Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Mar 14, 2011, 01.24am IST
The last six months must have been a nightmare for those at the helm of the Congress-led ruling coalition with the Supreme Court turning the heat on the government on three issues - irregular allotment of mobile licences in 2008, appointment of ex-telecom secretary P J Thomas as CVC and the black money issue.
The sting and depth of the orders, observations and judgments relating to these issues must have forced top UPA leaders to wonder -"Why is the judiciary suddenly turning up scrutiny on the government."
Since the retirement of Justice Y K Sabharwal as Chief Justice of India, who slammed the President's rule in Bihar as well as on police reforms, there had been a period of lull in the SC which was reluctant to examine both the validity of government decisions or question it for non-implementation of pro-poor legislations.
For close to four years, the major three organs of governance - Legislature, Executive and Judiciary - functioned well short of their expected %role. All three lived in a rather make- believe world where everything was functioning smoothly.
What changed it? Rise in food prices, CWG corruption and the Adarsh society scam transformed the silent common man to question the correctness of just about everything.
At this crucial juncture, Justice S H Kapadia took over as the captain of the judiciary and the Supreme Court decided to examine a few PILs articulating public complaints against corruption in high-places.
The court dismissed several PILs on many issues relating to governance with a clear understanding that judiciary could not encroach into the domain of executive and legislature.
It decided to look into the 2G spectrum scam where money legitimately due to the exchequer from telecom firms were allegedly waived off for personal gains as pointed out by CAG, whose damning report did not stir the coalition compulsion arrested government into accountability calculations. It resulted in court monitoring the CBI probe.
The SC sensitivity towards institutional integrity, especially that of the CVC which supervises all anti-corruption measures in governmental working, forced it to examine Thomas's appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner. The personal integrity was not in doubt.
But, pending palmolein import corruption case chargesheet led the court to quash his appointment. The court apprehended that it would impede the working of CVC, who is mandated to function without fear and favour.
In the PIL seeking recovery of, what sounds to be an astronomical figure, Rs 70 lakh crore of black money stashed in foreign accounts, the Supreme Court decided to shake the cob-webbed investigation files of Enforcement Directorate. What tumbled out was Hasan Ali Khan and his alleged illegal money laundering racket spread across continents.
The court painstakingly explained to the government not to treat those who siphon off money illegally from India to off-shore locations as mere tax evaders. When the government persisted, it used strong words - "What the hell is going on in this country", which is the citizens' common refrain.
Will these three cases and the startling results of the scrutiny be enough to describe it as judicial activism? Did the Supreme Court step outside the constitutionally mandated duty to maintain and uphold rights and punish "wrongs"?
In Kihoto Holohon vs Zachillhu (1992 SCC Sup (2) 651), the Supreme Court had said, "Whenever there is an infringement of a right or an injury, the courts are there to restore vinculum juris (the chain of the law), which is disturbed."
In all these three cases - 2G spectrum scam, Central Vigilance Commissioner appointment and black money issue - it has shown extraordinary restraint in focussing to restore vinculum juris and not resort to judicial adventurism.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Japan Earthquake and Tsunami: 11 Mar 2011
In an unprecedented move, Google put Tsunami Alert on its homepage hours after the massive 8.9 Japanese earthquake. It put up a crisis response page on its site, link to which is placed just below the search box on its homepage. It includes a "person finder" in English and Japanese which allows users to ask for information or provide information about individuals.
Daybreak was expected to reveal the full extent of the death and damage from Friday's 8.9 magnitude earthquake and the 10-meter high tsunami it sent surging into cities and villages, sweeping away everything in its path.
In one of the worst-hit residential areas, people buried under rubble could be heard calling out "help" and "when are we going to be rescued," Kyodo news agency reported.
The government warned there could be a small radiation leak from a nuclear reactor whose cooling system was knocked out by the quake. Prime Minister Naoto Kan ordered an evacuation zone around the plant be expanded to 10 km (6 miles) from 3 km. Some 3,000 people had earlier been moved out of harm's way.
Underscoring concerns about the Fukushima plant, 240 km (150 miles) north of Tokyo, U.S. officials said Japan had asked for coolant to avert a rise in the temperature of its nuclear rods, but ultimately handled the matter on its own. Officials said a leak was still possible because pressure would have to be released.
The unfolding natural disaster prompted offers of search and rescue help from 45 countries.
"This is likely to be a humanitarian relief operation of epic proportions," Japan expert Sheila Smith of the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations wrote in a commentary.
The northeastern Japanese city of Kesennuma, with a population of 74,000, was hit by widespread fires and one-third of the city was under water, Jiji news agency said on Saturday.
The airport in the city of Sendai, home to one million people, was on fire, it added.
TV footage from Friday showed a muddy torrent of water carrying cars and wrecked homes at high speed across farmland near Sendai, 300 km (180 miles) northeast of Tokyo. Ships had been flung onto a harbor wharf, where they lay helplessly on their side.
Boats, cars and trucks were tossed around like toys in the water after a small tsunami hit the town of Kamaichi in northern Japan. Kyodo news agency reported that contact had been lost with four trains in the coastal area.
