Sunday, July 12, 2020

3rd Degree Torture


Dalit-Online

3rd degree Torture
Dalit-Online
Weekly e news paper
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.16.....Issue.63.............19/07/2020

RTI  request to  Honourable Chief Justice  of  India and  Honourable  Chairman National Human  Rights  Commission  New Delhi

Refer  RTI applications no :  JUSTC/R/E/20/01830  and 
NHRCM/R/E/20/00513

Honourable  Sir,
     First of all our salutes, whole hearted respects  to honest few in police , judiciary and public service. It is an appeal to those honest few to catch hold of their  corrupt colleagues. Both of  you take lakhs of rupees salary, enjoy 5 star bungalow, flight travel , perks , etc  all at  tax payer's  expense , still  don't  do your constitutional duties properly. SCI doesn't  even admit our PILs concerning national security , accountability of public servants , etc  although I have suffered  murder attempts, physical assaults, job loss , etc in my crusade. But SCI has got enough time to hear cases of cricket , movies. Whether NHRC  consists of  humans or not  needs a clarification. They lack humanness, empathy.  To my RTI requests SCI cites various  sections of law just like criminals, thieves  to evade truth. NHRC  too cites various sections of law to evade truth ,  to evade taking legal action. It is  Crime cover up, which is one more crime by them. Both of them must  first read the  third grade acts of police , judges at below articles and  following web sites : 
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com/2020/04/rogue-police-judges.html?m=1  ,
https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/third-degree-torture-to-corrupt-police-judges  ,

 In fact, following the landmark 1997 DK Basu vs West Bengal case, the Supreme Court laid down some basic guidelines to prevent custodial abuse which have been absorbed into the Code of Criminal Procedure.
These directions have to be followed by the police. Refusal to do would result in contempt of court.

Both of you  please give me information  regarding following  :
1. List of legal action taken by SCI & NHRC  against guilty police , judges involved in crimes against humanity , 3rd degree torture by police  case wise  since last 20 years.

2. List of legal action taken by SCI & NHRC  against guilty police , judges involved in crimes against humanity , 3rd degree torture by police   with regards to  cases  mentioned in  above web sites.
3. Legal steps taken by SCI & NHRC to  prevent  recurrence of 3rd degree torture by police , remand judge failing to protect health , safety of  accused and government doctor failing  to record  actual health status of accused. List of actions taken by SCI & NHRC against  such guilty judges and government  doctors  who aided  guilty police in covering up 3rd degree  torture by police on suspects.
4. List of Police who were booked on murder charges  for inflicting 3rd degree torture on  suspects.
5. List of police who were prosecuted for contempt  of SCI  with regards  to  violation of  SCI guidelines on arrest procedure and illegal 3rd degree torture by police.
6. List of actions taken by SCI and NHRC against police involved in torture , lathi charge of  farmers, farmer's family members during  MAHADAYI RIVER PROTEST in karnataka.
7. List of actions taken by SCI and NHRC against police involved in torture of tribals in MALE MAHADESHWARA HILLS karnataka during Operation catch forest brigand  Veerappan.
8. List of actions taken by SCI and NHRC against police involved in torture of tribals based on NHRC fact finding committee and  Justice A J Sadashiva findings.
 
If anything untoward happens to me or to my family members , Honourable  Chief Justice of India , Honourable  Chairman  NHRC together with jurisdiction police and district magistrate  will be responsible for it.

Date : 28.06.2020               Thank you,
Place : Mysuru                     Nagaraja  Mysuru Raghupathi 

How Tamil Nadu Police’s brutal act of revenge claimed lives of a father and son

Historically, the Tamil Nadu police is notorious for highhandedness and third-degree torture methods.
By  Arun Janardhanan 


The death of a father and son due to alleged custodial torture in Sathankulam town near Thoothukudi in Tamil Nadu has sparked rage across the state. The Tamil Nadu Traders Association downed shutters across the state on Wednesday. Victims were traders belonging to the Nadar community, a socially and politically powerful community in southern Tamil Nadu.
What was the series of events that led to the deaths in police custody?
P Jeyaraj, 62, who worked at his mobile shop at Sathankulam town, was taken in custody on June 19 evening.

Jeyaraj allegedly made some critical remarks about a police patrol team on June 18 for insisting shop owners to shut shops early for lockdown rules. An auto driver had informed police about remarks and the police team had come the next day to take him in custody. After an agitated police team had taken Jeyaraj in custody, his son, J Bennix, 32, followed the police team to the station.
At the Sathankulam police station, a senior police officer said, Bennix saw his father being physically harassed by an officer. An agitated Bennix questioned the officer, tried to stop the officer or pushed him to protect his father in his 60s. “It had provoked the police team, they thrashed both father and son for hours. There were two sub-inspectors and two constables in the torture team. A total of 13 officers were there at the station during the incident, including volunteers part of Friends of Police,” the officer said.

The alleged lockdown violation charge on Jeyaraj was something that would have got him a maximum of three months imprisonment if he was found guilty.
What happened the next day?
June 20. Jeyaraj’s family who waited outside the station till midnight got to see the father and son in the morning in “bad shape.” They were taken to the Sathankulam government hospital. Jeyaraj’s veshti and Bennix’s pants were fully soaked in blood. They had to keep changing lungis at the hospital due to severe bleeding. Policemen asked the family to bring “dark colour lungis”.

After three hours at the hospital, they were then taken to Sathankulam magistrate court.
Joseph, Jeyaraj’s brother in law who witnessed the scene, said the magistrate waved his hand from the first floor of the building as the police team stood outside. Both were sent on remand to Kovilpatti Sub Jail in a few moments.
The family had no news about the father and son till June 22 evening, when they were shifted to the nearby government hospital. Due to continuous bleeding and severe external and internal injuries from alleged lock up torture, Bennix died late evening on June 22, and Jeyaraj died in the wee hours on June 23.
What action has been taken?
Even as two FIRs have been filed, no officer has been booked for murder charges. Following the outrage and protests, four police officers including two sub-inspectors have been placed under suspension. The station inspector has been transferred. A judicial inquiry is in progress, post mortem report has been submitted to the Madras High Court in a sealed cover, and the court is waiting for a report from police.

