By Justice Markandey Katju I have been asked my opinion by several people about the recent verdict of the Supreme Court quashing the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Constitutional Amendment Act. The verdict restores the Collegium system created by the judges themselves in the second and third judges cases, which, apart from having no Constitutional basis whatsoever (there is no mention of any Collegium in Article 124 of the Constitution ), has set up a mechanism by which judges appoint judges, a system totally lacking in transparency, as Justice Chalameshwar, the sole dissenting judge, has pointed out in his judgment. Earlier it had been said by Lord Cooke in his article ' Where Angels Fear To Tread ' in which he called it a 'sleight of hand '. The book - 'Supreme but not Infallible by Justice Krishna Iyer is worth reading while Justice Ruma Pal too said the Collegium decisions were often reached by 'trade-offs', i.e.' You agree to my man, and I will agree to yours'). This has often resulted in undeserving persons being appointed. In fact some of the undeserving persons who were appointed as Supreme Court Judges on recommendation of the Collegium, or were recommended by the Collegium but found in the nick of time having committed serious improprieties and so not appointed, were mentioned by name by some counsels during the arguments before the Supreme Court. My own opinion is that it matters little whether we have the NJAC or the collegium system or any other system, as the Indian judiciary is beyond redemption. Consider the facts. In Allahabad High Court (my parent High Court) criminal appeals filed in the High Court in 1985 are coming up for hearing today, that is, after 30 years of being filed. The same is the position regarding civil appeals. Is this a judiciary or a joke? I am informed by Allahabad High Court lawyers that if a case is adjourned after the first date (because the opposite party or government counsel wants to file a reply or for some other reason) the case will never be listed again unless huge bribes are given in the High Court Registry. Similar may be the position in many other High Courts. The present Chief Justice of India, Justice Dattu, said soon after being appointed CJI last year that cases in the Supreme Court would ordinarily be disposed off in 2 years, and criminal trials in 5 years. Almost every CJI makes similar tall claims. Justice Lodha, a former CJI made the unbelievable remark that Judges will work 365 days in a year. There are 33 million cases pending in the law courts of India, and by one estimate even if no new case is instituted it will take 360 years to clear the arrears. While many people talk of clearing the arrears, no one is really serious about it. Arrears, including arrears in the Supreme Court, have kept mounting. When I was in the Supreme Court a bench of which I was a member heard a case in 2007, Moses Wilson vs. Kasturiba (see online) which had been instituted in 1947, that is 60 years after it was filed. Another case, Rajendra Singh (Dead) thru. Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Prem Mai, which was decided by a Bench of the Supreme Court of which I was a member took 50 years to decide finally. It was initiated in 1957 in the trial court, and was finally decided on appeal in 2007 by the Supreme Court. This decision observed: “We may quote a passage from the novel 'Bleak House' written in Charles Dickens' inimitable style: Jarndyce vs Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least; but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes, without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Jarndyce vs Jarndyce, without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendry hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce should be settled, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out; the legion of bills in the suit have been transformed into mere bills of mortality. There are not three Jarndyces left upon the earth perhaps, since old Tom Jarndyce in despair blew his brains out at a coffee house in Chancery Lane; but Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless. Is this not descriptive of the situation prevailing in India today? " In Allahabad High Court, criminal appeals filed 30 years ago are coming up for hearing today. The lawyer who filed it is usually dead, and the accused in the criminal case is also often dead or untraceable. I am informed that in the Bombay High Court original suits have been pending for 25 years or more. The situation is like that in the case Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce depicted at the beginning of Charles Dickens' novel ' Bleak House '. I doubt whether the lawyer community seriously wants any reform, and as for Supreme Court Judges, they mostly have a term of only a few years to seriously attempt it (despite the tall talk of almost every CJI). A person who gets involved in litigation is usually weeping