Reuter news link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-japan-quake-idUSTRE72A0SS20110312
Links to other news feeds and videos:
BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12709856
World News: http://article.wn.com/view/2011/03/11/Huge_tsunami_kills_hundreds_in_Japan_sweeps_across_Pacific_q/
TOI: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Huge-quake-tsunami-kill-1000-in-Japan-world-offers-help/articleshow/7678342.cms
Daybreak was expected to reveal the full extent of the death and damage from Friday's 8.9 magnitude earthquake and the 10-meter high tsunami it sent surging into cities and villages, sweeping away everything in its path.
In one of the worst-hit residential areas, people buried under rubble could be heard calling out "help" and "when are we going to be rescued," Kyodo news agency reported.
The government warned there could be a small radiation leak from a nuclear reactor whose cooling system was knocked out by the quake. Prime Minister Naoto Kan ordered an evacuation zone around the plant be expanded to 10 km (6 miles) from 3 km. Some 3,000 people had earlier been moved out of harm's way.
Underscoring concerns about the Fukushima plant, 240 km (150 miles) north of Tokyo, U.S. officials said Japan had asked for coolant to avert a rise in the temperature of its nuclear rods, but ultimately handled the matter on its own. Officials said a leak was still possible because pressure would have to be released.
The unfolding natural disaster prompted offers of search and rescue help from 45 countries.
"This is likely to be a humanitarian relief operation of epic proportions," Japan expert Sheila Smith of the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations wrote in a commentary.
The northeastern Japanese city of Kesennuma, with a population of 74,000, was hit by widespread fires and one-third of the city was under water, Jiji news agency said on Saturday.
The airport in the city of Sendai, home to one million people, was on fire, it added.
TV footage from Friday showed a muddy torrent of water carrying cars and wrecked homes at high speed across farmland near Sendai, 300 km (180 miles) northeast of Tokyo. Ships had been flung onto a harbor wharf, where they lay helplessly on their side.
Boats, cars and trucks were tossed around like toys in the water after a small tsunami hit the town of Kamaichi in northern Japan. Kyodo news agency reported that contact had been lost with four trains in the coastal area.
Reuter news link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-japan-quake-idUSTRE72A0SS20110312
Links to other news feeds and videos:
BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12709856
World News: http://article.wn.com/view/2011/03/11/Huge_tsunami_kills_hundreds_in_Japan_sweeps_across_Pacific_q/
TOI: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Huge-quake-tsunami-kill-1000-in-Japan-world-offers-help/articleshow/7678342.cms
Monday, March 07, 2011
Lessons from the Thomas verdict
R.K. Raghavan
The Hindu, Saturday, Mar 05, 2011
The Supreme Court ruling shows that fundamental facts were glossed over by those who were authorised to make the vital appointment. But there are two aspects of the judgment that are debatable.
The Supreme Court's verdict pronounced on March 3 on the appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner P.J. Thomas could not have come at a more appropriate time. Each day seems to bring up a new scam, and this confirms that the nation's moral fibre is in tatters. Unless this dangerous trend is reversed, India's future generations will become hostage to a situation where they cannot afford to be even minimally honest. India's current political leadership of all hues is unequal to the challenge. Their focus is solely on grabbing votes with blatantly false promises and alluring freebies at the cost of the exchequer. Only the judiciary is equipped and empowered to stem the rot, notwithstanding the fact that it has its own internal problems to solve.
There are some uninformed sections that take umbrage at the Supreme Court ‘taking over' governance. This is an appallingly myopic view. Had the judiciary not intervened as strongly and decisively as it did over the past few months, India would have become the laughing stock of the world. Recent judicial rulings have enhanced the country's image and sent across the message that it means business in handling the scourge of corruption. Today, the rest of the world is watching India admiringly and enviously for the way it is moving forward in creating knowledge and skills. The country will forfeit this enormous goodwill unless it comes down heavily on those who are robbing its national wealth without any fear whatsoever. The recent judicial decisions, however harsh they may seem, should serve, at least partly, to restore outsider-confidence in India's resilience and capacity to move ahead on the economic front.
No proof is any longer required to show that the choice of Mr. Thomas was downright arbitrary, illegal and laughable. It was an exercise of executive authority that was questionable, whatever standards you apply. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves no one in doubt that fundamental facts that should have agitated the minds of those who are authorised by law (read the Central Vigilance Commission Act) to make such a vital appointment were glossed over for reasons of expediency. It is beyond comprehension why the High Power Committee (HPC) chose to wear blinkers. Virtually anybody could have been appointed, except one facing a criminal trial. The clearance by the previous CVC that is touted in defence of Mr. Thomas is but a pro forma requirement that applies to less important jobs in government. It was certainly not applicable to an ‘Integrity Commission,' as the court has chosen to label the Central Vigilance Commission.
Tale in the notings
The revelation that two members of the HPC were not convinced that the position required a 100 per cent corruption-free individual is, to say the least, sad and dismaying. The records speak for themselves, and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) could not be faulted. Its notings since the year 2000 had made it abundantly clear that Mr. Thomas in fact had a serious problem. This was ignored. Mr. Thomas took the stand in court that the fact that he had been made Secretary to government was proof enough that he was untainted. But he was greeted the very next day with the arrest of the former Telecommunications Secretary, Siddharth Behura, by the Central Bureau of Investigation in connection with the 2G spectrum scam. Integrity is by no means the exclusive preserve of the higher echelons in society, and certainly not the bureaucracy.
