Govt pre-empts SIT, sets up panel to track black money

NEW DELHI: In an attempt to pre-empt a proposal to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT), the Centre informed the Supreme Court on Monday that it would set up a 10-member high-powered supervisory committee to track black money and their linkage to terror funding and drug syndicates.

The revenue secretary will head the committee which will include directors of CBI, Enforcement Directorate (ED), Intelligence Bureau (IB), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and chiefs of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Financial Intelligence Bureau (FIU), Foreign Trade and Tax division as well as deputy governor of Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

"This committee will start work immediately. Every time any of the investigating agencies comes across some information about black money -- both abroad and domestic -- it will be shared with other agencies and investigation will be coordinated. The revenue secretary will submit periodic status reports to the court," solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam said.

During the last hearing, the Bench of Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar had asked the Centre to respond to why an SIT not be set up to track black money as the government appeared to have done nothing concrete and why names of foreign bank account holders who had stashed black money there not be disclosed.

The Centre's pre-emptive measure of announcing a special committee did not cut ice with petitioner Ram Jethmalani, whose counsel and senior advocate Anil Divan said, "It is just old wine in a new bottle. All these agencies were already party to the petition and nothing concrete was done on this issue. The government wants to exclude an independent eye on the probe into black money for obvious reasons."

Subramaniam said the revenue secretary-headed special committee would be more effective than SIT. "The committee will not only supervise ongoing probe against suspected hawala dealer Hasan Ali Khan and Liechtenstein's LGT Bank account holders but all future black money cases," he said.

He said because the government did not disclose the names of foreign account holders in compliance with the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty (DTAA), there was a steady flow of information about such accounts held by others.

"The Foreign Intelligence Unit and other agencies are already looking into 37 such cases, both foreign and domestic black money accounts held by Indians. This is in addition to Hasan Ali Khan and the 16 LGT Bank account holders who are already under the scanner," he said.

Subramaniam opposed SIT on the ground that the members would not be able to proceed fruitfully against the offenders because the Prevention of Money Laundering Act provisions specify that statements given only to officials of ED were admissible in court. "If such statements were recorded by SIT members who are not part of ED, then it would not be admissible in court," he said. The arguments will continue on Thursday.

Source:  The Times of India NEW DELHI: In an attempt to pre-empt a proposal to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT), the Centre informed the Supreme Court on Monday that it would set up a 10-member high-powered supervisory committee to track black money and their linkage to terror funding and drug syndicates.

The revenue secretary will head the committee which will include directors of CBI, Enforcement Directorate (ED), Intelligence Bureau (IB), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and chiefs of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Financial Intelligence Bureau (FIU), Foreign Trade and Tax division as well as deputy governor of Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

"This committee will start work immediately. Every time any of the investigating agencies comes across some information about black money -- both abroad and domestic -- it will be shared with other agencies and investigation will be coordinated. The revenue secretary will submit periodic status reports to the court," solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam said.

During the last hearing, the Bench of Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar had asked the Centre to respond to why an SIT not be set up to track black money as the government appeared to have done nothing concrete and why names of foreign bank account holders who had stashed black money there not be disclosed.

The Centre's pre-emptive measure of announcing a special committee did not cut ice with petitioner Ram Jethmalani, whose counsel and senior advocate Anil Divan said, "It is just old wine in a new bottle. All these agencies were already party to the petition and nothing concrete was done on this issue. The government wants to exclude an independent eye on the probe into black money for obvious reasons."

Subramaniam said the revenue secretary-headed special committee would be more effective than SIT. "The committee will not only supervise ongoing probe against suspected hawala dealer Hasan Ali Khan and Liechtenstein's LGT Bank account holders but all future black money cases," he said.

He said because the government did not disclose the names of foreign account holders in compliance with the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty (DTAA), there was a steady flow of information about such accounts held by others.

"The Foreign Intelligence Unit and other agencies are already looking into 37 such cases, both foreign and domestic black money accounts held by Indians. This is in addition to Hasan Ali Khan and the 16 LGT Bank account holders who are already under the scanner," he said.