and crying after some time as date after date (tareekh par tareekh) is given by the Court but the case is not heard. The Allahabad High Court had set a norm that no judge of the subordinate judiciary should have at one time more than 300 cases pending before him. When I was a Judge of the Allahabad High Court a judge of the U.P. subordinate judiciary (the Chief Judicial Magistrate - Kanpur Nagar) came to meet me, and I asked him how many cases were pending in his court alone. He said 30,000. Another subordinate judiciary judge (CJM Ghaziabad) told me he had 21,000). Yet another said 15,000. Now if a man can carry 100 pounds weight but an elephant is put on his head, what will happen? He will collapse. And that is precisely what has happened to the Indian judiciary. And this is apart from the massive corruption which has crept into the Indian judiciary. When I started law practice in the Allahabad High Court in 1971 there was no corrupt judge in the High Court, and perhaps in no High Court in India nor in the Supreme Court (though corruption had started in the lower judiciary). Today my estimate is that about 50 per cent or more of the higher judiciary (High Court and Supreme Court) has become corrupt. Mr Shanti Bhushan, a very senior lawyer of the Supreme Court, and former Union law Minister, had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court several years back stating that half of the previous 16 Chief Justices of India were definitely corrupt (he named them in a sealed envelope which he gave to the Court). He said he was uncertain about 2 more. What difference then will it make whether we have the NJAC or Collegium? So far as the public is concerned? Is it not a difference between Tweedledee and Tweedledum? (Justice Markendey Katju is a retired judge of the Supreme Court and also held office as the chairman of the Press Council of India)
Read More
The origins of what most of us consider western or Continental food can still be found in clubs across the country. Many restaurants have tried their hands at replicating the food and ambience and usually have ended up serving mediocre food in faux atmospheres. All that changed the moment Marut Sikka opened up Delhi Club House at Sangam Complex in RK Puram, New Delhi.
Read More
Mala Bhargava This week I heard a doctor describe how he believes all this technology is going to kill us all. Mobiles and now Internet of Things (IoT) devices are going to make doing everything so effortless, that we’re really in for some trouble. We don’t even have to wait for the full gamut of IoT solutions to arrive before we see what the good doctor meant. Nishith Chandra, of Fortis Escorts was speaking at an IoT event, IOTIndia2020 organised by tech site BGR, and remarked that he was seeing more and more patients who were taking the easy way out and ending up doing very little. Even getting up to answer the door will not be necessary now that there are connected security systems that can let you see, on your phone, for example, who’s at the door and unlock it using an app. I’m increasingly finding this is exactly where we are headed. These days, with the explosion of concierge services available, I’m not even bothering to lift a finger to get chores done. All I have to do is tap into the app, use the voice input on my keyboard and just say what I need – someone will take care of it. Where once I would have gone across to a nearby restaurant to pick up something for dinner if I felt like it, I need to open an app and tap on a favorite saved order and just go through the quick steps of paying for the meal. In a short while, the food arrives, and that’s that. Luckily, I still have to take the trouble to eat it. The less trouble we take to do things, the less we’re going to be able to do them and the less we’ll get any exercise, not bothering to move a muscle. It’s certainly true that technology is also enabling better exercise, counting steps and forcing us to pay attention to meeting daily goals of movement, but some people who are worried enough about their state of fitness will benefit, while others could just get lazier. Dr Chandra claims he is actually seeing more cases of heart attacks from sheer inactivity – and that’s a frightening thing.
Read More