The magnitude of corruption in the higher levels of the civil services is actually enormous compared to that in the lower rungs. The arrest last week of the Chairman of the National Aluminium Company and his wife, and the seizure of significant quantities of gold and cash, are testimony to the need for anti-corruption agencies to focus on senior levels of the officialdom with greater aggression. The CBI is doing an admirable job on this front, and it deserves much larger annual accretions in manpower and more incentives to its staff. Their morale needs to be propped up substantially and meaningfully if the government is serious about tackling graft. In Parliament, the Opposition parties should concentrate on this agenda rather than seek to score brownie points over those in government who have grievously erred and lost their reputation for objectivity and clear thinking. This subject can do with a lot less of politics and more time-bound action, in order that everyone in high places would think twice before doing anything that is even remotely dishonest.
Debatable aspects
There are two aspects of the Supreme Court judgment of March 3 that are, however, debatable. The first is the direction that the pool for the choice of a CVC need not be confined to civil servants, and that it should be wider. Will this give heavily politicised individuals who may otherwise be known for their personal integrity, the opportunity to infiltrate the institution? This issue remains in the realm of conjecture. Given the proclivity among those in power or outside to look at every appointment through a political prism, I fear that the provision to appoint even a person who is not a civil servant to the office could become a mischievous tool in the hands of an unscrupulous executive. This direction to expand the zone of consideration will have to be read along with the Supreme Court's rejection of the plea to make the appointment on the basis of a consensus. Indeed, giving the veto power to one member could stymie the process of selection, and this is not desirable. At the same time, the experience in the case of Mr. Thomas makes you wary of the possible designs of those in power to steamroll the process just to gain political mileage.
Recent events should convince the concerned citizen that maturity and magnanimity do not necessarily go with authority. This is why I would still plump for statutory recognition of the need for a consensus in making the appointment. This may seem preposterous, but is worth a trial. Even if this process leads to several names being rejected and a consequent delay, ultimately the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should be able to agree on one name. The CVC's job is not a fire-fighting assignment. Even if the position remains vacant for several months because of a lack of consensus, the heavens will not fall before an acceptable candidate is found. And there are other members of the Commission who can hold the fort till a chief is appointed. Let us hasten slowly and arrive at a universally acceptable candidate, rather than be saddled with the wrong individual who is surrounded by controversies.
The court judgment reinforces the widespread feeling that the judiciary is the last bastion of Indian democracy. It must be guarded zealously and at all costs. Let not petty minds be allowed to take pot-shots at it. Or else India will surely be on the road to disaster.
Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia will go down in history for his unparalleled courage and candour. He has no agenda except to bring order to a derailed nation. I understand that total reform in the police system — on the lines set out by the court's landmark decision of September 22, 2006 — tops his wish list. This is heartening. The whole nation, especially the poor, will be ever-grateful to him if only he can achieve this aim before his term ends. Fortunately, he will not have to labour much to do this. He has a ready blueprint on his desk. What he needs to do is to sternly enforce the deadline that he has set for this. Or else the States will continue to dodge reforms, with a view to continuing the misuse of the police force for narrow political ends. In such a situation, most of the Indian police will remain people-unfriendly and dishonest. The distinguished Chief Justice knows that this task brooks no delay, because the victim of crime goes first to the police and only later to the judiciary. This is the crux of the problem.
(Dr. R.K. Raghavan is a former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation.)
The Hindu, Saturday, Mar 05, 2011
The Supreme Court ruling shows that fundamental facts were glossed over by those who were authorised to make the vital appointment. But there are two aspects of the judgment that are debatable.
The Supreme Court's verdict pronounced on March 3 on the appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner P.J. Thomas could not have come at a more appropriate time. Each day seems to bring up a new scam, and this confirms that the nation's moral fibre is in tatters. Unless this dangerous trend is reversed, India's future generations will become hostage to a situation where they cannot afford to be even minimally honest. India's current political leadership of all hues is unequal to the challenge. Their focus is solely on grabbing votes with blatantly false promises and alluring freebies at the cost of the exchequer. Only the judiciary is equipped and empowered to stem the rot, notwithstanding the fact that it has its own internal problems to solve.
There are some uninformed sections that take umbrage at the Supreme Court ‘taking over' governance. This is an appallingly myopic view. Had the judiciary not intervened as strongly and decisively as it did over the past few months, India would have become the laughing stock of the world. Recent judicial rulings have enhanced the country's image and sent across the message that it means business in handling the scourge of corruption. Today, the rest of the world is watching India admiringly and enviously for the way it is moving forward in creating knowledge and skills. The country will forfeit this enormous goodwill unless it comes down heavily on those who are robbing its national wealth without any fear whatsoever. The recent judicial decisions, however harsh they may seem, should serve, at least partly, to restore outsider-confidence in India's resilience and capacity to move ahead on the economic front.
No proof is any longer required to show that the choice of Mr. Thomas was downright arbitrary, illegal and laughable. It was an exercise of executive authority that was questionable, whatever standards you apply. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves no one in doubt that fundamental facts that should have agitated the minds of those who are authorised by law (read the Central Vigilance Commission Act) to make such a vital appointment were glossed over for reasons of expediency. It is beyond comprehension why the High Power Committee (HPC) chose to wear blinkers. Virtually anybody could have been appointed, except one facing a criminal trial. The clearance by the previous CVC that is touted in defence of Mr. Thomas is but a pro forma requirement that applies to less important jobs in government. It was certainly not applicable to an ‘Integrity Commission,' as the court has chosen to label the Central Vigilance Commission.