Subramaniam opposed SIT on the ground that the members would not be able to proceed fruitfully against the offenders because the Prevention of Money Laundering Act provisions specify that statements given only to officials of ED were admissible in court. "If such statements were recorded by SIT members who are not part of ED, then it would not be admissible in court," he said. The arguments will continue on Thursday.

Source:  The Times of India 26th April, 2011.  

ईमानदारी को जीतने दें-किरण बेदी

चंडीगढ़, शनिवार, 23 अप्रैल 2011( 18:25 IST )

लोकपाल विधेयक प्रारूप समिति में नागरिक समाज के प्रतिनिधियों में कुछ के विवादों के घेरे में आने के बीच पूर्व आईपीएस अधिकारी किरण बेदी ने शनिवार को कहा कि मीडिया समेत सभी नागरिकों की यह सुनिश्चित करने जिम्मेदारी है कि इस समय आरोप कामयाब न हो बल्कि सच्चाई और ईमानदारी की जीत हो।

भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ गाँधीवादी नेता अण्णा हजारे की मुहिम में अग्रणी रहीं बेदी ने एक कार्यक्रम के अवसर पर कहा कि सच्चाई और ईमानदारी जीतनी चाहिए। इस समय आरोप कामयाब न हो और यह सुनिश्चित करना हमारी सामूहिक जिम्मेदारी है। उन्होंने मीडिया पर यह जिम्मेदारी डाल दी कि इस समय किन चीजों को प्रमुखता दी जानी चाहिए।

देश की पहली महिला आईपीएस अधिकारी ने कहा कि यह आपको तय करना है कि किसके झूठ को आप हेडलाइन बनाना चाहते हैं और किसकी बात को आप हेडलाइन नहीं बनाना चाहते। आप अखबार में किसको स्थान देना चाहते या किसको स्थान नहीं देना चाहते। समझने का प्रयास कीजिए कि मैं क्या कहने का प्रयास कर रही हूँ। वे लोकपाल विधेयक प्रारूप समिति के कुछ नागरिक सदस्यों पर विवादों के बारे में पूछे गए सवालों का जवाब दे रही थीं।

वित्तमंत्री प्रणब मुखर्जी के इस बयान पर कि सरकार कठोर भ्रष्टाचार निरोधक कानून बनाने को लेकर आशान्वित हैं, बेदी ने कहा कि यह बहुत राहत की बात है। उधर, मुखर्जी के इस बयान के बाद कर्नाटक के लोकायुक्त संतोष हेगड़े ने लोकपाल विधेयक संयुक्त प्रारूप समिति से इस्तीफा नहीं देने का संकेत दिया है।

एक सवाल के जवाब में पूर्व आईपीएस अधिकारी ने कहा कि यदि हम एक ही दिशा में आगे बढ़ते रहते हैं और हम दिशा से नहीं भटकते हैं तो मैं मानती हूँ कि विधेयक समय पर तैयार हो जाना चाहिए। यही कारण है कि मैं यह कहती रही हूँ कि हमें यह बात दिमाग में रखनी चाहिए या समझनी चाहिए कि किन बातों को प्रमुखता दी जाए और किन्हें नहीं।

उन्होंने कहा कि समझने की बात यह है कि यह लोकपाल कानून अण्णा हजारे या भूषणद्वय के लिए नहीं बल्कि हरेक नागरिक के लिए आ रहा है। पिछले एक साल से भूषणद्वय, न्यायमूर्ति हेगड़े और अरविंद केजरीवाल इससे जुडे रहें हैं। उन्होंने कई बैठकें, कार्यशालाएँ और संगोष्ठियाँ कीं और लोगों से सुझाव माँगे। हालाँकि बेदी ने स्पष्ट किया कि यह प्रारूप अंतिम या बंद दस्तावेज नहीं है।

(भाषा)

Prime Minister’s Inaugural Address at Civil Services Day

The Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh addressed the 6th Civil Services Day in New Delhi today. Following is the text of the Prime Minister’s inaugural speech on the occasion:

“ I am very happy to be amidst you on the occasion of the sixth Civil Services Day. I welcome all of you to this gathering. I also extend my greetings to all members of the Civil Services on this occasion.