Sutanu Guru analyses how well meaning judicial verdicts have wide ranging consequences Right at the beginning, let me make it very clear that the words “aam aadmi” used here has nothing whatsoever with the “start up” party presided over by the IIT graduate Arvind Kejriwal. The words here refer to average citizens of India who do not have the privilege of counting themselves as members of the growing middle class in the country. Having said that, what prompts me to fashion a headline that seeks to grab attention? Well the fact is, this is reality and you will find no heated prime time television debates on this. On October 13, the Government of Delhi issued a notification that brought into effect The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. Political animals will recall the 2014 Lok Sabha election campaign during which one Congress ad had the young prince Rahul Gandhi posing with street vendors as their savior from corrupt cops and municipal officials. But this piece is not about many such attempts of Rahul Gandhi to project himself as a 21st century Che Guevara. This piece is about the Supreme Court and the aam aadmi, represented in this case by street vendors of Delhi and NCR. On the face of it, the new Act that was notified by the Delhi Government on October 13 (and faithfully ignored by all newspapers and TV channels) seeks to protect the livelihood of street vendors. Look at some provisions of the act and you will find it hard to figure out if this is an Orwellian or Goebbelsian world. One provision of this “pro poor” new law states that if a car is found illegally parked in front of a street vendor who is selling food, a penalty of up to Rs 2,000 will be imposed on the street vendor. There is more. Under the new law, street vendors are not allowed to use water and electricity. Yes, there is also a provision that prohibits vendors from making noise to attract customers as it will worsen the already bad noise pollution levels in Delhi. The street vendors can operate only from sunrise to sunset. As the sun sets, the street vendor is expected to pack all his or her supplies and go back to whichever slum she emerged from at the crack of dawn. Then there is the killer provision: in order to promote health and hygiene, the street vendor is not allowed to “cook” on the road side. This is the logical culmination of a process that started in 2013 when the Supreme Court delivered a verdict that effectively emasculated the ability of street vendors to sell food to customers on streets of Delhi. To be fair to the Delhi Government led by Arvind Kejriwal, efforts have been made to make life easier for street vendors. But not enough. According to available data, there are around half a million street vendors in Delhi out of which only about 50,000 are registered with a license. Under the new law, a street vendor can operate only with a license. Anyone who understands how the lower (and even higher) level of Indian bureaucracy works will understand what a Herculean task it would be for poor, often illiterate street vendors to “obtain” licenses. And then just imagine the harassment of street vendors by local cops and officials. Public health and hygiene are indeed critical. But is it fair to deprive half a million poor families of a livelihood ? There is more. These half a million street vendors are a lifeline for millions of the urban under class who get cheap food in these joints. If vendors are not allowed to cook, how will an auto rickshaw driver get fresh “kulcha” (bread, if you must) for his lunch or dinner. Or do we expect him to get lunch packed in a fancy tiffin box that keeps food warm? If this is not “they can eat cake if they don't get bread moment”, I don't know what is. Sure, the Supreme Court meant well. But then, haven't we heard about the proverbial road to hell being paved with noble intentions? Back in the 1990s, the Supreme Court became “activist” and passed a series of verdicts aimed at checking pollution in Delhi which was rising to alarming levels. All polluting units were banned. Millions of workers employed in these small scale units were suddenly deprived of a livelihood as these units were forced to shift to places far away from Delhi. But then, it was argued that all citizens must pay a price for clean air. So be it. Then, the Court decreed that all public transport vehicles must shift to CNG. If you have lived in Delhi in those years after the verdict, you will understand what auto rickshaw and bus drivers went through. There wasn't enough CNG, and there weren't enough outlets selling CNG. So it was common for poor auto rickshaw drivers to wait for ours at a CNG outlet. Did all this help control pollution in Delhi? Well, according to a report released by the World Health Organisation in 2014, Delhi is by far the most polluted city in the world. What went wrong? Even as poor auto rickshaw drivers waited hours for CNG, the middle class Indian fell in love with diesel cars and SUVs. Experts cite the explosive growth in sales of diesel cars and SUVs as a prime reason for the dangerous levels of pollution. And of course, there are the 50,000 odd trucks and heavy commercial vehicles that pass through Delhi everyday. So what's the new solution? A relatively new body called the National Green Tribunal has taken up the cudgels. It has effectively banned all diesel vehicles that are more than 15 years old from the roads of Delhi. The upwardly mobile middle class Indian can of course buy a new diesel car or SUV every three or five years. It is mostly the under class that would be operating old vehicles. But hey, don't all citizens need to pay a price for clean air? I rest my case.