Tale in the notings
The revelation that two members of the HPC were not convinced that the position required a 100 per cent corruption-free individual is, to say the least, sad and dismaying. The records speak for themselves, and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) could not be faulted. Its notings since the year 2000 had made it abundantly clear that Mr. Thomas in fact had a serious problem. This was ignored. Mr. Thomas took the stand in court that the fact that he had been made Secretary to government was proof enough that he was untainted. But he was greeted the very next day with the arrest of the former Telecommunications Secretary, Siddharth Behura, by the Central Bureau of Investigation in connection with the 2G spectrum scam. Integrity is by no means the exclusive preserve of the higher echelons in society, and certainly not the bureaucracy.
The magnitude of corruption in the higher levels of the civil services is actually enormous compared to that in the lower rungs. The arrest last week of the Chairman of the National Aluminium Company and his wife, and the seizure of significant quantities of gold and cash, are testimony to the need for anti-corruption agencies to focus on senior levels of the officialdom with greater aggression. The CBI is doing an admirable job on this front, and it deserves much larger annual accretions in manpower and more incentives to its staff. Their morale needs to be propped up substantially and meaningfully if the government is serious about tackling graft. In Parliament, the Opposition parties should concentrate on this agenda rather than seek to score brownie points over those in government who have grievously erred and lost their reputation for objectivity and clear thinking. This subject can do with a lot less of politics and more time-bound action, in order that everyone in high places would think twice before doing anything that is even remotely dishonest.
Debatable aspects
There are two aspects of the Supreme Court judgment of March 3 that are, however, debatable. The first is the direction that the pool for the choice of a CVC need not be confined to civil servants, and that it should be wider. Will this give heavily politicised individuals who may otherwise be known for their personal integrity, the opportunity to infiltrate the institution? This issue remains in the realm of conjecture. Given the proclivity among those in power or outside to look at every appointment through a political prism, I fear that the provision to appoint even a person who is not a civil servant to the office could become a mischievous tool in the hands of an unscrupulous executive. This direction to expand the zone of consideration will have to be read along with the Supreme Court's rejection of the plea to make the appointment on the basis of a consensus. Indeed, giving the veto power to one member could stymie the process of selection, and this is not desirable. At the same time, the experience in the case of Mr. Thomas makes you wary of the possible designs of those in power to steamroll the process just to gain political mileage.
Recent events should convince the concerned citizen that maturity and magnanimity do not necessarily go with authority. This is why I would still plump for statutory recognition of the need for a consensus in making the appointment. This may seem preposterous, but is worth a trial. Even if this process leads to several names being rejected and a consequent delay, ultimately the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should be able to agree on one name. The CVC's job is not a fire-fighting assignment. Even if the position remains vacant for several months because of a lack of consensus, the heavens will not fall before an acceptable candidate is found. And there are other members of the Commission who can hold the fort till a chief is appointed. Let us hasten slowly and arrive at a universally acceptable candidate, rather than be saddled with the wrong individual who is surrounded by controversies.
The court judgment reinforces the widespread feeling that the judiciary is the last bastion of Indian democracy. It must be guarded zealously and at all costs. Let not petty minds be allowed to take pot-shots at it. Or else India will surely be on the road to disaster.
Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia will go down in history for his unparalleled courage and candour. He has no agenda except to bring order to a derailed nation. I understand that total reform in the police system — on the lines set out by the court's landmark decision of September 22, 2006 — tops his wish list. This is heartening. The whole nation, especially the poor, will be ever-grateful to him if only he can achieve this aim before his term ends. Fortunately, he will not have to labour much to do this. He has a ready blueprint on his desk. What he needs to do is to sternly enforce the deadline that he has set for this. Or else the States will continue to dodge reforms, with a view to continuing the misuse of the police force for narrow political ends. In such a situation, most of the Indian police will remain people-unfriendly and dishonest. The distinguished Chief Justice knows that this task brooks no delay, because the victim of crime goes first to the police and only later to the judiciary. This is the crux of the problem.
(Dr. R.K. Raghavan is a former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation.)
Friday, March 04, 2011
Supreme Court rejects CVC appointment
By C.J. Kuncheria
NEW DELHI | Thu Mar 3, 2011 11:00pm IST
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the government's appointment of a top anti-graft official for involvement in a palm oil import scam, delivering another blow to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's coalition.
The rejection of P.J. Thomas's appointment as central vigilance commissioner comes as Singh's government is trying to defend itself against a series of graft scandals, including a $39 billion telecoms licensing scam.
The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), aiming to ride a wave of popular anger over the corruption scandals, seized on the verdict, demanding Singh accept responsibility and resign.
"It is a rebuke to the prime minister and the home minister. Governance with transparency and accountability has completely been lost," said BJP spokeswoman Nirmala Sitharaman.
Adding yet more pressure on the government, the Supreme Court, of late an outspoken critic of the government, also slammed its failure to crack down on large scale tax evaders.
The government has been criticised, including by the opposition, over the issue of so-called "black money" -- how to retrieve hundreds of billions of dollars said to be stashed illegally abroad.
The court on Thursday rebuked the government for not cracking down on high-profile suspects. Local media quoted the bench as asking, "what the hell is going on in this country?"
Singh has faced increasingly harsh questions about his leadership despite a reputation for personal integrity. But for the moment many analysts see his resignation as unlikely as it would probably lead to an early election and the defeat of the Congress party.
