TITANIC BOA, THE BIGGEST ANACONDA?

Python is no longer the largest serpentine on the earth. 

A fossil has been discovered in a place called cerrejon in north eastern region of Columbia suggests that Python was not the biggest serpentine on the earth. The discoverers have named this extinct snake as ‘titanoboa cerrejonensis’, which means titanic boa from cerrejon.

The scientists say that on the basis of the fossil, it is estimated that this titanic serpentine existed on the earth some 40 million years ago and was contemporary of dinosaurs. They further say that this mammoth animal might be of 42-45 (12-13 meter) feet long and more than one thousand kilogram in weight leaving python or Anaconda far behind in size as well as weight. The biggest python is reported 9 meter long only according to book of records.

It can swallow a cow or a bull very easily and can thrash a bus.The discovery of this fossil would unearh and unravel many myths about the snakes and would add interesting chapters in the study of nature and science.

ROW IN ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA TAKES POLITICAL TUNE

The row in Election Commission of India (ECI) has taken a political tune as all the major political parties are playing their own lyrics orchestrated by political music. The inside bickering in ECI is not new and has been occurring time and again. The first major controversy arose during T.N. Seshan’s regime when Seshan and Krishnamurti, one of the then EC locked their horns in order to establish their own hegemony and run their own writs. 

The present row originated owing to the letter which the CEC, has written to the President of India recommending the removal of Navin Chawala, the EC for his alleged acts of commission and omission under article 324 (5) of Indian Constitution. This letter sparked off a major political controversy because the BJP has come openly in rescue of N. Gopalswami, whereas; Congress and other UPA constituents have pledged their support to Navin Chawala. This controversy has incited a debate also in legal luminaries and judicial domain. The issue which has again come to fore is that whether or not the CEC can suo motto initiate inquiry and recommend the removal of the other ECs? The question has become vexed also because the provisions of the Constitution in this regard are somewhat translucent on this issue. Article 324 of the Indian constitution provides for the superintendence, direction and control of election to be vested in the Election commission. Clause 5 of this Article provides for ‘the Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Parliament, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the Election Commissioners and the Regional Commissioners shall be such as the President may by rule determine:

Provided that the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court and the conditions of service of the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment:

Provided further that any other Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner. 

The above provision makes it amply clear that the ECs can be removed by the President, the appointing authority, but the CEC can only be removed by a process of impeachment similar to that of a Supreme Court Judge. The message is clear; the father of constitution has conferred on adequate amount of independence on the ECI and also has guaranteed protection to it against any undue political and executive interference. It is also a fact that the CEC and ECs are equal, CEC being the first among the equals, this however do not bring all the ECs at par with the CEC.It seems that the principle of check and balance as well as superiority and subordination blended with administrative hierarchical concept has been enshrined in the above provisions of the constitution. The Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) of 1973 can be taken into account to explain above principle. Section 20 of this code provides for appointment of Executive Magistrates and the District Magistrates. It speaks of the principle that District Magistrate is also an executive magistrate and all executive magistrates are equal, but the district magistrate is first among the equals. Further section 21, 22 and 23 make it clear that the executive magistrates,including the SDM, who is also an executive magistrate are subordinate to the district magistrate. Some may take it as an absurd comparison, but the principle of the same administrative hierarchical concept has been applied in the Election Commission also. 

Now coming to the question which remained unanswered is that whether the CEC can recommend suo-motu to the President the removal of ECs without the Presidential Reference? The Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court has ruled in the famous T.N. Seshan Vs Union of India in 1995 {5 SC, 337;(1995)4 SCC 611} that if power were to be exercisable by the CEC as per his whim and caprice, the CEC himself would become an instrument of oppression and would destroy the independence of the ECs if they are required to function under the threat of the CEC recommending their removal. This judgment is said to be landmark vis-a-vis the functioning of the ECI. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the in-dependence of ECI is more important than the supremacy of CEC. In fact the fathers of our Constitution had rightly infused a large amount of independence and sanctity in the ECI which is also a custodian of the Constitution. Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar, the father of Indian Constitution, had said in the constituent assembly that the removal of CEC should be done only through a process of impeachment. The idea was the same, to confer independence to the Commission. But unfortunately over a period of time certain amount of aberration has crept into this constitutional body and has turned it into a hub of hobnobbing and bickering. 