The state government has announced a compensation of Rs 20 lakh for the victim family. DMK’s Thoothukudi MP Kanimozhi declared a compensation of Rs 25 lakh for the family.

Is there a communal angle?
Jeyaraj’s family belonged to the Nadar community. Multiple accounts from witnesses, relatives of victims and police show that the case had no direct communal angle but it was a brutal revenge by police officers, first for Jeyaraj’s alleged remarks against the police patrol team and for Bennix’s alleged attempt to physically stop, push away, an officer who was beating his father.
Are such incidents prevalent in Tamil Nadu police?
Historically, the Tamil Nadu police is notorious for highhandedness and third-degree torture methods. Senior officers would call it a normalised practice for several decades, from the British era.
In Chennai city, it is a normalised practice for police sources to release photos of the accused in police custody with fractured arms and legs. “Slippery toilets” at the station would be cited as a reason for their fractures, the same would be reported to the magistrate during the remand process, a normalised extra-judicial punishment “to criminal elements.” Like in many states, it is to be noted that there are often a handful of senior-most officers at the top level who would be endorsing such extra-judicial practices in private talks for their flawed understanding about criminals and their origins.

Did the judiciary too fail in this case?

K Chandru, a retired judge of Madras High Court, said even during the emergency, people had the right to approach the court. “But the latest lockdown scenario had shifted full powers to the police and bureaucracy. That when the High Court itself talks about the pandemic being equal to Emergency and that the officials must be given due weight of the situation, it sends a wrong signal to the magistracy. There are innumerable instances where they deviate from protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens.”
In this case, the judicial magistrate should be dismissed from service for judicial impropriety and misconduct, the former Justice said, adding it was his job to check on injuries and bleeding, he should have raised questions to police and accused instead of remanding them with an order saying “no complaints”.



ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲೇ ಸಾಮೂಹಿಕ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ಎಸಗಿದ ಇನ್ಸ್‌ಪೆಕ್ಟರ್ ಅಮಾನತು..!

ಬೇಲಿಯೇ ಎದ್ದು ಹೊಲ ಮೇಯ್ದಂತೆ ಅನ್ನೋ ಹಾಗೆ ರಕ್ಷಣೆ ಕೊಡಬೇಕಾದ ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲೇ ಅಪ್ರಾಪ್ತ ಬಾಲಕಿಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ಎಸಗಿದ ಘಟನೆ ಒಡಿಶಾ ರಾಜ್ಯದ ಸುಂದರ್‌ಘರ್ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದಿದೆ.

ಒಡಿಶಾ: ಅಪ್ರಾಪ್ತ ಬಾಲಕಿ ಮೇಲೆ ಸಾಮೂಹಿಕ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ಎಸಗಿ ಅಬಾರ್ಷನ್‌ ಮಾಡಿದ ಆರೋಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಇನ್ಸ್‌ಪೆಕ್ಟರೊಬ್ಬನನ್ನು ಕೆಲಸದಿಂದ ಅಮಾನತು ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಒಡಿಶಾದ ಬುಡಕಟ್ಟು ಸಮುದಾಯದ ಜನರ ಪ್ರಾಬಲ್ಯವಿರುವ ಸುಂದರ್‌ಘರ್ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಘಟನೆ ನಡೆದಿದ್ದು, ಆರೋಪಿ ಬಿರಾಮಿತ್ರಪುರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯ ಇನ್ಸ್‌ಪೆಕ್ಟರ್‌ ಆನಂದ್ ಚಂದ್ರ ಮಾಝಿ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರ ಐವರು ಬಾಲಕಿ ಮೇಲೆ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ಎಸಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಕಳೆದ ಮಾರ್ಚ್‌ 25ರಂದು ಬಿರಾಮಿತ್ರಪುರದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರತೀ ವರ್ಷ ನಡೆಯುವ ಜಾತ್ರೆಯನ್ನು ಕಣ್ತುಂಬಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಬಾಲಕಿ ಬಂದಿದ್ದಳು. ಆದರೆ ಲಾಕ್‌ಡೌನ್‌ ಇದ್ದಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ಜಾತ್ರೆಯನ್ನು ರದ್ದು ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಈ ವೇಳೆ ಮನೆಗೆ ಹಿಂತಿರುಗಲು ಬಾಲಕಿ ವಿಫಲವಾಗಿ ಅಲ್ಲೇ ಬಸ್‌ಸ್ಟ್ಯಾಂಡ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ತಿರುಗಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಳು. ಇದನ್ನು ಗಮನಿಸಿದ ರಾತ್ರಿ ಗಸ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಪೊಲೀಸರ ತಂಡ ಆಕೆಯನ್ನು ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಸ್ಟೇಷನ್‌ಗೆ ಕರೆತಂದಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಅಪ್ರಾಪ್ತ ಬಾಲಕಿಯನ್ನು ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಕರೆತಂದ ಬಳಿಕ ಇನ್ಸ್‌ಪೆಕ್ಟರ್ ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಇತರೆ ಪೊಲೀಸ್‌ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ಆಕೆಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಸಾಮೂಹಿಕ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ಮಾಡಿ ಮರುದಿನ ಆಕೆಯ ಮನೆಗೆ ತಲುಪಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ನಂತರ ಆಕೆ ಗರ್ಭಿಣಿಯಾಗಿರೋದನ್ನು ಅರಿತ ಪೊಲೀಸರು ವೈದ್ಯರ ಮೂಲಕ ಗರ್ಭಪಾತ ಮಾಡಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಘಟನೆಯ ಸುದ್ದಿ ತಿಳಿದ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಮಕ್ಕಳ ಸಂರಕ್ಷಣಾ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ ಎಸ್ ಜೇನಾ ಅವರು, ಪೊಲೀಸ್‌ ಇನ್ಸ್‌ಪೆಕ್ಟರ್‌, ಗರ್ಭಪಾತ ಮಾಡಿದ ವೈದ್ಯ, ಬಾಲಕಿಯ ಮಲತಂದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಇನ್ನಿಬ್ಬರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ದೂರು ದಾಖಲಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ಇದೀಗ ಘಟನೆ ನಡೆದ ಮರುದಿನವೇ ಇನ್ಸ್‌ಪೆಕ್ಟರ್‌ನನ್ನು ಕೆಲಸದಿಂದ ಅಮಾನತು ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಕೆಲವು ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು ತಲೆಮರೆಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು ಅವರ ಪತ್ತೆಗಾಗಿ ಬಲೆ ಬೀಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