Singh, who headed a panel that chose Thomas as central vigilance commissioner last September, told reporters in parliament he accepted the court decision.
The ruling Congress party sprang to the prime minister's defence, saying the decision was not a reflection on Singh.
"The PM is not directly involved in any corruption. There is no question of him needing to resign," B.K. Hariprasad, a Congress general secretary, said.
The latest rebuke from the Supreme Court underlined the disarray in government and Singh's inability to govern effectively Asia's third-largest economy, which has seen foreign direct investment fall sharply as investor confidence saps.
"The prime minister comes across as a rubber stamp, not only in this case but in several others. This further dents his image and standing and is pushing him further into embarrassment," N. Bhaskara Rao, head of New Delhi-based Centre for Media Studies, said.
Last month, the prime minister was forced to defend himself against accusations that he was a "lame duck" leader, soon before the government gave in to an opposition demand to set up a parliamentary investigation into the telecoms scam, considered to be independent India's biggest corruption scandal.
Regulatory concerns in India, combined with the global economic slowdown, have hit foreign direct investment and contributed to making the Mumbai stock exchange the worst performing of the world's major share markets.
NEW DELHI | Thu Mar 3, 2011 11:00pm IST
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the government's appointment of a top anti-graft official for involvement in a palm oil import scam, delivering another blow to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's coalition.
The rejection of P.J. Thomas's appointment as central vigilance commissioner comes as Singh's government is trying to defend itself against a series of graft scandals, including a $39 billion telecoms licensing scam.
The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), aiming to ride a wave of popular anger over the corruption scandals, seized on the verdict, demanding Singh accept responsibility and resign.
"It is a rebuke to the prime minister and the home minister. Governance with transparency and accountability has completely been lost," said BJP spokeswoman Nirmala Sitharaman.
Adding yet more pressure on the government, the Supreme Court, of late an outspoken critic of the government, also slammed its failure to crack down on large scale tax evaders.
The government has been criticised, including by the opposition, over the issue of so-called "black money" -- how to retrieve hundreds of billions of dollars said to be stashed illegally abroad.
The court on Thursday rebuked the government for not cracking down on high-profile suspects. Local media quoted the bench as asking, "what the hell is going on in this country?"
Singh has faced increasingly harsh questions about his leadership despite a reputation for personal integrity. But for the moment many analysts see his resignation as unlikely as it would probably lead to an early election and the defeat of the Congress party.
Singh, who headed a panel that chose Thomas as central vigilance commissioner last September, told reporters in parliament he accepted the court decision.
The ruling Congress party sprang to the prime minister's defence, saying the decision was not a reflection on Singh.
"The PM is not directly involved in any corruption. There is no question of him needing to resign," B.K. Hariprasad, a Congress general secretary, said.
The latest rebuke from the Supreme Court underlined the disarray in government and Singh's inability to govern effectively Asia's third-largest economy, which has seen foreign direct investment fall sharply as investor confidence saps.
"The prime minister comes across as a rubber stamp, not only in this case but in several others. This further dents his image and standing and is pushing him further into embarrassment," N. Bhaskara Rao, head of New Delhi-based Centre for Media Studies, said.
Last month, the prime minister was forced to defend himself against accusations that he was a "lame duck" leader, soon before the government gave in to an opposition demand to set up a parliamentary investigation into the telecoms scam, considered to be independent India's biggest corruption scandal.
Regulatory concerns in India, combined with the global economic slowdown, have hit foreign direct investment and contributed to making the Mumbai stock exchange the worst performing of the world's major share markets.
Who judges the justices?
By B N Srikrishna
www.indianexpress.com
Posted: Thu Mar 03 2011, 02:58 hrs
In the Arthashastra, Kautilya makes a profound observation: “Just as fish moving deep under water cannot be possibly found out either as drinking or not drinking water, government servants may not be found out while taking money for themselves.” He then goes on to forebodingly remark, about the opacity in governance machinery, that “it is possible to ascertain the movement of birds flying high in the sky, but it is not possible to ascertain the movement of government servants or their hidden purposes.” But even Kautilya with his remarkable perspicacity might have been amazed by the current evens in the country.
Basically, any act of corruption in public office involves the misuse of public office for private gain. In other words, it involves a public official benefiting at the expense of either the taxpayer or an average person who has come into contact with the government machinery. It also involves violating of the human rights of those whose legitimate benefits are intercepted and misappropriated by the dishonest public official.
Four tests help to determine if there is corruption in any transaction. First: transparency. Then, accountability, and reciprocity. And finally, generalisation. When an action fails on one or more of these tests, there is sure to be corruption.
The test of transparency fails when things are done in a covert manner without allowing the details to be disclosed to the public at large. The test of accountability fails when the person doing an act is not answerable to anyone else, or does not care to be answerable for his actions. The test of reciprocity fails if the answer to the question “Would I be hurt if others did the same thing to me?” is a yes. Finally, the test of generalisation fails when the answer to the question “Would it harm society if everyone did the same thing?” is answered positively. The first two tests are objective, while the latter two are subjective.
Corruption comes in a variety of garb. For most people, what probably occurs when they hear the word “corruption” is bribery; but other common types of corruption also exist, like fraud, nepotism and embezzlement. Each one of them is ethically negative and has a deleterious effect on society.