So far as the grounds for inquiry against Navin Chawla and subsequent recommendation to his removal is concerned, the matter goes back to 2006 when L.K.Advani along with 204 other MPs submitted a petition to the President of India seeking removal of Navin Chawla for his alleged acts of commission and omission during emergency and his alleged proximity to the ruling Congress Party. The same petition was forwarded to the CEC for necessary action. It is in this context the CEC asked explanation from Navin Chawla and after being ‘unsatisfied’ from the Chawla’s answer, CEC made this recommendation to the President. The entire legal fraternity divided over this issue. One school of opinion says that the CEC can recommend removal of any EC suo-motu, whereas other opines that the CEC can only act when he is sought to do so by the president. Coming to the issue of taking action on the recommendation, some stalwarts say that the recommendation is binding on the government, whereas many other do not subscribe to this view and suggest that the government has every right to reject the recommendation.

But it seems that if the CEC is not empowered to make a suo-motu recommendation, and can act only on the presidential reference, then how can the independence of Election Commission and its insulation from government’s interference be kept intact? It appears that misreading in between the lines is being done by many of us. If the CEC is supposed to act only when he is asked to do so, then why is this provision made in the constitution stating therein that the ECs can be removed only the recommendation of the CEC? 

We are non-deliberately skipping the core issue that, why after all such bickering and quarrelling are taking place in this august institution of sublime importance? The very practice of appointing very senior bureaucrats to the post CEC and EC just after their retirement is the crux of all the problems. The senior most bubus sitting at the helm of affairs can hardly remain apolitical and in a bid to get some post retirement placement, they start lobbying in the power lobby. Many of them get reward and those who are left start criticising the government in hope of winning over the sympathy of parties in opposition so that they can be compensated when these parties return to power. N. Gopalswamy had served as home secretary under Advani, similarly Chawla had been secretary to Lt. Governor during emergency. Gopalswamy was made EC just after his retirement by the NDA government, whereas Chawla was handpicked and rewarded by the Congress. Naturally their loyalties shall be put to a litmus test.

M.S.Gill has been made Rajya Sabha MP after his retirement as CEC, he was subsequently made a state minister in the union cabinet. This step is going to have profound impact on the functioning of EC, as every outgoing EC or CEC would be lured by such rewards which they may get if they pursue the interest of parties in power. 

Remedies: - Mr. B.B. Tandon the then CEC had made certain recommendations with regard to the long overdue reforms in the EC. These recommendations are eating dust in the labyrinth of power and politics. Here are some suggestions which can be incorporated while taking steps in cleansing and reforming the commission. 

1. Rules can be framed that no bureaucrat shall be appointed, nominated or given any office within three years after their retirement. 

2. Bureaucrats and judges should not be allowed to join any political party or fight election within three years after th.eir retirement. 

3. The selection and appointment procedures for the high offices like EC, NHRC, CIC, other commissions etc. should be made transparent and institutionalised so that the possibility of hand picking is diminished to a zero level

4. A national panel may be prepared for such appointment so that principle of equality and openness is followed. 

5. Law can also be framed so that no one is appointed to any constitutional post twice. This would help minimise the chances of doing favour of disfavour by these persons

RIGHT TO INFORMATION;INDIA AND USA

RIGHT TO INFORMATION A COMPARISON BETWEEN INDIA AND USA

Chief Justice of India’s reluctance to disclose the details of assets to the petitioner under RTI Act, 2005 has incited a debate on transparency versus privacy and confidentiality in Indian Public domain. 

The Central Information Commission (CIC) passed an order on the petition of one Subhash Agarwal filed u/s 6 of the Act, and asked all the Judges including CJI of the Supreme Court to make available the required information relating to their assets and properties to the petitioner. The order was taken aback by the Judiciary, because hitherto it is only they who used to get their dictates obeyed. This time the matter was reverse.

Immediately after getting the order from the CIC, the Supreme Court filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court through its Registrar against the order of the CIC. It is worth mentioning here that the order of Information Commission is final and binding as provided in section 19 (7) of the RTI Act, 2005. The aggrieved persons or the parties may however approach the High courts or the Supreme Court under Article 226 and 32 of Indian Constitution respectively in form of Writs, if they feel that their fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution are violated. 