Let me also congratulate the officers who have won awards today for excellence in their work. I am sure their example will inspire other civil servants to higher levels of commitment and performance in the service of our nation.

I am happy that one of the sessions today is devoted to the issue of Ethics and Transparency in Governance. This is a subject which has attracted a great deal of attention in the recent days. There is a growing feeling in the people that our laws, systems and procedures are not effective in dealing with corruption. We must recognize that there is little public tolerance now for the prevailing state of affairs. People expect swift and exemplary action and rightly so. As I have said earlier, corruption is an impediment to faster growth, and hurts the poor most. It is a challenge that we must tackle boldly and we stand committed to doing so.

Our aim is to strengthen the legislative framework, revamp administrative practices and procedures and fast track a systemic response to fighting corruption. A Group of Ministers is looking into the legal and administrative measures that can be taken in this regard. The group has a wide ranging mandate and I expect its recommendations to be available very soon. A committee of Ministers and representatives of civil society is at work to finalize the draft of a Lokpal bill, which we hope to be able to introduce during the monsoon session of Parliament. Two bills relating to judicial accountability and protection of whistle blowers have already been introduced in Parliament. We will soon ratify the United Nations Convention on Corruption. We are committed to bringing more transparency in public procurement and to ensuring that disinvestment of public utilities and allocation of public resources are done in a manner that best safeguards the interests of the asset-owning public. I urge all civil servants to contribute to our efforts in fighting corruption. Each one of you is in a position to do so in many meaningful ways and I hope to see renewed energy emanating from you in this fight. I expect you to be honest and fearless in advising your superior authorities, especially the political leadership. Those of you who serve in senior positions would do well to also encourage your subordinate officers in this direction.

People value the work done by honest and dedicated civil servants and look up to them. I would like all of you to work to strengthen the trust and faith which people still have in civil servants. The spontaneous support of the people of Malkangiri, when the Collector of the district was kidnapped by left-wing extremists, is a pointer to the extent of goodwill that well meaning and honest civil servants can achieve. I do believe that the core of the Civil Services is sound and rooted in values of integrity and fair play. It is a pity that instances of individual waywardness, of lack of moral courage, and of surrender to pressures and temptations tarnish the image of the Civil Services and lead to immense criticism and dissatisfaction. I believe it is only upto the Civil Services as a whole to set the highest standards of probity and integrity in public and personal life and to create an atmosphere and a work ethic which encourages honesty and integrity. Disapproval and even ostracization by peers and colleagues can be a powerful deterrent for those who tend to stray from the path of rectitude.

I understand that another session today has been devoted to the challenges of economic management. Our economy has been in reasonably good shape in the past seven years. We have achieved an impressive rate of growth which we were able to sustain even in the midst of the worst global financial crisis of recent times. But, during the past year and a half, persistent inflation, especially in the food sector, has become a cause for concern. Our consistent policy has been to control inflation without hurting growth. We have strived for a delicate and difficult balance to achieve this. Food prices rose following the drought in 2009. Although the situation has improved in recent months, and food inflation has come down to single digit levels, the long term solution lies in increased production and productivity in the agriculture sector. The needs of a growing and increasingly more prosperous population can only be met by enhanced production of a diversified basket of agricultural products. We have to make a concerted effort to enhance our food security. The Civil Services again have a major role to play in achieving a higher rate of growth in the agriculture sector. I hope you will pay more focused attention to this area, and more specially to the preparation and implementation of district level agricultural plans. At the state level some of the brightest officers should be appointed to critical position of agricultural development commissioners and similarly every efforts should be made to upgrade extension services.