Going by Kautilya’s prescriptions, it would appear that corruption in public offices existed in India at least from his time. What is worrisome for us today is the blatant level to which corruption has descended. Even during the British Raj, it was acknowledged that there was corruption in the government apparatus. The innumerable laws, rules, financial manuals and accounting procedures designed by the British seem designed with an utter lack of belief in the integrity of government servants. Nonetheless, the common man was not harassed in his day-to-day transactions, as at the top there was someone with impeccable integrity and sense of justice to whom one could appeal and expect justice. Judges were also in this special category of public officers. The British practice of addressing judges of the superior courts as “justices” evidences this widely held belief. Judges were believed to be embodiments of justice and hence addressed as justices.
Plato, in The Republic, his monumental work on government and morality, posed the crucial problem. According to Socrates, the perfect society relies on labourers, slaves and tradesmen. The guardian class is to protect the city. The question is put to Socrates: “Who will guard the guardians?” — or, “Who will protect us against the protectors?” Plato’s answer is that they will guard themselves against themselves. We must tell the guardians a “noble lie”. The noble lie will assure them that they are better than those they serve, and it is therefore their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves. We will instill in them a distaste for power or privilege; they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it. What remarkable foresight! What a sense of déjà vu today!
The 1st-century Roman satirist, Juvenal, asked in a similar vein, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” — “Who will guard the guards themselves?” This is the dilemma facing society today, with protectors seeming to turn predators. What was once considered the high ground of morality and ethics, untouched by the waves of venial conduct, is now lamentably and increasingly lapped by waves of corruption. The ramparts of the institution of the judiciary, once considered impregnable to the assaults of unethical behaviour, seem to be crumbling one by one. The impossible has been happening, as is suggested by the series of cases of misbehaviour by judges of the higher courts that are coming to light. The peccability even of those considered paradigms of virtue has exploded the noble lie that Socrates once assiduously advocated.
We entreat them that are placed upon the exalted seat and entrusted with the awesome power of rendering judgment over others, to reflect upon the words of the Good Book: “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” About them that deviated from the narrow path of rectitude, we may sadly say with Robert Browning: “Just for a handful of silver he left us/ Just for a riband to stick in his coat —/ Found the one gift of which fortune bereft us/ Lost all the others she lets us devote.”
Corruption is condemnable — and judicial corruption doubly so, for it entails, additionally, breach of the trust that society puts in judges. Manu says that the punishment for an offence for a learned man should be double that is given to the ordinary man. Thus should the punishment be for judges who deviate from rectitude.
The purity of gold is tested by scratching, hammering and fire assay. Persons whom society places on a pedestal must also be similarly tested by fire. Guaranteeing judicial independence without guaranteeing the quality of the judge is counterproductive. Even if the nominations are made by a judicial collegium, the nominees must be put to rigorous public scrutiny of their private and public conduct, with only those that ring true being selected. Even after selection and appointment, anyone found lacking in probity must be swiftly and condignly punished for the double offence. These are doubtless tall orders — but by no means impossible to achieve, if corruption is to be eliminated from the hallowed judicial precincts.
The happenings today must act as the wake-up call for all men and women of conscience holding positions of power. For God’s sake, betray not the trust that society has put in you. It is also time for society to resolutely say that there shall be zero tolerance towards corruption.
The writer is a former Supreme Court judge
www.indianexpress.com
Posted: Thu Mar 03 2011, 02:58 hrs
In the Arthashastra, Kautilya makes a profound observation: “Just as fish moving deep under water cannot be possibly found out either as drinking or not drinking water, government servants may not be found out while taking money for themselves.” He then goes on to forebodingly remark, about the opacity in governance machinery, that “it is possible to ascertain the movement of birds flying high in the sky, but it is not possible to ascertain the movement of government servants or their hidden purposes.” But even Kautilya with his remarkable perspicacity might have been amazed by the current evens in the country.
Basically, any act of corruption in public office involves the misuse of public office for private gain. In other words, it involves a public official benefiting at the expense of either the taxpayer or an average person who has come into contact with the government machinery. It also involves violating of the human rights of those whose legitimate benefits are intercepted and misappropriated by the dishonest public official.
Four tests help to determine if there is corruption in any transaction. First: transparency. Then, accountability, and reciprocity. And finally, generalisation. When an action fails on one or more of these tests, there is sure to be corruption.
The test of transparency fails when things are done in a covert manner without allowing the details to be disclosed to the public at large. The test of accountability fails when the person doing an act is not answerable to anyone else, or does not care to be answerable for his actions. The test of reciprocity fails if the answer to the question “Would I be hurt if others did the same thing to me?” is a yes. Finally, the test of generalisation fails when the answer to the question “Would it harm society if everyone did the same thing?” is answered positively. The first two tests are objective, while the latter two are subjective.
Corruption comes in a variety of garb. For most people, what probably occurs when they hear the word “corruption” is bribery; but other common types of corruption also exist, like fraud, nepotism and embezzlement. Each one of them is ethically negative and has a deleterious effect on society.