Read More
Life for the consumer has changed rapidly as the marketplace shifts to the e-commerce cloud. Expectedly, it has opened up an array of mind-boggling business opportunities. Those little kiosks that did brisk business selling railway and air tickets in small towns have vanished and are today butcher’s or barber’s shops. Yatra.com and MakeMyTrip have taken over. Box office queues for cinema tickets have dissolved into a BookMyShow app on a cell phone. E-commerce, once covered occasionally by business newspapers and magazines as a distant curiosity, is an action-packed ‘beat’ today.While institutional money has been slow to discover the new opportunities, individual investors with big cash piles moved in quickly. Instead of hanging up his boots, Ratan Tata has done an ‘angel’ innings with his personal wealth seeding as many 11 e-commerce ventures from Paytm to Ola. Ronnie Screwvala, after he exited UTV, has parked over Rs 200 crore in a host of eTailers including grocery supplier EkStop, and lingerie portal Zivame.Then came the stampede. Successful startup exponents like Vijay Shekhar Sharma, who had incubated and grown e-commerce ventures, or those who carried a wealth of experience and money from a digital past like Mohandas Pai and Nandan Nilekani, spotted and funded new ideas and ventures. This was only the start of a new rush of raiders whose appetite for investing in e-commerce ventures has reached hysterical levels. Today, it is not only MDs and CEOs but even mid-level professionals parking a couple of lakhs or even a few crores with promising but fund-desperate startups.The important element is the emergence of a whole new business ecosystem. The normal rigmarole of corporate due diligence has been replaced by quick, gut-feel decisions. A Mohandas Pai and Vijay Shekar Sharma, after a few attentive meetings, make up their minds and put their funds where their mouth is. On the other hand, droves of bright new minds, don’t have to pitch with hard-nosed bankers. There are angel investors willing to take equity and also help mentor the venture.It has democratised the business environment and opened up channels to whoever is willing to take the risk and have a shot. A few months ago the winner of BW Businessworld’s Young Entrepreneurs Awards was a marketing analytics software developer called Wingify promoted by the 28-year-old Paras Chopra. He raised Rs 50 lakh three years ago from friends and family. By the end of FY2014-15, he was clocking annual revenues of Rs 44 crore. At one end, it is the big players Tiger Global or Jack Ma’s Alibaba that is pouring in millions of dollars into the big etailers —Snapdeal and Flipkart. At the other, there is the Rs 20-lakh-to-5-crore ticket size funding the beginners. It is a breath of fresh air that is pushing growth, innovation and the creation of wealth.There is also the downside. Copycats and confidence tricksters abound; and for every successful new e-commerce venture, there are 20 that fall to the wayside. In months to come the speed of consolidation will accelerate and a big shake-out is due. But something tells us this phase of investment is qualitatively better and more selective than the madness of the dot com boom over a decade ago. An interesting package has been put together by assistant editor Paramita Chatterji and senior editor Vishal Krishna. It will also give you a glimpse of some of the genres and models of e-commerce that have succeeded, and those that failed. There are also a string of eye-opening interviews with some of the big czars of the new wave —Kavin Bharti Mittal, Vijay Shekhar Sharma and Rohit Bansal— that you should not miss.Gurbir Singh(This story was published in BW | Businessworld Issue Dated 02-11-2015)
Read More
Sutanu Guru takes a quick look at the SC verdict calling the NJAC Bill unconstitutional The suspense is finally over. A five judge bench of the Supreme Court has delivered a verdict that basically kills the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill passed unanimously by the Parliament in 2014. The NJAC Bill essentially meant to take away the exclusive powers of the “Collegium” of judges to make appointments to the higher judiciary. Those favouring the 20-year-old collegium system are of the opinion that the NJAC Bill would have led to a severe erosion in the independence of the judiciary. Those in favor of the NJAC are of the opinion that the collegium system is too opaque and has perhaps resulted in many cases of unsuitable or unfit persons becoming judges of the High Court and Supreme Court because the collegium system faces absolutely no scrutiny from the public. This author is no legal expert and wouldn’t claim to be familiar with the intricacies of the positions taken by people for or against the NJAC Bill. For the moment, it is clear that the Supreme Court has had the final word on this. Of course, the government can appeal to a full constitutional bench of the Supreme Court to review the verdict. But many senior judges had make it clear for a while that they would not allow the government or the Parliament to tamper with the collegium system that guarantees the independence of the judiciary. Nobody can predict how the whole thing will end. But this marks another case of interesting battles between the judiciary and either the executive or the legislature. The most notorious such case dates back to 1964 and is known as the Keshav Singh case. Basically, the case was a virtual war between the Allahabad High Court and the Uttar Pradesh assembly with each wanting to arrest members of the other’s