PIL – 3rd Degree Torture for Corrupt Police Corrupt Judges


An Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of India , Karnataka High Court & National Human Rights Commission
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF
NAGARAJA . M.R
editor DALIT ONLINE
# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,
Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State
....Petitioner
Versus
Honourable Union Home Secretary , GOI
Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Karnataka & Others
....Respondents
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
To ,
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship's Companion
Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the
Petitioner above named.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :
1. Facts of the case:
Only in a free & fair atmoshphere without undue influence or pressure , a person can tell truth. Recently in many high profile cases like Sohrabuddin fake encounter case witnesses are turning hostile , but courts are not taking action against the responsible police. In few other cases , police use 3rd degree torture methods on suspects to fit them in the cases. Even when the accused appeals to judge for his protection from 3rd degree torture by police , judge still remands him to police custody. Example Gauri Lankesh case.
2. Question(s) of Law:
Is it not the duty of presiding judge of a case to ensure safety of defendant , accused , complainant & witnesses ? When police or others use 3rd degree torture on accused , witnesses , etc are NOT such Police & Judge Punishable ?
If Judges , Police , Advocates have accepted 3rd degree torture as a right method to elicit truth from suspects, ok. When police subject an accused / a commoner to 3rd degree torture about a crime / theft of hundred rupees , why not police who have robbed crores of rupees ( dacoity by police near yelwal mysuru ) are subjected to 3rd degree torture by their colleagues? why not police torture former DGP for his involvement in lottery scam ? Why not police torture their colleagues who have links , pass information to Dawood Ibrahim ? Why not police torture Present CJI Dipak Mishra to elicit truth about fake affidavit , kalikho pul case , Prasad education trust ? Why not police torture Karnataka high court judges involved in mysore roost resort sex scandal ? All for eliciting truth. Why NOT ?
3. Grounds:
Requests for equitable justice , equal treatment of prisoners. Requests of stopping torture of poor prisoners. Prosecution of corrupt judges , police & jail personnel.
4. Averment:
Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the cases to perform their duties.
PRAYER:
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants , GOI , Government of Karnataka authorities in the case to perform their duties.
b. Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to immediately annul the Jail Manuals of all state governments of india , which are discriminatory.
c. Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to constitute an expert committee to frame a “ Model Jail Manual “ applicable to all Indian states , union territories.
d. Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to initiate legal prosecution of jail personnel , police & judges who failed in their duties to ensure safety of prisoners , resulting in torture of prisoners and for prolonged imprisonment or illegal imprisonment of innocents.
e. Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to order all state governments to ensure food , health care , recreational facilities , parole on an equal footing to all prisoners without discrimination.
f. Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to order respective state governments pay compensation to prisoners for suffering discrimination , torture.
g. Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to order respective state governments pay compensation to prisoners who spent years behind bars , finally acquitted by courts and in the case of prisoners who spent more years in jail than the quantum of punishment codified in IPC due to prolonged case trials. In both such cases afterwards state government must recover money from respective presiding judges , investigation officer & government legal prosecutor.
h. Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to order Government of Karnataka to provide protection to all the accused in Gauri Lankesh Case and to legally prosecute the guilty police officials for attempt to murder charges. Also to legally prosecute the presiding judge of the case who failed to do his duty in protecting the accused.
i. In Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter Case hostile witnesses have crossed 50 numbers. Either now they are under police threat, pressure &are lying orelse years back they were under police threat , pressure and lied previously. Either the present police are guilty or the previous ones. Therefore honourable court must first prosecute responsible police for criminal charges of covering up crime, cheating & misleading the court , contempt of court. Also the advocates of case at that time who together with guilty police mislead the court must also be prosecuted for the same criminal charges. Above all the judge who failed to protect witnesses from police threat must be prosecuted. Otherwise it is no justice , only power of ruling elite who always wins.
j. to order state police , central intelligence to subject the police officials , judges also to 3rd degree torture methods when they face allegations of corruption , illegalities , to elicit truth just as in the case of commoners. FAIR JUSTICE.
k. to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
Dated : 03rd July 2018 …………………. FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.
Place : Mysuru , India…………………….PETITIONER-IN-PERSON


PIL – Compensate Prisoners illegally detained


An Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of India , Karnataka High Court & National Human Rights Commission