I would also like to take this opportunity to lay stress on the importance of strengthening local level governance through panchayats and municipalities. Our country is too large to be governed effectively from the Centre or even from the State capitals. We have to decentralize power, decentralize decision-making and decentralize the implementation of various development schemes. This is the only way to involve and empower people in shaping their own future. The success of the third tier of governance is critical to improved delivery of services and better design and implementation of schemes. While the constitutional framework has been in place for some time, most states have shied away from giving effective powers and responsibilities to the third tier. Our civil servants must do their utmost to facilitate real decentralization of governance in our country.

While our overall security situation has been reasonably satisfactory in the past few months, there is no room for any relaxation of vigil on our part. Combating Left Wing extremism, meeting terrorist challenges, countering insurgency in parts of the North-East and maintaining communal harmony and effectively dealing with atrocities on scheduled castes and scheduled tribes continue to be our top priorities. There is now evidence of better cooperation and coordination between the Centre and States in fighting terrorism. As I have stated earlier, we have drawn up an Integrated Development Programme for sixty districts affected with left-wing extremism. We are working in partnership with State Governments to provide employment to the tribal youth and to revamp the social and economic infrastructure in these remote areas. We are working for the development of the far flung areas of our vast country in an ecologically sustainable manner. We believe all these efforts will go a long way in strengthening our internal security.

The provisional population totals for Census 2011 have been released recently. While most of the news appears to be good, the falling child sex ratio is an indictment of our social values. Improving this ratio is not merely a question of stricter compliance with the existing laws. What is more important is how we view and value the girl child in our society. Our girls and women have done us proud in classrooms, in boardrooms and on the sports field. They have broken existing barriers to prove their worth in almost every sphere. It is a national shame for us that despite this, female foeticide and infanticide continue in many parts of our country. The social bias against women has to be fought with all the physical and moral resources at our command. There has to be a national campaign to counter this bias and I expect civil servants to play a big role in launching a crusade against it.

The need to re-fashion our Civil Services as effective instruments for delivery of services and as agents of improved governance is an ongoing process. The aim should be to evolve new and imaginative solutions for the problems facing us. Success would, to a large extent, depend upon a cultural change in the Civil Services. Excessive caution, reliance on precedents and following the beaten path have to give way to innovation and inventiveness and to trying out new methods. Merit, capability and quality should matter more than mere seniority. To deal with the newer challenges, civil servants also need to continuously update themselves. They have to continuously expand their horizons through learning and training. Only this would equip them to keep pace with the changing times. I hope the deliberations today will also focus on these aspects and attempt to chart a path for such change.

Before concluding, let me once again congratulate the officers who have received the Prime Minister’s Award for excellence today. I wish them and other members of the Civil Services all the very best in their efforts to build a modern and prosperous society and country.”

Source:  Press Information Bureau release dated 21st April, 2011

भ्रष्टाचार पर जनता के सब्र का बांध टूटा: पीएम

नई दिल्ली [जागरण ब्यूरो]। लोकपाल विधेयक पर कांग्रेस के तमाम सूरमा जहां सिविल सोसाइटी के खिलाफ मोर्चा खोले हुए हैं, वहीं सरकार और संगठन का शीर्ष नेतृत्व इस मुद्दे पर पूरी गंभीरता दर्शा रहा है। भ्रष्टाचार के मुद्दे पर सिविल सोसाइटी से बड़ी लकीर खींचने की कोशिश के तहत प्रधानमंत्री ने देश के वरिष्ठ नौकरशाहों के बीच लोकपाल विधेयक संसद के अगले सत्र में पेश करने की उम्मीद जताई। सिविल सर्विस दिवस पर वरिष्ठ नौकरशाहों के बीच प्रधानमंत्री ने चेतावनी भी दी कि अब भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ जनता के सब्र का बांध टूट गया है। सरकार इससे सख्ती के साथ निपटने के लिए प्रतिबद्ध है, क्योंकि जनता तुरंत कार्रवाई चाहती है।

