Prime
Minster Modi has asserted ad-infinitum
that he would weed out archaic laws. But his own Govt. wishes to retain the
archaic Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and throw the modern Delhi Rent Act, 1995
into the dustbin. Thus Modi’s assertions are nothing but Orwellian double
speak. It is clear that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is desperately trying to
ape the erstwhile P.M. Dr. Manmohan Singh, who too had been reluctant to notify
the Delhi Rent Act, 1995. Here Modi turns out to be a clone of Manmohan Singh albeit
a poor one. The present Central Government is as weak as the Govt. of Dr.
Manmohan Singh. Both these governments have been catapulted by the vested
interest of trader-tenants who wish to retain status quo as well as archaic
laws.
Sunday, 28 September 2014
Monday, 22 September 2014
Email to Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer on Prof. Saibaba's Bail
Prof. Saibaba's bail
|  22/09/2014 | | ||
Honorable Justice Shri V.R. Krishna Iyer ji,
We are once again taking the liberty of writing to you and hoping to get a word of counsel. Professor G.N. Saibaba teaching at Ram Lal Anand College, Delhi University was arrested on 9 May, 2014 and is lodged in a jail in Nagpur under several provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [UAPA]. The police suspect him to be a Maoist. Professor Saibaba, suffers from 90% disability due to polio contracted in early childhood. He is wheelchair bound and also suffers from cardiac ailment, high blood pressure and low backache. He is lodged in a solitary cell and has been denied bail both by the lower court as well as the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court. The details of his ailments and suffering in jail are enumerated in the two articles attached herewith. These articles were published in the Countercurrents.org a web based journal.
While the Code of Criminal Procedure permits bail in case of a person under the age of sixteen years; a woman; a sick or infirm person, special laws like UAPA expressly forbid bail. It is inconceivable that the bail conditions outlined above under the Code of Criminal Procedure would not hold ground under special laws like UAPA. How can a person with 90% disability who needs an attendant for activities of daily living e.g. using a toilet seat be kept in jail and denied bail? Isn’t it illegal and unconstitutional to keep such a person in jail when he is still an under trial?
Sir, with your sagacious views on the issue of bail of Tejpal, former editor, Tehelka magazine the latter has since been enlarged on bail.
Thanks.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Paramjit Singh
Secretary, Public Interest Litigation Watch Group
Monday, 8 September 2014
Central Information Commission indicts Delhi Fire Service in the strongest possible terms
Professor
M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner (IC) at the Central Information
Commission (CIC) made stringent remarks against the Delhi Fire Service in his
27 page order on a bunch of appeals filed by Ms. Suman Jain, a RTI activist last
year. The order on the appeals delivered on 04 September, 2014 states
inter-alia:
“Information regarding fire
safety norms is life related information. The public authority in this case has
committed a grave breach of RTI by exhibiting an adamant attitude and denial of
the information about inspection records of fire safety norms in Delhi. It
seems that the Fire Department has not learnt anything from the worst Upahar
tragedy incident which led to imposition of civil and criminal liabilities on
public servants including some of the employees of fire department. Their attitude fortifies
apprehensions of corruption in selectively applying the fire norms and issuance
of no objection certificate and using or not using the powers of disconnecting
water and power to the buildings who did not comply with the fire safety norms.
It is the duty of respondent authority to clear the apprehensions that appellant
is being victimized because she filed RTI or questioning inaction of respondents.
It is a deserving case to issue show cause notice for penalty.” (Emphasis
supplied)
Ms. Suman Jain in her first RTI application dated 05.03.2013
asked for copy of the inspection report conducted by DFS at her premises no.
4/14 A, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. In another RTI application dated 15.03.2013,
she enquired about the addresses of the buildings located at
Asaf Ali Road which are required to install fire
safety measures and details of those which have been issued NOC/ Fire Safety
Certificate, having water tanks of 50 thousand litres capacity. In her last RTI
application dated 22.03.2013, she sought information about the number of
buildings in Delhi constructed prior to 1983 required to get fire safety
certificate and details of buildings given such certificates. As the replies
provided by the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority at
the DFS were not satisfactory the applicant filed three separate appeals at the
CIC.
The hearing at CIC was conducted on 25 July, 2014
and decision delivered on 04 September, 2014.
In its decision the IC referred to various
judgements of the High Courts and the Supreme Court including the Uphaar fire
tragedy case. The Commission directed the DFS to provide all inspection reports
of 4/14 A, Asaf Ali Road; to show-cause why penalty cannot be imposed for
suppressing the information. The Commission allowed all the three appeals and
ordered accordingly in all three appeals viz details of buildings along Asaf
Ali Road and their fire safety status norms etc and details of buildings in
Delhi constructed prior to 1983 and their fire safety status norms etc.
The RTI activist had acted in public spiritedness so
that citizens visiting each and every high rise building in Delhi (i.e. 15 mtrs
in height – particularly those constructed prior to 1983) would know whether
the building is fire safe or not. So far the DFS has utterly failed in making
public this information. It is hoped that the strong indictment of the DFS
would gear it into action so that lives, limbs and properties in Delhi are not
in danger. Once the DFS puts all this information of all the high rise
buildings in Delhi on its website, corruption would come to an end.
The
combined order of the Commission in the three appeals titled Suman Jain vs. Delhi Fire Service, GNCTD
is available on the CIC website at:
Times of India 08/09/2014:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)