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF
NAGARAJA . M.R
editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice
# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,
Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State
....Petitioner
Versus
Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Karnataka & Others
....Respondents
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
To ,
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship's Companion
Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the
Petitioner above named.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :
1. Facts of the case:
"Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight among themselves for
power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt public servants.
Majority of prisoners in Indian jails belong to poor , minority , oppressed sections of society and 2/3rd of prison population comprises of undertrials. Are not there any criminals among rich , affluent and forward castes , majority community ? It proves the bias , prejudice of police , establishment. There are good , honest people as well as criminals in all castes , religions and all walks of life. There are deadly anti nationals , criminals among the police force , judiciary , parliament , but due to their caste , financial clout escaping from conviction , legal prosecution.
As per law , all citizens of india are equal. However under trials ( who are innocents till proven guilty ) are discriminated in Indian jails. Ordinary citizens / accused are crammed in rooms resembling pig stays . whereas accused from rich / influential back grounds are given separate rooms with cot , bed , television , news paper , etc.
As per law , all citizens of india are equal. A criminal is a criminal . However Indian prison authorities discriminates here also. Former ministers who looted crores of rupees from public exchequer , corporate persons industrialists who have cheated public , public banks of crores of rupees are given royal treatment , get best food , health care where as an ordinary pick pocket , house burglar are treated like slaves , pigs don’t get proper food , health care.
India Jail Manual procedures differentiate prisoners based on their caste , social background , while allotting prison cells , food , visitor facility , parole , mandatory work , recreation facilities - which in itself is illegal.
Apart from this , corruption in Indian jails is rampant. Prisoners with money , influence get everything within jail itself , mobile phone , drugs , fire arms , etc. some mafia dons run their empire from prison itself.
Poor prisoners are tortured by police , jail personnel and criminals within jails. Indian Jails are reform centre , where everyone should treated equally in all respects. By practicing discrimination jail authorities are promoting small time criminals to commit bigger crimes to get royal treatment in society as well as in jail.
Few prisoners convicted by lower court due to bias of police , prosecutor & lower court judges are acquitted by higher courts. However due to this wrong conviction of innocents , the innocent person is deprived of his life & liberty for years , decades. But the culprits Investigating officer , police , public prosecutor & judge are not prosecuted for their crimes. In this manner even innocents are killed in fake encounters or by death sentence.
It is the duty of the judge who awards jail sentence to a convict or an accused , to ensure his safety , health care and to see that prisoner gets right punishment as per law. Here our judges have failed. SHAME SHAME to police & judges.
If the Supreme Court of India , NHRC delays in acting on this PIL petition resulting in prolonged imprisonment of undertrials , convicts or Innocents , Supreme Court of India / NHRC judges also jointly become responsible for the crimes against those illegally imprisoned and SCI judges are also equally responsible to pay compensation from their personal pockets.
2. Question(s) of Law:
Are not all prisoners equal ? is not theft of ten rupees or theft of thousand crores of rupees , both crimes ? Are not both criminals thieves ? then why differentiation ? Is it not the constitutional duty of a judge who has awarded jail sentence to an accused / a convict , to ensure safety , health care of the said prosiner ? is it not the duty of the judge to monitor whether the convict is getting right punishment as per law nothing less nothing more ? 
3. Grounds:
Requests for equitable justice , equal treatment of prisoners. Requests of stopping torture of poor prisoners. Prosecution of corrupt judges , police & jail personnel.
4. Averment:
Prosecute Sanjay Dutt under TADA
https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/prosecute-sanjay-dutt-under-tada ,
Revoke Bail of Salman Khan
https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/revoke-bail-of-salman-khan ,
Aeroplane Rides for Corrupt Police Corrupt Judges
https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/aeroplane-rides-for-corrupt-police-corrupt-judges ,
Traitors in Judiciary & Police
https://www.scribd.com/document/329980170/Traitors-in-Judiciary-Police ,
Crimes by Khaki
https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/crimes-by-khaki
FIRST Answer Judges Police
https://www.scribd.com/document/336585411/FIRST-Answer-Judges-Police 
Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the cases to perform their duties.
PRAYER:
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants , Government of Karnataka authorities in the case to perform their duties.
b. Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to immediately annul the Jail Manuals of all state governments of india , which are discriminatory.
c. Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to constitute an expert committee to frame a “ Model Jail Manual “ applicable to all Indian states , union territories.
d. Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to initiate legal prosecution of jail personnel , police & judges who failed in their duties to ensure safety of prisoners , resulting in torture of prisoners and for prolonged imprisonment or illegal imprisonment of innocents.
e. Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to order all state governments to ensure food , health care , recreational facilities , parole on an equal footing to all prisoners without discrimination.
f. Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to order respective state governments pay compensation to prisoners for suffering discrimination , torture.
g. Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to order respective state governments pay compensation to prisoners who spent years behind bars , finally acquitted by courts and in the case of prisoners who spent more years in jail than the quantum of punishment codified in IPC due to prolonged case trials. In both such cases afterwards state government must recover money from respective presiding judges , investigation officer & government legal prosecutor.
h . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
Dated : 01st July 2017 …………………. FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.
Place : Mysuru , India…………………….PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

Crimes by policemen, a matter of concern
 
By D V Guruprasad,  , Former DG & IGP Karnataka
 
 
Sometime ago, when Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal made a comment that “policemen are criminals in uniform”, there was outrage in the Delhi Police. A similar comment made earlier by a judge resulted in similar reactions. 

Recent incidents in Bengaluru involving policemen, both serving and retired, in criminal activities makes one feel that may be such comments are not entirely unfounded. In the last week alone, Bengaluru police arrested a retired deputy superintendent of police (DySP) and seven serving policemen on charges of robbing businessmen post demonetisation drive.

Few years ago, some police officers in Mysuru allegedly stopped a bus going to Kerala, detained a passenger and knocked off a huge amount of cash he was carrying. On his complaint, an investigation was conducted and some serving police officers were charged for the crime.

Earlier in the past, crimes alleged against police personnel used to centre around their corrupt activities or custodial violence. We had even heard of cases where stolen property recovered from the accused were misappropriated by unscrupulous police officers. 

However, policemen themselves planning and plotting robberies and dacoities were rare indeed. The fact that such incidents are now occurring frequently indicates that something is seriously wrong. 

There is no easy answer to the question as to why policemen turn criminals. Lure of quick and easy money, constant interaction with criminals and inherent behavioural problems may be cited as some reasons. 

But the larger question is how do such people get into the police force in the first place? Is there no system to screen such people from entering the system? Police recruitment does not have a system of identifying potential wrong doers. 

Usually physical efficiency test, written test and personal interviews are held for selection. Police departments of five states are now incorporating questions related to assessment of a person’s psychological makeup into the written test. 

But potential misfits are not flagged and removed based on their answers. In personal interviews of police sub-inspectors in Karnataka, a psychologist is part of the interview board. But no candidate seems to have been rejected based on the psychologist’s assessment.