bodies! By and large, it is the Supreme Court that has prevailed as the last word when it comes to contentious issues. The most legendary of these cases is now recorded in history books as the Keshavananda Bharti case. In this verdict, the Supreme Court made it clear that while the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it could not alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution. This verdict was one in a series of skirmishes that the judiciary had with the then Indira Gandhi led Congress government. Most legal experts are still convinced that the Keshavanda verdict essentially saved Indian democracy. But the Parliament does override even Supreme Court verdicts on occasions. The most notorious is the Shah Bano case. In 1985, the Supreme Court declared that the divorcee Shah Bano was entitled to alimony. Patriarchal and regressive elements in the Muslim community construed this as an attack on Islam and created firestorm. Rajiv Gandhi, who then led a Congress government with the largest ever mandate in Indian electoral history, got the Parliament to pass a Bill that overturned the Shah Bano verdict. Some pundits reckon this one step led to the eventual growth of competitive fundamentalism of Hindutva and Islamic ideologues. The other equally notorious example was in 2002 when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the Prime Minister of an NDA government. The Supreme Court essentially passed a verdict that would have disallowed politicians accused of serious criminal offences of contesting elections. The Parliament unanimously passed a Bill overturning the Supreme Court verdict. The ghost of this controversy resurfaced in 2013 when the Supreme Court delivered a verdict that disallowed “convicts” from contesting elections. The UPA government led by the hapless Dr. Manmohan Singh passed an ordinance that overturned the verdict. Already engulfed by allegations of massive corruption, this decision of the UPA government triggered widespread criticism. And then, of course, Indians watched a live TV spectacle of Rahul Gandhi tearing the ordinance to shreds in a press conference! As mentioned earlier. The Supreme Court has usually stood up for the rule of law and for the common man during its many battles with the executive or the legislature. But the big question is: does that mean that the collegium system is fool proof and that corrupt judges would never ascend to the High Court or the Supreme Court? Sadly, judges are human beings and only the hopelessly naïve would contend that judges cannot be corrupt, or influenced by vested interests. In 2010, former Union Law Minister Shanti Bhushan created a sensation in the Supreme Court when he claimed that “at least eight former chief justices were corrupt” and dared the Court to send him to jail for contempt. Neither he, nor his son Prashant Bhushan who had publicly accused a chief justice of misconduct and faced contempt proceedings were sent to jail. In the event, for the Supreme Court to contend that the collegium system of appointing judges is the only one acceptable to it is contentious, to say the least. Once again, the author is no legal expert. But the superior courts now pass verdicts that affect the livelihoods of tens of millions of people. Cancellation of the telecom spectrum and coal bloc allocation are two examples. As is the little debated order that would virtually ban all street vendors from selling food in Delhi and neighboring areas. If the judges can have such enormous power over the fate of millions, surely people should have a say in who becomes a judge? It might sound like a wild suggestion from an amateur, but why not follow the American system where the Congress and the Senate have to approve the appointment of a Supreme Court judge?
Read More
From 'being the Congress's most trusted alliance partner' during the UPA years, the CBI has now morphed into the BJP's instrumentality of 'fixing' political opponents, writes Sandeep BamzaiVery quietly, it has crept up on us, almost unobtrusively and silently. On Thursday, the premier investigating agency CBI got slapped around by the 2G trial court, Normally time gives legitimacy to the existence of something, but in the additional spectrum case being heard by the 2G special court in the Patiala House complex on the India Gate concourse, the CBI got it in the neck for what was nothing more than a 'fabricated' case. These are harsh words for the court has discharged all the accused of charges of criminal conspiracy and under sections of Prevention of corruption Act. Special Judge OP Saini discharged former telecom Secretary Shyamlal Ghosh and three telecom companies — Hutchison Max (P) Ltd, Sterling Cellular Ltd and Bharti Cellular Ltd. “I find that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused and the accused deserve to be discharged. Since the charge sheet has been found to be full of distorted and fabricated facts and an attempt has also been made to mislead the court, Director, CBI, is directed to conduct an inquiry against erring officials and take action against them as per law were Saini's comments. The CBI, in its charge sheet had alleged that Ghosh “deliberately” and with “malafide intention” did not obtain comments of then Member (Finance) of DoT on the issue despite the matter involving huge “financial implications.” So who was fixing whom in the great telecom whirligig, once a sunshine sector in the Indian growth story, but now the most litigated. And how is that the judge trashed what appeared to CBI to be a watertight case? It does't say much