In this case, it is beyond the imagination of a common man as how this said order of CIC was infringing upon the fundamental rights of the Judges, which forced CJI to go to the Delhi High Court against the said order.

This is not the first instance when Judiciary has retaliated against imposition of law on them or tried to resist any move towards greater amount of transparency being brought into the judiciary. It is rightly said that it is easy preaching than done.

Few months back, while speaking in a seminar in Delhi, the CJI said that the provisions of RTI do not apply on them because they are the Constitutional Authorities. Did he mean that the provisions of RTI Act do not apply on PM, Ministers, CEC, Speakers of Legislatures and MPs and MLAs because they are also constitutional authorities? 

This statement was also rebuked in the media; he thereafter tried to pacify the people by giving effete arguments. The CJI said that since there is no provision of disclosure of properties by the Judges of Higher Judiciary in any law or conduct rules for them, the Judges are not obliged to disclose the same. It is true, that such provisions are laid down in Government servants conduct Rules which are not applicable on the Judges of the higher judiciary.

Nonetheless, it should be borne in mind that the provisions of the RTI are overriding in effect, meaning thereby that all other laws if contrary to the provisions of RTI would be overridden (Section 22 of RTI Act). It is true that there are no service conduct rules for the Judges in higher judiciary, but at the same time there is no law also which provides immunity to the judges against disclosing their properties, after all what and why to hide?

In the mean time similar attempts to thwart the People centric ethos of the Act are being made in none other than the PMO itself. The same Subhash Agarwal has filed petition before the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Cabinet Secretariat seeking information about the assets of the Union Ministers. The petition was thereafter sent to the PIO of PMO as per Section 6(3) of the Act. Initially, the PMO was willing to make available the required information to the information seeker, but subsequently, it sought to withhold the information on the pretext of the provisions of exemptions enshrined in Section 8(1)(e) and (j). 

It sounds funny to learn that the aforesaid provisions are invoked to deny the petitioner disclosure of the sought information. The Section 8(1) (e) says ‘the information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information’. Undoubtedly the disclosure of the assets of the ministers does not fall in this category.

Similarly, the section 8(1) (j) says that if the sought information is not related to public activity or public interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, the information can be denied.

The pertinent question here obviously rises that what kind of privacy is involved in the disclosure of the assets of Ministers? How can the property acquired by a Minister while serving the ministry be not related to public activity or public interest? Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled in 1997 and made it mandatory on part of the MPs to disclose their assets. The Election Commission of India subsequently issued circulars and made it obligatory for the contesting candidates to file an affidavit declaring all the moveable and immoveable properties along with the nomination papers. Thus if the said information relating to the ministers are disclosed, it would be of great help to the India citizen because one could then easily find out by calculating the amount of wealth the minister has amassed during the tenure by just deducting the wealth declared by them at the time of filing nominations. 

It appears that higher Judiciary as well as higher executive both want to withhold the free flow of information and are against the transparency. They talk very tall from public platform but when it comes to their turn, they provide justification of exemptions thoroughly unpalatable to the public. People as higher echelon must set examples of high standard of public life and morality. They are the role models of the society and the democracy. The kind of public outcry which was witnessed after Mumbai attack was just a trailer, it was suggestive of the fact that what kind of public perception is there in the mind of the pubic at larger for the politicians. 

One can draw a distinction between India and USA with respect to transparency in public life. In America one Freedom of Information Act, 1966 is enacted and is in vogue since 1967. George Bush had issued an executive order enabling the Ex. Presidents and Vice Presidents to sit indefinitely on potentially embarrassing records that belong to public domain. Barrack Obama showing his uncompromising commitment to transparency and openness undid the order and issued a fresh executive order making it mandatory on the part of the US administration to make available to people at large, all the documents related to any decision taken by the administration which belong to public domain.

Obama’s decision to undo the executive order of his predecessor is an important decision because under Section 4(F) (1) gives the president such power to issue an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy etc. It means that had the President wanted to hide any document; he would have taken the help of this provision and denied the emanation of information in the name of national defense. He did not wish to withhold the free flow of information in the garb of law, rather preferred to undo it and set an example, conspicuously absent in Indian politicians. This is what is called transparency, openness and democracy. But here in our case, provisions of laws and rules are interpreted in one’s own interests and not in the wider interest of the public at large