Since it is difficult to prevent a person with criminal mind in getting selected into the police wing, it is incumbent upon police top bosses to inculcate values during induction training. While some states have introduced ethics as one of the subjects for police training, many still concentrate on subjects like law and police duties. 

It is also a well-known that police training does not get the importance it deserves. Hence even at this stage, undesirable persons do not usually get weeded out. 

If a person with a criminal mind manages to get selected and gets confirmed in the police force, the only way to make him pursue a path of law is by constant supervision. It is a pity there are no periodical assessments to gauge the mental makeup of a police constable or a sub-inspector. 

The department normally goes by whatever is written by seniors in the Annual Appraisal Reports (ARRs). More often, these reports are written routinely. In the armed forces or in the central police forces, an assessment of a person’s performance and mental makeup is periodically made and black sheep are mercilessly weeded out. 

As per the data of the National Crime Research Bureau (NCRB), the total number of criminal cases registered against policemen were 1,989 in 2013; 2,600 in 2014 and 5,526 in 2015. Of these 5,526 cases, Kerala itself accounted for 3,080 cases, whereas Karnataka reported only 84 cases. Considering that people in general do not make complaints against policemen in India, this figure is alarming. 

Rare punishments
Out of the 5,526 cases, 4,367 cases were charge sheeted and in 1,512 cases police personnel were arrested. However, the total number of police personnel convicted is only 25. These figures indicate that wrongdoers rarely get punished. 

Can such crimes be stopped? The answer is ‘no’. There will be black sheep in the department. However, such crimes can be minimised. 

This can be done by screening the applicants for police jobs by using well established psychometric tests, instilling strong sense of values during training and having periodic refresher training courses, taking strict action including dismissing from the service against those with criminal bent of mind and constantly monitoring the activities of at least those police men who come to adverse notice. 

Whistle blowers in the department need to be encouraged and protected. Efforts should be made to see that those police men charge sheeted for serious crimes do not escape punishment. 

Merely having a Police Complaints Authority in every state does not solve the problem. A system of policing the police needs to be introduced. If police leaders do not sit up and take corrective measures, the situation will go out of hand.
 
 
CRIMINALS IN POLICE UNIFORM
- An appeal to union home minister & Karnataka state home minister


The ABC of police force in India is apathy ,
brutality & corruption . in India, police are not impartially enforcing
law instead are working as hand maidens of rich & mighty. The corrupt
police officers are collecting protection money from criminals ,
collecting money to go slow on investigations , to file B- reports , to
fix innocents in fake cases , to murder innocents in lock-up /
encounters . they are hand in league with land mafia , today C.M of
Karnataka himself issued a warning to police officials about this.
Even in lock-ups , jails, the rich inmates bribe
officials get better food from outside , mobile phones , drugs , drinks
, cigareetes , etc. they get spacious cells & get best private medical
care . where as the poor inmates are even denied food , health care ,
living space as per the provisions of law. The corrupt jail officials
instigate rowdy elements in the jails to assault poor inmates & to toe
their line. More corrupt the police more wealthier he is. Even CBI
officials are no different. The only beacon of hope is still there are
few honest people left in the police force.
Hereby , e-voice urges you to make public the following
information in the interest of justice.

1.how many CBI officials & Karnataka state police officials are facing
charges of corruption , 3rd degree torture , lock-up/encounter deaths
, rapes , fake cases , etc ?

2.how you are monitoring the ever increasing wealth of corrupt police
officials?

3.how many officials from the ranks of constable to DGP have amassed
illegal wealth?

4.what action you have taken in these cases ? have you got
reinvestigated all the cases handled by tainted police?

5.how many policemen have been awarded death penalty & hanged till
death , for cold blooded murders in the form of lock-up deaths /
encounter deaths ?

6.why DGP of Karnataka is not registering my complaint dt 10/12/2004 ,
subsequent police complaints ?
is it because rich & mighty are involved ?

7.e - voice is ready to bring to book corrupt police officials subject to
conditions, are you ready ?

8.how many police personnel are charged with violations of people's
human rights & fundamental rights ?

9.how many STF police deployed to nab veerappan were themselves
charged with theft of forest wealth?

10.how you are ensuring the safety , health , food , living space of
inmates in jails?

11.how you are ensuring the medical care , health of prisoners in
hospitals & mental asylums?

12.How you are ensuring the safety , health , food , living space of
inmates in juvenile homes ?


My 75 days of horror in the hands of Anti-Terror Squad



 
The Milli Gazette23 Oct 2010
 
 