कांग्रेस अध्यक्ष सोनिया गांधी के अन्ना हजारे को पत्र लिखकर भ्रष्टाचार से कोई भी समझौता न करने और लोकपाल विधेयक लाने पर प्रतिबद्धता जताने के बाद प्रधानमंत्री मनमोहन सिंह ने उसी लाइन को और आगे बढ़ाया। उन्होंने कहा कि 'हम इस बात को पहचानें कि जनता अब भ्रष्टाचार केमौजूदा मौहाल को कतई बर्दाश्त करने को तैयार नहीं है। जनता इसके खिलाफ फौरी और सख्त कार्रवाई चाहती है और उसकी अपेक्षा बिल्कुल जायज है।' उन्होंने भ्रष्टाचार को बड़ी चुनौती बताते हुए कहा हमें निडरता से इसका मुकाबला करना है।

देश के वरिष्ठ नौकरशाहों से सिंह ने कहा कि 'मैं आपसे उम्मीद करता हूं कि अपने उच्च अधिकारियों, खासतौर पर राजनीतिक नेतृत्व को आप ईमानदार और बेखौफ सलाह देंगे। सरकार का लक्ष्य भ्रष्टाचार से लड़ने के लिए विधायी ढांचे को मजबूत करना, प्रशासनिक ढांचे को चुस्त-दुरुस्त बनाना और प्रक्रियात्मक पहलुओं को रफ्तार देने का है।' उन्होंने याद दिलाया कि इसी उद्देश्य के लिए मंत्रियों का एक समूह जरूरी सलाह-मशविरा भी कर रहा है। जल्द ही इसकी सिफारिशें मिल जाने की उम्मीद है।

इस मौके पर प्रधानमंत्री ने यह भी एलान किया कि सरकार शीघ्र ही भ्रष्टाचार के बारे में संयुक्त राष्ट्र संधि पर हस्ताक्षर करने जा रही है। सरकार सार्वजनिक खरीद में पारदर्शिता लाने को प्रतिबद्ध है। लोकपाल विधेयक का मसौदा तैयार करने वाली संयुक्त समिति गठित का जिक्र करते हुए उन्होंने भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ उठाए गए सरकार के कदमों को भी गिनाया। उन्होंने कहा कि न्यायिक जवाबदेही और गड़बड़ियों का भंडाफोड़ करने वालाें को सुरक्षा प्रदान करने संबंधी विधेयकों को संसद में पहले ही पेश किया जा चुका है।

Right to Recall.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A recall election (also called a recall referendum or representative recall) is a procedure by which voters can remove an elected official from office through a direct vote (plebiscite), initiated when sufficient voters sign a petition. Recall has a history dating back to the ancient Athenian democracy and is a feature of several contemporary constitutions.

Canada

The Province of British Columbia enacted representative recall in 1995. In that province, voters in a provincial riding can petition to have a sitting representative removed from office, even a Premier presently leading a government. If enough registered voters sign the petition, the Speaker of the legislature announces before the House that the member has been recalled and a by-election follows as soon as possible, giving voters the opportunity to replace the politician in question. By January 2003, 22 recall efforts had been launched. No one has been recalled so far, but one representative, Paul Reitsma, resigned in 1998 when it looked as if the petition to recall him would have enough signatures to spur a recall election. Reitsma resigned during the secondary verification stage, and the recall count ended.

Switzerland

While recall referenda are not provided for at the federal level in Switzerland, six cantons allow them:

