Examples
- The National Informatics Centre (NIC), Rajasthan, has bagged an award for its e-district initiative and e-governance in rural areas at the e-World Forum 2011 organised in New Delhi by the Centre for Science Development and Media Studies (CSDMS). An official release here quoted Ms. Gupta as saying that the e-World Forum 2011 had selected the NIC-Rajasthan for the award on the basis of the single window software developed for all the 33 districts and 247 tehsil headquarters as well as the rural connectivity project evolved by it.
Ideas
- From London riots 2011 we can say that what the U.K. needs is proactive policing that not only explores preventive measures but also dictates intervention when a crime is committed right before your eyes. Mr. Cameron has spoken of the need for some “robust policing.” I presume this means proactive policing that not only explores preventive measures but also dictates intervention when a crime is committed right before your eyes. It was appalling to watch the Met policemen standing by and not doing anything at all when looters — predominantly teenagers to start with, and young adults joining the fun later — were helping themselves to goodies that included liquor, jewellery, designer clothes and electronic gadgets.
This indigenous culture of measured and patient policing is no doubt admirable under normal circumstances. But whether it is valid for the current times is highly debatable. This is especially in the context of the huge public criticism among many devastated Londoners that the police have failed to protect them. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Mayor Boris Johnson were subjected to some uncomfortable questioning on this when they went into the streets a few days after the lawlessness started. The London riots could be a watershed in the history of the Met. A new strategy of aggressive policing is now well merited. It is needed not only because of the new dimension of the proclivity of some youth to take the law into their own hands. It is also demanded by a wounded public in England that has for long been used to only minor strains of public violence and has submitted itself to cautious policing, which now seems suitable only for an earlier time. It will be amusing for an average Indian police officer to know that policymakers in London are still mulling over tactics like the use of the rubber bullet and the water cannon by the police to handle public disorder. Neither of the devices is known to cause death or serious injury.
It is my strong perception that the U.K. society has moved far from the halcyon days when an unarmed Bobby could hold his own against the largest of mobs. The imposition of curfew or the use of the army to quell the riots has been mentioned in whispers only in the past few days. The time is not far when the police in the whole of the country will necessarily have to attune themselves to a modified style, with the accent on instant use of force to disable a misbehaving gang. An unequivocal decision endorsing the new tactics by the Home Office in London brooks no delay. A police force which does not deter the law-breaker, without diluting the respect and wholehearted support of those who adhere to the law, is not worth its salt.
The whole world must have watched the evocative television images of the dismaying events of the past few days in England, especially London and Birmingham. They ought to leave an indelible impression and generate new ideas on policing. There is a constant reference to the use of modern technology by the thugs who went on the rampage, particularly in London. The initial days were dominated by teenagers moving swiftly from place to place. The slightly older ones jumped into the fray only thereafter. It is almost confirmed that they were communicating with one another through cell phones, confounding the police. The popular toy in their hands was the BlackBerry. It is said that the phone's Instant Messenger Service (BBMS), in particular, came in very handy for the hoodlums. This is a hard fact, and any criticism that this theory only romanticises a despicable activity is ill-founded. That BBMS provides both security and confidentiality to the underworld is now undisputed. Those — including me — who had misgivings over the unrelenting stand of the Union Home Ministry vis-à-visResearch in Motion, the makers of BlackBerry, now stand corrected. Police officers the world over need to be wary of this destructive tool, which has proved to be lethal in the hands of the unscrupulous. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater by indiscriminately banning BlackBerry, a great vehicle of swift communication. It must, however, be ensured that the BlackBerry and similar devices do not offer a cheap and convenient gadget which aids the criminal in his diabolic designs. This is a challenge to police officers as well as intelligence agencies across the globe.
Good Governance
- The members of the Council of Ministers of Kerala, who virtually turned students, listened with rapt attention as management experts analysed the challenges and opportunities before the government and explained the management tools available before them to accelerate development. The occasion was a day-long ‘Thought leadership workshop on high performance,' organised by the Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode, (IIM-K), on its campus at Kunnamangalam. The IIM-K Director described the event as part of the institute's resolve “to grow with the State and create platforms to facilitate greater interaction among academicians, industry, and government.”
Supreme court decisions
- SC ordered that OBC seats should filled on merit list of OBC only and should not be converted to GN seat. The cut- off for OBC can be 10% less then general only.
- The first ever impeachment of the higher judiciary by the rajya sabha which turned into court for few days. Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta high court was removed when 189(out of 206 present in 243 meember house) member overwhelmingly supported impeachment motion. He can make history if Lok sabha also vote in favour. He was charged with misappropriating 33 lakh under custody in SAIL case.
The first such case involved the impeachment motion in Lok Sabha of Justice V Ramaswami of the Supreme Court in May 1993 which fell due to lack of numbers after Congress members abstained. Incidentally, Union minister Kapil Sibal who was then a senior advocate, had presented the case of Justice Ramaswami before the Lower House. Unlike Ramaswami, Sen presented his case personally backed by two lawyers.
Justice PD Dinakaran, Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court, against whom the Rajya Sabha Chairman had set up a judicial panel to enquire into allegations of corruption, had resigned on July 29 this year, before an impeachment could be initiated against him. If his resignation is accepted then the impeachment process stands invalid.
President order impeachment when 50% are present and 2/3 vote in favour in parliament. After RS approve the case will go to LS after a week.
In a dramatic turn out, the Sen resigned and history again couldn't be written.
What is the legal framework regarding impeachment of judges?
The Constitution has measures to ensure the independence of the judiciary from executive action. This helps judges give judicial decisions in a free and fair manner without any inducements. The Constitution also provides checks against misbehaviour by judges. It states that a judge may be removed only through a motion in Parliament with a two thirds support in each House. The process is laid down in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
How is the motion initiated? What is the process after that?
A motion has to be moved by either 100 Lok Sabha members of Parliament or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. If the motion is admitted, the Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairman of Rajya Sabha constitutes an inquiry committee.The committee has three members: a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and an eminent jurist. The Committee frames charges and asks the judge to give a written response.The judge also has the right to examine witnesses. After the inquiry, the committee determines whether the charges are valid or not. It then submits its report.
What happens then?If the inquiry committee finds that the judge is not guilty, then there is no further action. If they find him guilty, then the House of Parliament which initiated the motion may consider continuing with the motion. The motion is debated. The judge (or his representative) has the right to represent his case. After that, the motion is voted upon. If there is two-thirds support of those voting, and majority support of the total strength of the House, it is considered to have passed. The process is then repeated in the other House. After that, the Houses send an address to the President asking that the judge be removed from office.