In the police custody of 75 days, I never forget the words of Asstt. Commissioner of Police late Shri Vinod Bhatt, who committed suicide in the second week of August. Before his suicide, during interrogation he told me that he was under immense pressure from his senior officers to implicate us falsely in Mumbai train blast case and he also promised that he will try his best not to implicate all of you innocent people till he is alive.
Here is the story of Ehtesham Qutub in his own words how he was detained and tortured for two and half months by the Mumbai Anti-Terrorism Squad during the 7/11 blast investigations. He is resident of 202, Safiya Manzil, Naya Nagar, Mira Road (E), Distt. Thane, Maharashtra - 401107. He is currently lodged in a Mumbai jail where his address is: UT-1129/10, 2/4 (Anda Cell), Mumbai Central Prison, Arthur Road, Mumbai. According to an estimate around one thousand such Muslim youths are currently lodged in Indian jails on mere suspicion, concocted evidence mainly confessions extratcted through inhuman torture.
My name is Ehtesham Qutubudin Siddiqui, age: 29 years, occupation: Book Publisher. I was born in Uttar Pradesh in a poor family. In the year 1996, I moved to Mumbai for further education. My residential address in Mumbai is 202, Safiya Manzil, Naya Nagar, Mira Road (East), Thane – 401107 Maharashtra. I completed my XII standard through Maharashtra College, Belasis Road, Mumbai Central. I took admission in Narayan Nagu Patil Engineering College, in Pen. Raigad through Mumbai University in Chemical Engineering course in 1998. I used to stay in a hostel near the campus. However, during my vacation and holidays, I used to visit Mira Road which is my residential permanent address.
On 27 September, 2001 while I was travelling from Pen to visit my house, on the way, I thought of visiting a library situated at Feetwala Compound, Kurla (West) Mumbai, for reading some books. That evening around 8:00 pm, some policemen came in the library and took me along with seven other people to Kurla Police Station. They did not tell me the reason for detention, and arrested me under section 10&13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. They informed me that Students Islamic Movement of India has been declared as a banned organisation. They informed me about the offence only after the arrest i.e. when they produced me before Magistrate of Kurla Court. The truth is that I was never associated with any organisation which is mentioned above. The Hon’ble magistrate of Kurla court had released me on bail of Rs. 3000. However the Kurla police, instead of releasing me took me to the police station and put me inside the lock up and said that I have been arrested in another case of the same offence. Kurla police has framed me in false cases which I had nothing to do with, and they have spoilt my reputation in society. In regard to second false case, the police took 15-day custody. After 15 days, I was granted bail of Rs. 8000 security. As it was a conditional bail. I could not continue my studies which resulted in the end of engineering course. After that, I learned Desktop Publishing on my Personal Computer and started a DTP business from my house in Mira Road known as "Graphic Point". In March 2004, I started a publishing company known as "Shahadah Publishing House" publishing Islamic literature and books on general knowledge. In July 2003, I had taken admission in B Sc to complete my graduation through Indira Gandhi National Open University. But due to my arrest and false implication in 11th July 2006, Mumbai serial train blast case my whole career has gone for a toss.
Due to old record in Kurla police station, it had become a regular routine of detaining me. Every time or whenever any incident took place in Mumbai, I was called by police for a formal interrogation. Besides those two false cases registered by Kurla police,. I do not have any other criminal record as I was living a normal life in Mumbai.
On 11 July, 2006, serial bomb blasts took place on Western Railway during peak hours, that time I was at home. When I learned about the blast at Mira Road, I went to the blast site to help the victims. I knew very well that police will come to me for formal enquiry like the regular police routine, that had been a trend since 2001. Hence senior police Inspector namely Murade of Mira Road police station came to my house on 13 July, 2006 in evening time and asked me to come to the police station on the next day. On 14 July, 2006 at 11:00 am, I went to Mira Road police station to meet Sr. PI Murade. He questioned me about my whereabouts and asked me for my phone number, which I gave him (28115084) and left the police station. He also told me that if required for further investigation I will be called.
 
Torture position 1: Hitting the victim by flour mill belt on the inner part of hand, buttock and feet about 200 times per spell leaving part of hand and feet in blue colour with strong pain during torture. Other body parts too were hit by this belt any part of body
On 24 July, 2006, in the morning around 11:00 am, police sub-Inspector Sunil Mane of Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) unit-II, visited my house and asked me to come at Nagpada ATS office, the same day before 3:00 pm. That day I went to Nagpada ATS office at around 2:00 pm. I met PSI Sunil Mane and he told me that senior officials will interrogate me so they will take me to Bhoiwada ATS office. Upon reaching Bhoiwada ATS office, PSI Sunil Mane took me to the second floor in lock up, where he called PI Vilas Joshi, PI Dinesh Ahir, PSI Shailesh Gaekwad and other beating me with belts and sticks and continued beating me till evening. Later they took me from Bhoiwada to Nagpada handcuffed. They did not allow me to inform my parents or any of my relatives. When I was taken from Nagpada to Bhoiwada, before taking me inside the lock up, they emptied my pockets during my physical search. They took away my mobile, ATM card, PAN card and Rs. 25.000 cash, which I was carrying off, with which I wanted to purchase a personal computer. PSI Sunil Mane only made entry of ATM card, PAN card and mobile in panchnama. However they distributed the Rs. 25000 cash among themselves. On 29 July, 2006, when PSI Sunil Mane was prepreparing panchnama, I noticed that he did not mention the Rs. 25.000 cash in the recovery. upon which I asked him about the money. I was surprised by his reply: "bhool ja be tere paise!" (forget your money) 
Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) detained me illegally from 24 July, 2006 to 29 July, 2006, as I was not produced before any Magistrate till 29 July, 2006. During this period ATS officers continued beating me for several hours everyday.
ATS officers had searched my house in my absence, as I was in their custody. They took all the books and literature which was published recently into their custody. ATS officers had taken all valuable things from house, which I saw in ATS office and which included computer, printer, drill machine, tape recorder, Rs. 10.000 cash, blankets etc. ATS officers chose two books namely Jihadi Azkar and Islam ki Rooh-Jihad fi Sabilillah, which described basic fundamentals of Jihad in Islam, and contains verses of Qur’an and saying of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and does not contain any inflammatory material and is easily available in the market. On the basis of these two books they arrested me on 29 July, 2006 and produced me before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai and took me on 15 days police custody u/s 10&13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. I was surprised when charge sheet was filed and one book namely Jihad fi sabilillah-kyon added in recovery which was not at my house. I wanted to tell many things to magistrate about the torture and illegal detention but ATS threatened me not to say anything to magistrate or else they will torture me more severely using third degree torture methods, therefore I could not tell any thing to the magistrate.
 