• Bern: Recall of the executive and legislative is possible since 1846. 30,000 signatures (4% of all adult citizens) are required to trigger a recall referendum. There has been one unsuccessful attempt to recall the executive in 1852.
• Schaffhausen: Recall of the executive and legislative is possible since 1876. 1,000 signatures (2% of all adult citizens) are required to trigger a recall referendum. There has been one unsuccessful attempt to recall the executive in 2000.
• Solothurn: Recall of the executive and legislative is possible since 1869. 6,000 signatures (3% of all adult citizens) are required to trigger a recall referendum. There has been one unsuccessful attempt to recall the executive and legislative in 1995.
• Ticino: Recall of the executive is possible since 1892. 15,000 signatures (7% of all adult citizens) are required to trigger a recall referendum. There has been one unsuccessful recall attempt in 1942. In addition, recall of municipal executives is possible since 2011. Signatures of 30% of all adult citizens are required to trigger a recall referendum.
• Thurgau: Recall of the executive and legislative is possible since 1869. 20,000 signatures (13% of all adult citizens) are required to trigger a recall referendum. There have been no recall attempts.
• Uri: Recall of the executive and legislative is possible since 1988. 600 signatures (3% of all adult citizens) are required to trigger a recall referendum. In addition, recall of municipal executives and legislatives is possible since 2011. Signatures of 10% of registered voters are required to trigger a recall referendum. There have been no recall attempts either at the cantonal or municipal levels.

The possibility of recall referenda (together with the popular election of executives, the initiative and the legislative referendum) was introduced into several cantonal constitutions after the 1860s in the course of a broad movement for democratic reform. The instrument has never been of any practical importance – the few attempts at recall so far have failed, usually because the required number of signatures was not collected – and it was abolished in the course of constitutional revisions in Aargau (1980), Baselland (1984) and Lucerne (2007). But the possibility of recalling municipal executives was newly introduced in Ticino in 2011, with 59% of voters in favor, as a reaction to the perceived problem of squabbling and dysfunctional municipal governments.

United States

Recall first appeared in Colonial America in the laws of the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1631. This version of the recall involved one elected body removing another official. During the American Revolution the Articles of Confederation stipulated that state legislatures might recall delegates from the continental congress.^[3] According to New York Delegate John Lansing, the power was never exercised by any state. The Virginia Plan, issued at the outset of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, proposed to pair recall with rotation in office, and to apply these dual principles to the lower house of the national legislature. The recall was rejected by the Constitutional Convention. However, the anti-Federalists used the lack of recall provision as a weapon in the ratification debates.
Several states proposed adopting a recall for U.S. Senators in the years immediately following the adoption of the Constitution. However, it did not pass.
Along with the initiative, the referendum, and the direct primary, the recall election was one of the major electoral reforms advocated by leaders of the Progressive movement in the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, although it was initially proposed in William S. U'Ren's Oregon newspaper. Recall elections do not take place at the federal level. The majority of states allow recall elections in local jurisdictions, but only eighteen states permit recall elections to remove state officials and a nineteenth state, Illinois, allows it for Governors only.^[4] The modern day father of the recall is considered to be Dr. John Randolph Haynes, who formed the Direct Legislation League of California in 1900. Los Angeles became the first major city to adopt the recall in 1903.
Only two governors have ever been successfully recalled. In 1921, Lynn Frazier, Governor of North Dakota, was recalled during a dispute about state-owned industries, and in 2003, Governor Gray Davis of California was recalled over the state budget. Additionally, A recall was approved against Arizona Governor Evan Meacham, but he was impeached and convicted before it got on the ballot.
In Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island, and Washington, specific grounds are required for a recall. Some form of malfeasance or misconduct while in office must be identified by the petitioners. The target may choose to dispute the validity of the grounds in court, and a court then judges whether the allegations in the petition rise to a level where a recall is necessary. In the November 2010 general election, Illinois passed a referendum to amend the state constitution to allow a recall in light of ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich's corruption scandal. In the other eleven states that permit state-wide recall, no grounds are required and recall petitions may be circulated for any reason. However, the target is permitted to submit responses to the stated reasons for recall.
The minimum number of signatures and the time limit to qualify a recall vary between states. In addition, the handling of recalls once they qualify differs. In some states, a recall triggers a simultaneous special election, where the vote on the recall, as well as the vote on the replacement if the recall succeeds, are on the same ballot. In the 2003 California recall election, over 100 candidates appeared on the replacement portion of the ballot. In other states, a separate special election is held after the target is recalled, or a replacement is appointed by the Governor or some other state authority.