Going by Kautilya’s prescriptions, it would appear that corruption in public offices existed in India at least from his time. What is worrisome for us today is the blatant level to which corruption has descended. Even during the British Raj, it was acknowledged that there was corruption in the government apparatus. The innumerable laws, rules, financial manuals and accounting procedures designed by the British seem designed with an utter lack of belief in the integrity of government servants. Nonetheless, the common man was not harassed in his day-to-day transactions, as at the top there was someone with impeccable integrity and sense of justice to whom one could appeal and expect justice. Judges were also in this special category of public officers. The British practice of addressing judges of the superior courts as “justices” evidences this widely held belief. Judges were believed to be embodiments of justice and hence addressed as justices.
Plato, in The Republic, his monumental work on government and morality, posed the crucial problem. According to Socrates, the perfect society relies on labourers, slaves and tradesmen. The guardian class is to protect the city. The question is put to Socrates: “Who will guard the guardians?” — or, “Who will protect us against the protectors?” Plato’s answer is that they will guard themselves against themselves. We must tell the guardians a “noble lie”. The noble lie will assure them that they are better than those they serve, and it is therefore their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves. We will instill in them a distaste for power or privilege; they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it. What remarkable foresight! What a sense of déjà vu today!
The 1st-century Roman satirist, Juvenal, asked in a similar vein, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” — “Who will guard the guards themselves?” This is the dilemma facing society today, with protectors seeming to turn predators. What was once considered the high ground of morality and ethics, untouched by the waves of venial conduct, is now lamentably and increasingly lapped by waves of corruption. The ramparts of the institution of the judiciary, once considered impregnable to the assaults of unethical behaviour, seem to be crumbling one by one. The impossible has been happening, as is suggested by the series of cases of misbehaviour by judges of the higher courts that are coming to light. The peccability even of those considered paradigms of virtue has exploded the noble lie that Socrates once assiduously advocated.
We entreat them that are placed upon the exalted seat and entrusted with the awesome power of rendering judgment over others, to reflect upon the words of the Good Book: “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” About them that deviated from the narrow path of rectitude, we may sadly say with Robert Browning: “Just for a handful of silver he left us/ Just for a riband to stick in his coat —/ Found the one gift of which fortune bereft us/ Lost all the others she lets us devote.”
Corruption is condemnable — and judicial corruption doubly so, for it entails, additionally, breach of the trust that society puts in judges. Manu says that the punishment for an offence for a learned man should be double that is given to the ordinary man. Thus should the punishment be for judges who deviate from rectitude.
The purity of gold is tested by scratching, hammering and fire assay. Persons whom society places on a pedestal must also be similarly tested by fire. Guaranteeing judicial independence without guaranteeing the quality of the judge is counterproductive. Even if the nominations are made by a judicial collegium, the nominees must be put to rigorous public scrutiny of their private and public conduct, with only those that ring true being selected. Even after selection and appointment, anyone found lacking in probity must be swiftly and condignly punished for the double offence. These are doubtless tall orders — but by no means impossible to achieve, if corruption is to be eliminated from the hallowed judicial precincts.
The happenings today must act as the wake-up call for all men and women of conscience holding positions of power. For God’s sake, betray not the trust that society has put in you. It is also time for society to resolutely say that there shall be zero tolerance towards corruption.
The writer is a former Supreme Court judge
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
The quality of mercy
By V.R. Krishna Iyer
The Hindu, Monday, Feb 28, 2011
Every instance of criticism that seeks to expose a government's operation against the people and their liberties is not a bid to overthrow it. That is not sedition but a patriotic mission on account of public commitment.
The life sentence imposed on Binayak Sen on a charge of sedition has provoked much vocal, even militant and hostile, public opinion. The judicial verdict is seen widely as being unjust, contrary to the people's conscience, and as an act of violence to public justice. It has invited severe mass criticism as an outrage.
It is nobody's case that Dr. Sen can be above the law or that the courts can ignore the evidence on record and rely merely on rumour or reputation or other arbitrary irrelevance. Nobody challenges the obligation and the duty of the court to act only on the evidence before it, but that does not apply to mercy power or privilege beyond the record. There is a clemency jurisdiction that can act on other benign considerations and show compassion beyond the technical ambit of the law in order to do justice. Mercy is nobler than law and it can have priority over law. This is a finer function of public conscience that does not destroy the conviction but deals only with the sentencing. The law remains; so too any guilt.
The court's decision based on the letter of the law is not undone, but a larger vision and certain sublime considerations prevail. Good things done with admirable motivation ought to be given recognition in giving a fair deal to an accused. Mercy is more than law or narrow judicial justice. This clemency factor is a dialectical operation that not the courts but members of the highest executive, like a President or a Governor, alone can exercise. This special jurisdiction is particularly relevant in Dr. Sen's case at this stage.
Extraordinary charge
Dr. Sen has been found guilty of sedition. This charge is an extraordinary one and is based, according to newspaper reports, on his association with certain Maoists. Dr. Sen has worked extensively in the rural areas, providing medical assistance to the poor. He has a reputation for having sacrificed much of his time and his skills for the poor. This should be an important factor in considering the sentencing dimension of his guilt.
Similarly, the Maoists have received medical aid, which is expensive; doctors often charge heavy fees. Dr. Sen's services are commendable and the general public feeling is that he deserves praise for his commitment to those who suffer from disease. To serve the public is not sedition. I would regard this as an alleviating consideration in the sentence that has been given to him. When a government provides hardly any medical facilities to the poor, service-minded doctors are not guilty of sedition even if their words go against the government's. Otherwise all opposition will turn out to be sedition.