 
Torture position 2: Giving shock using an electric current machine by making the victim nude. They tie wire on thumbs of legs and private parts of body, then current is passed at regular intervals. 
ATS officer took me to unit-II office and they started beating me, they never told me any thing why they had arrested me but kept beating me. While torturing they used to say that too musalman hai isliye tere ko mar rahe hain (You are Muslim therefore we are thrashing you) with every blow they used to abuse my religion and said tere ko yehan koi nahi bachayega (No one will save you here). On 03 August, 2006 I was cruelly tortured by PSI Shailesh Gaekwad, PSI Sunil Mane and PI Vilas Joshi and asked me to accept the said crime of bomb blast in front of senior officials of ATS because of the torture I agreed to do whatever the ATS officers told me to do. After which they took me to ATS head office, where ATS Chief KP Raghuvanshi and DCP Naval Bajaj were seated in the office. There in front of these senior officers I complained about the torture that PSI Shailesh Gaekwad, PSI Sunil Mane and PI Vilas Joshi had done, and I also told ATS chief KP Raghuvanshi, that I am innocent and they are trying to involve me in the blast case. But to my surprise KP Raghuvanshi slapped me and told the officers that this torture was not enough and asked them to take me to Bhoiwada and beat me black and blue. I completely lost faith in the senior-most officers as well as junior officers because this fraud of framing innocent people was ordered by senior officers of ATS including ATS chief. That on next day i.e. on 05 August, 2006 an officer namely PI Sunil Deshmukh took me to Chandan Chowki at Juhu where the officers conducted Narco analysis test which was illegal and without permission of court, and the officers from Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai were also present there. Before taking me to Chandan Chowki, I was taken for medical check up at KEM Hospital, where I had complained about the torture, the medical officer present there referred to get x-ray and gave some medicines. However the medical reports were false and no report of torture was registered. After the illegal Narco test DCP Naval Bajaj told me that, I confirm that you are innocent and we will transfer you to judicial custody on 12 August, 2006. However the next day I was taken to Nagpada unit-II by PI Dinesh Ahir, and upon reaching there he along with other officers tortured me and also gave electric shock on my private parts. After torturing me for ten hours they left me back to Bhoiwada lock up.
 
 
Torture position 3: After removing clothes, the victim is made to sit on floor with both hands tied behind by rope; thereafter both legs are stretched in opposite direction making 180 deg. angle. 
On 12 August, 2006, ATS officers arrested me in Mumbai train serial blast case and took on police custody for two days. ATS officers told me that I will be sent to Judicial custody on 14 August, 2006. However on 14 August, 2006, they took police custody upto 25 August, 2006. On the same day I was taken to Kurla in Vijay Salaskar’s anti-Robbery Squad office which is also a torture room. There the officers beat me with belt and stick and then they handcuffed me to the window and did not allow me to sleep and I remained standing whole night.The same night ie. in the night of 59th anniversary of Independence day, horrifying torture were carried out by Vijay Salaskar’s men on the family members of an accused namely Faisal Shaikh, who is under arrest in the Mumbai train serial blast case. These tortures are a great shame for nation as our country became Independent on the ideology of "ahinsa" propounded by father of nation Mahatma Gandhi. In front of us Vijay Salaskar’s men had removed the dress of 75 year old Faisal’s father and beat him with belt. They also insulted the modesty of woman by uncovering the face of wife of Faisal’s brother, which was covered by veil.
On 21 August, 2006, PI Vilas Joshi, API Survey of Nagpada unit took me to Ujjain by train. There ATS officer showed me a hut 20 km away from Ujjain city. After that they told me that now you had attended a meeting held in 1st week of July at the said place. I was stunned and surprised because they falsely implicated me in the said meeting. On 24 August, 2006, I was taken back to Bhoiwada lock up.
On 25 August, 2006, I was produced before Hon’ble Judge of Mazgaon Court and ATS again took me in police custody till 08 September, 2006 in another case of Mumbai serial train blast registered by Andheri Railway Police Station. ATS officers did not allow me to sleep for six consecutive days. During this period an officer from Ahmadabad, Gujarat namely DG Vanzara also interrogated me and also abused and tortured me. He said that you are in Mumbai that is why you are alive, if you were arrested in Gujarat, I would have done your encounter. DG Vanzara told Naval Bajaj that the arrested accused are Muslims, therefore implicate them in the blast case to avoid public reaction and pressure from the government, and if required shoot any of them and show that they were trying to escape from custody.
 