about the quality of CBI's investigation that deliberate and malafide intent on the part of then telecom secretary Shyamal Ghosh was over turned as a distorted and fabricated case? If the chargesheet was full of holes and the same thing happens in the ongoing 2G trial where the same judge is sitting in judgement and where more importantly the Supreme Court has already cancelled the 121 licenses, then there will be hell to pay and once again beg the question who will bell the cat? But let us move on and see how over the last month or so has seen hyper activity on the part of the CBI. On Thursday even as it was getting a strong rebuke from O P Saini in the 2G trial court, the agency asked the Supreme Court to remove the protective layer provided by the Himachal High Court to chief minister Virbhadra Singh in the disproportionate assets case, seeking to interrogate him. Now, mind you this is a sitting chief minister. Singh has been charged with accumulating disproportionate assets when he was union minister for steel and mines in the Congress-led UPA government at the Centre.The CBI has also asked the top court to transfer the case from the Himachal Pradesh High Court to Delhi. A bench headed by Chief Justice HL Dattu agreed to hear the CBI's petition on the first working day after the Dussehra holidays. This comes on the heels of the CBI showing its new found muscle by questioning BSP leader Mayawati in connection with the over-Rs 5,000-crore National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) scam. New 'evidence' seemed to have surfaced in the old NRHM case in which it has already registered 74 FIRs and filed 48 chargesheets in the past. When the much vilified Congress was in power the opposition described the agency as a hand maiden of the government, giving it a new nomenclature Congress Bureau of Investigation. Now, the same agency which has always done the government's bidding and has never been truly autonomous and free is doing exactly the same thing. The new evidence against Mayawati pertains to bifurcation of the Health and Family Welfare Department and creation of 100 posts of District Project Officers (DPOs), who were allegedly instrumental in alleged corruption in the implementation of NRHM schemes. SP boss Mulayam Singh Yadav pulling out of the mahagatbandan anti BJP alliance in Bihar suddenly was also a function of the ruling party at the centre holding the whip hand over the UP leader. The long standing disproportionate assets case against the Yadavs - father and son - remains open. In September 2013, the CBI made it official that it was closing the case against the Yadavs since there was insufficient evidence of disproportionate assets. But the case can be closed only when the CBI files a closure report in the Supreme Court. So the sword of Damocles continues to hang over the Yadavs. Industrialist Vijay Mallya who for a long time managed immunity against the CBI has also found himself at the receiving end lately in the Rs 950 crore IDBI Bank loan fraud. That action also took place years after Kingfisher managed to get a consortium of banks led by SBI to not just take equity at a premium in the airline, but disburse loans as well to the same beleaguered airline which never ever made a profit in its years of existence. His premises and other offices were raided. The curious thing about a CBI case is that it remains open indefinitely till say like the additional spectrum case is challenged and then discharged by a higher court or there is a conviction. What it allows is the agency to arm twist the alleged perps in an open ended manner. You want to put the squeeze on someone and he has an ongoing CBI case, raid him and instil the fear of God in him. Keep him or her on tenterhooks. But some sort of a pattern seems to be emerging with Mayawati, a political opponent of the BJP in UP, Virbhadra Singh, a sitting Congress CM, revival of action against TMC cronies in West Bengal and Vijay Mallya who had remained unscathed for so long, suddenly being targeted. One more quick example is how Manoranjana Sinh, former Congress minister Matang Sinh's estranged wife was also suddenly arrested by CBI recently. If one reads the voluminous SFIO report on the Saradha scam, there is clear evidence of her alleged infringement where she has taken close to Rs 24 crore from Sudipto Sen. She could have been arrested much earlier, some altered equations there as well, I suspect. In fact, there was a huge lull in the erstwhile aggressive CBI action against Saradha chit fund accused till the recent Mamata-Modi bonhomie. Now here again suddenly, Manoranjana was arrested and Tapas Paul was interrogated. TMC MP Paul was a director on another major scamster Rose Valley's board. Saradha CMD Sudipta Sen in his 'tell-all' letter to CBI mentioned Manoranjana's name and claimed that she had siphoned a huge amount of money while settling a deal between Saradha and her company 'Positive Group'. It is believed that with state elections in West Bengal slated for next year, fresh sniping will begin by the BJP and one of the instrumentalities used will be the CBI which had gone 'cold' for about six months in both the Saradha and Rose Valley scams. In March, CBI conducted raids at the residences and offices of Tapas Paul. Paul's residences were among 43 locations, the CBI raided in connection with the Rose Valley Scam and then it went quiet. Now old wounds have been reopened as the agency becomes the vanguard of the BJP in state politics. Unfortunately India doesn't have the wherewithal or domain expertise to deal with white collar