Philanthropy is not fascism and public commitment critical of the state administration should not be confused with a traitor operation. I therefore view Dr. Sen as eligible for tribute, not to be condemned for sedition. Was Gandhiji or other critics of the state that hardly cared to wipe the tears of the poor, guilty of sedition? There is often grave confusion between criticism of a government demanding its overthrow — not by violence but by positive service and commitment to the people. Operation patriotism is not sedition.
Every confident motion, every instance of strong criticism that seeks to expose a government's operation against the people and their liberties, is not meant to overthrow the government and its bad politics. This is not sedition but a patriotic mission on account of public commitment. When you go to the villages and serve the people by providing them medical aid, where the state has failed to do so, that is patriotism, not sedition. Because the government does nothing to serve the people's right to live it is not sedition; otherwise every writ petition filed against a government or one of its agencies could be considered as seditious. Every activity in support of public causes that are meant to counter the government's grievous failure is the fulfilment of a democratic duty, not sedition.
Judges cannot miss a glorious vision of great sacrifice for the common people for fear of being imputed with sedition. The rule of law must support the rule of life and not scare away integrity, fraternity, fellowship and compassion and national commitment for fear of misconstruction by justices. Justices who miss the majesty of swaraj, which means wiping every tear from every eye, do not deserve their robes. To describe service done to the poor as sedition will be an outrage of the mandate of the Mahatma.
Binayak Sen should be released. To put him behind bars is a grave violation of social justice.
------------------------------------------------------------
To know about the author, Justice V R Krishna Iyer see here:
http://www.vrkrishnaiyer.org/
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hindu, Monday, Feb 28, 2011
Every instance of criticism that seeks to expose a government's operation against the people and their liberties is not a bid to overthrow it. That is not sedition but a patriotic mission on account of public commitment.
The life sentence imposed on Binayak Sen on a charge of sedition has provoked much vocal, even militant and hostile, public opinion. The judicial verdict is seen widely as being unjust, contrary to the people's conscience, and as an act of violence to public justice. It has invited severe mass criticism as an outrage.
It is nobody's case that Dr. Sen can be above the law or that the courts can ignore the evidence on record and rely merely on rumour or reputation or other arbitrary irrelevance. Nobody challenges the obligation and the duty of the court to act only on the evidence before it, but that does not apply to mercy power or privilege beyond the record. There is a clemency jurisdiction that can act on other benign considerations and show compassion beyond the technical ambit of the law in order to do justice. Mercy is nobler than law and it can have priority over law. This is a finer function of public conscience that does not destroy the conviction but deals only with the sentencing. The law remains; so too any guilt.
The court's decision based on the letter of the law is not undone, but a larger vision and certain sublime considerations prevail. Good things done with admirable motivation ought to be given recognition in giving a fair deal to an accused. Mercy is more than law or narrow judicial justice. This clemency factor is a dialectical operation that not the courts but members of the highest executive, like a President or a Governor, alone can exercise. This special jurisdiction is particularly relevant in Dr. Sen's case at this stage.
Extraordinary charge
Dr. Sen has been found guilty of sedition. This charge is an extraordinary one and is based, according to newspaper reports, on his association with certain Maoists. Dr. Sen has worked extensively in the rural areas, providing medical assistance to the poor. He has a reputation for having sacrificed much of his time and his skills for the poor. This should be an important factor in considering the sentencing dimension of his guilt.
Similarly, the Maoists have received medical aid, which is expensive; doctors often charge heavy fees. Dr. Sen's services are commendable and the general public feeling is that he deserves praise for his commitment to those who suffer from disease. To serve the public is not sedition. I would regard this as an alleviating consideration in the sentence that has been given to him. When a government provides hardly any medical facilities to the poor, service-minded doctors are not guilty of sedition even if their words go against the government's. Otherwise all opposition will turn out to be sedition.
Philanthropy is not fascism and public commitment critical of the state administration should not be confused with a traitor operation. I therefore view Dr. Sen as eligible for tribute, not to be condemned for sedition. Was Gandhiji or other critics of the state that hardly cared to wipe the tears of the poor, guilty of sedition? There is often grave confusion between criticism of a government demanding its overthrow — not by violence but by positive service and commitment to the people. Operation patriotism is not sedition.
Every confident motion, every instance of strong criticism that seeks to expose a government's operation against the people and their liberties, is not meant to overthrow the government and its bad politics. This is not sedition but a patriotic mission on account of public commitment. When you go to the villages and serve the people by providing them medical aid, where the state has failed to do so, that is patriotism, not sedition. Because the government does nothing to serve the people's right to live it is not sedition; otherwise every writ petition filed against a government or one of its agencies could be considered as seditious. Every activity in support of public causes that are meant to counter the government's grievous failure is the fulfilment of a democratic duty, not sedition.
Judges cannot miss a glorious vision of great sacrifice for the common people for fear of being imputed with sedition. The rule of law must support the rule of life and not scare away integrity, fraternity, fellowship and compassion and national commitment for fear of misconstruction by justices. Justices who miss the majesty of swaraj, which means wiping every tear from every eye, do not deserve their robes. To describe service done to the poor as sedition will be an outrage of the mandate of the Mahatma.
Binayak Sen should be released. To put him behind bars is a grave violation of social justice.
------------------------------------------------------------
To know about the author, Justice V R Krishna Iyer see here:
http://www.vrkrishnaiyer.org/
------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, February 26, 2011
It was a special campus placement session
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)