normal husband.
H: Then wait till at least the DV Act and 498A are scrapped. Until then every happily married husband will abide by the requirements of DV Act to ensure they do not bypass the law; and every victimised husband will continue fighting against such gender biased, senseless and family-breaking laws.
Read more: http://skmanrai.instablogs.com/entry/matrimony-under-senseless-dv-act-husband-wife/#ixzz1DYQugURo
W: How is the food today?
H: Good. Thanks.
W: (after tasting the food) but there is no salt! Perhaps I forgot. Why didn’t you point it out?
H: If I point out such things it may be considered as “humiliation” under DV act Section 5 (Chapter 5) - 3(a).
W: Why are you talking like that! I’m your wife! Don’t you love me? And stop telling me about your funny sections and numbers... I don’t know nothing about it.
H: Yes, I do love you.
W: I love you too. Now tell me how much do you love me?
H: Well, I wish I had an answer but I could not find the quality & quantity of love in DV Act that is required to be given by husband to his wife.
W: I don’t know what are you talking about!! Anyway, look outside, it’s raining... let’s get romantic and make love!
H: I would love to make love but nothing in DV Act defines the strategies, do’s & don’ts of making love, including the ones required to be complied with pre, during and post lovemaking. If I attempt to even show my affection towards you it might be misconstrued as “sexual” and “physical abuse”.
W: Darling !!! Don’t be such a bore... and I haven’t heard you calling me “honey” from long !?
H: I’m not a bore and you know that. However, being a true Indian it’s my duty to abide by the laws meant to protect women. I cannot call you “honey” coz it might come under “name calling” of DV Act. You might accuse me claiming that by calling “honey” I meant that you were the home of poisonous “honey” bees!
W: Was it a joke?
H: No no, it was not a joke. DV Act doesn’t allow me to joke with you as joking might be taken as “ridicule”.
W: I think you have gone mad !! Anyway, I know how to get you back on track. You know I got a call from my ex boy friend today when you were in office !!
H: Ok.
W: Ok? What ok? You used to feel jealous to know about any male calling me! I love your possessiveness towards me!
H: I’m afraid but the DV Act doesn’t allow me to stop you from talking to and/or meeting anybody you want to at any time... be it your ex boy friend or your new lover, be it at our home or outside. If I try to stop you it might be taken as “prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which you are entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of domestic relationship”. I don’t even have any rights to stop you from spending days & weeks with him, even if you plan that trip by selling all the items from our house and taking away my whole month’s salary!
W: This is going nowhere! I think you don’t love me anymore !! I don’t know what to do !! It’s better if we don’t talk at all for few days.
H: I do love you but the law has not provided me with relevant guidelines and suitable acts on the quality & quantity of love I am legally bound to give you. I don’t mind keeping quiet as per your instructions but one of the judgements by Supreme Court says that “spouse’s silence may amount to cruelty”. I am helpless in the hands of law.
W: To hell with your law !! For God’s sake... can’t you be your normal self with me !??
H: I am normal, but if I do not suppress my normalcy under the requirements of DV Act you might send me to jail !! I’m just trying to be a good citizen of India and serve you & the womankind. You can have me either as your normal husband or as a dog controlled by women biased laws. Tell me which one do you want?
W: I want my original and normal husband.
H: Then wait till at least the DV Act and 498A are scrapped. Until then every happily married husband will abide by the requirements of DV Act to ensure they do not bypass the law; and every victimised husband will continue fighting against such gender biased, senseless and family-breaking laws.
Read more: http://skmanrai.instablogs.com/entry/matrimony-under-senseless-dv-act-husband-wife/#ixzz1DYQugURo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)