crime, not SEBI, not Financial Intelligence Unit, not Serious Fraud Investigation Office and certainly not the Enforcement Directorate. We also have Director Revenue Intelligence and the Economic Offences Wing, but sadly unless there is a bright officer or two, these guys are bumbling their way around or indulging in plain extortion. Take the recent case of ED joint director Jitender Pratap Singh who finds himself in a maelstrom. CBI questioned IRS officer J P Singh in Ahmedabad on allegations that he "extorted" money from those accused of money laundering. CBI raided Singh's place residence and the ED office in Ahmedabad recently after allegations of corruption against him and two other assistant directors in the money laundering agency were found to be true. The present ED director, Karnal Singh, had approached CBI to probe the official amid charges of bribery against the Ahmedabad unit arising from money laundering probes in IPL cricket betting and Afroz Fatta hawala scandal. The anti-corruption agency registered a case after the PMO asked the IB to conduct an inquiry into the allegations. The internal inquiry of ED as well found that there were irregularities after which CBI was brought into the loop. From 'being the Congress's most trusted alliance partner' during the UPA years, the CBI has now morphed into the BJP's instrumentality of 'fixing' political opponents. Prima facie it appears to be the case and my own sense is one will see more empirical evidence of an aggressive CBI in the coming weeks as the BJP feels the pressure on rising intolerance in the country. With state elections scheduled for West bengal, Tamil Nadu, Assam and Kerala next year and UP and Punjab in 2017, expect the tota or caged parrot to be leading the charge. Views are personal of the columnist
Read More
An odious app is in the works and it wants you to rate your friends, family and colleagues on a 5-point scale, writes Mala Bhargava I don’t know what Julia Cordray and Nicole McCullough were thinking of when they dreamt up an upcoming app called Peeple, but anyone who plans to use it one day should think twice. These two developers came up with Peeple, which is due to release sometime in November, according to reports, to create a sort of Yelp for people. Yelp, which is popular in the US, is all about ratings and recommendations for places and companies, particularly restaurants. But a Yelp for people represents what’s so wrong with our new world of sharing and rating and reviewing and recommending. Social Media has already done more than its bit to bring us the Like button and the Favourite star and voting up or voting down things that people say. As if it weren’t bad enough that people have started to take those so seriously, now we will have our own family, friends and colleagues trying to rate us on a 5-point scale on just about anything. The Peeple app will let you search for anyone you know. But if they’re not there, you can create a profile for them anyway. It’s not yet clear whether they have to sign up but if so, thank heavens for small mercies. Then, as a user goes about day-to-day relationships and finds something nice or annoying, he or she can promptly give it a name and a rating. Explanations can also be put in for the victim’s express attention. If it’s a negative rating and comment, the app kindly waits for 48 hours to give the participants a chance to sort it out. When that doesn’t happen, it all goes live in public and the victim has to defend himself or herself where everyone can see. It sounds like a reality show in an app. So many things about this planned app are disturbing that it really is cause for pause. One needs to stop and think whether this is where we wanted technology to lead us. But of course, it isn’t just technology, is it. It’s what people want to do with it. One extremely unnerving aspect is the idea that you can quantify everything. Human beings have communicated their praise, dislike, love, annoyance, anger and so on in thousands of ways, not the least of them their body language and expressions. A subtle change in tone can send a powerful micro-message that tells the other person in no uncertain terms how you feel. Do we need Like buttons and ratings and stars to now do that job? Another disconcerting aspect here is the public angle. In the past year I have seen a cousin propose to a man on video shot at the airport, complete with a flash mob of friends and then put the lot up for more people to see. I’ve seen a husband give his wife a surprise ticket to a vacation, leading to a personal moment of joy which was duly filmed for all to see. And so on. Now ratings of people, if these two developers have their way, are to go public. There’s little doubt that even when positive, rating your loved ones (or pet hates) on personal, professional or dating issues, as the app proposes to let you do, will be a source of discomfort and conflict. Imagine what happens when I rate a friend 5/5 on warmth and he gives me a mere 3.5. That would be the end of that. Even sex is not out of bounds for ratings in the Peeople app. The only positive thing is that people will probably dislike it enough to let it die a merciful death. But with today’s new psychology of technology — you never can say. All I know is I heartily give Peeple a heartfelt zero. In a quick development, this app has now been turned “100% positive” after getting an avalanche of criticism. It’s still likely to be DOA because the basis is an unpalatable idea. (This story was published in BW | Businessworld Issue Dated 02-11-2015)
Read More