 
Torture position 4: Victim is tied to a chair so that he is unable to move his head in any direction; water is dropped slowly on his scalp for hours causing very strong pain in neck and head. 
On 05 September, 2006, I was taken to ATS Head Office, where police commissioner AN Roy, ATS chief KP Raghuvanshi, Adl. CP SK Jaisawal, Jaijeet Singh were present. However Jaijeet Singh and SK Jaisawal left the room. KP Raghuvanshi told me that "we are not able to find the real culprits and were are planning to frame up the case because government is pressurising us to implicate the arrested accused and finish the case, and also told me that "we will make you an approver in the case and you will be released after some months". He also offered me Rs. 25 lakhs for becoming an approver. I refused and told him that I am innocent and there is no question of confessing the crime or turning into an approver. The next day I was taken to Bangalore to conduct Brain mapping test, polygraph test and Narco analysis test. PI Raja Mandge and PI Prasad Khandekar took me along with them to Bangalore through Jet Airways. In Bangalore I was taken to Forensic Science Laboratory, where brain mapping and polygraph test was conducted by Dr S Malini. Next day I was taken to Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital for the Narco analysis test. After conducting this test I was brought back to Mumbai on 08 September, 2006. While returning to Mumbai API Shelke told me in the plane that the test confirms that I am innocent and will be released shortly. However ATS officers produced me before the court and took me in police custody till 14 September, 2006, and arrested me in another case of Mumbai train serial blast registered by Bandra Railway Police Station. On 10 September, I was again taken to Bangalore for another Narco analysis test. The Narco test was conducted on 12 September by Dr S Malini. During the test, I was conscious and understood all the questions asked by Dr S Malina and answer given by me. The next day i.e. on 13 September, 2006, I was brought to Mumbai by another officer PI Prasad Khandekar and was taken to Nagpada ATS head office and produced before KP Raghuvanshi who told me that I have taken lot of rest and now it is time to break your bones. If you want to save yourself then do as directed and become an approver. I declined his offer saying that I am innocent and you all are trying to frame me in an offence which I have nothing to do with. This infuriated him and he told to PI Tajne to take me to Kalachowki police station and beat me till I obey them. PI Tajne took me to Kalachowki police station, there officers including Adl. CP Jaijeet Singh, DCP Naval Bajaj, ACP Sadashiv Laxman Patil PI Raja Mandge, Tajne, Khanwilkar and other constables started beating me using third degree torture methods. During the torture ATS officer showed me an edited CD of the Narco test. When I told them that the CD was edited, they started beating me mercilessly and asked me to act according to their wish. The series of tortur continued till 18 September, 2006, and on the same day PI Khanwilkar talked to me in private and said that he will request to the police commissioner AN Roy for my judicial custody on 22 September, 2006 and after one month I will be discharged from this case. However, when I was produced in court on 22 September, 2006, PI Khanwilkar told me that the senior officers have planned to falsely implicate you people in this case, but also said that do not worry as ATS have no proof of your involvement in this case and you will be discharged or acquitted from this case in about two years.
On 24 September, 2006, ATS officers again took me to Bangalore for Narco analysis test and I understood that the frequency of conducting so many Narco test was only to convince the senior officials of the government. From the Narco test ATS officers wanted some specific word from the accused persons which would incriminate them in this case and they wanted the Narco test video CD edited in a proper manner, which they did with the help of Dr S Malini, who conducted the Narco test thrice on me and other co-accused persons. Dr S Malini is also involved along with the ATS officers in this fraud. On 27 September, 2006, I was brought back to Mumbai on 28 September, 2006, I was produced before Hon’ble special judge Shri Abhay Thipsay in Sewri Session Court and ATS took my police custody under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 1999 till 09 October, 2006.
On 29 September, 2006, I was tortured continuously for five hours using third degree methods by PSI Sachin Kadam, later I was produced before police commissioner AN Roy and ATS chief KP Raghuvanshi. Both the senior officers laughed at me and KP Raghuvanshi told me that I have been implicated in the blast case and forget about India being a democratic country. India is a Hindu rashtra and there is no place for Muslims in India. Muslims in India are only for jail and encounter. Now the only way to protect yourself from long imprisonment is that you become an approver in this case. I refused to become an approver and told them that the method to save myself was that you people catch the real culprits and release the innocent people. On this AN Roy told me that I have pressure from the home minister of India and home minister of state, and we are unable to do anything besides framing the case on you people and fabricating evidence against you people because I have to answer my seniors also. After this AN Roy told me that tomorrow we are calling a press conference and you all will be famous as terrorists.
On 03 October, 2006, DCP Naval Bajaj came to meet me in Bhoiwada lock up. He was convincing me to sign on some blank paper and some paper with written material, but I did not sign on any of the papers. He abused me and said that I was very stubborn and would not obey without being tortured. After that I was taken to Kalachowki police station for torture.
On 06 October, 2006, PI Tajne produced me before DCP Dattaray Karale of zone IV, where the DCP asked my name and lodged me in Matunga General lock up for 22 hours. During this time PI Tajne and API Deore tortured me in Matunga lock up and threatened me to sign on the papers given to me on next day. Then next day I was taken to the office of DCP Dattararay Karale, where he forced me to sign on some papers, with written material on it. PI Tajne and API Deore were also present in DCP’s cabin. I did not sign the papers voluntarily but upon police pressure and threats I did. Later I was produced before chief metropolitan magistrate SS Shirke. The magistrate asked my name and date of first arrest in front of ATS officers. I did not understand what was going on, then I was sent back to Bhoiwada lock up. On 08 October, 2006, one of the ATS offices told me that the papers which I had signed was my confession, which I was not aware of till this ATS officer informed me. On 09 October, 2006, I retracted my "confession", which is false and fabricated, before Hon’ble special judge Mridulla Bhatkar, and on the same day I was remanded to judicial custody.
 
 
Torture position 5: Victim is tied upside down, both legs and hands also are tied by rope, then water is poured into his nose at regular intervals for about one hour
In the police custody of 75 days, I never forgot the words of Asstt. Commissioner of Police late Shri Vinod Bhatt, who committed suicide in the second week of August. Before his suicide, during interrogation he told me that he was under immense pressure from his senior officers to implicate us falsely in Mumbai train blast case and he also promised that he will try his best not to implicate all of you innocent people till he is alive. Unfortunately Shri Vinod Bhatt committed suicide under tremendous pressure.
In the 75 days long period, police custody, ATS officers used third degree method for torture. The third degree torture methods which were used by ATS officers on me are as follows:
ATS officers used belt, which is used in flour mill, to beat us. They strike on the inner part of hand and feet about 200 times per spell leaving part of hand and feet in blue colour with strong pain during torture. After beating the parts of hands and feet become swollen. Medical officer of KEM Hospital supported ATS by not examining properly. ATS also used this belt to torture us also on any part of body, even on buttock also, due to this torture I cannot sit properly.
ATS officers gave me shock using an electric current machine by making me nude. They used to tie wire on thumbs of legs and private parts of body. After that they pass the current at regular intervals. ATS used this method of torture four times on me during police custody.
After removing my clothes, I was made to sit down on floor, both hands tied by rope behind the body, thereafter my both legs stretched in opposite direction making 180 degree angle. This torture method was repeated many times. During the period of custody they stretched my legs five times.
ATS officers tied me on a chair, which is kept very close to wall, they tied my head in a way that I cannot move my head anywhere in any direction. Then they dropped the water drop-by drop on my scalp upto eight hours. Due to this torture very strong pain occurred in neck and head.
They used to tie me upside down (i.e. in reverse position) and my both legs and hands also tied by rope, then they used to pour water in my nose at regular intervals about one hour, they used this technique of torture on me 3 times.
ATS officers threatened me that my family members also will be arrested in this case or brought by ATS and they will be molested, if I do not sign on confessional statement. They used the example of the family of my co-accused Faisal Shaikh, who was molested by Vijay Salaskar team in front of me.
ATS officers, including senior officers of IPS rank police commissioner AN Roy and ATS chief KP Raghunvanshi had given huge amount of cash after release, and also given the inducement of settlement anywhere in the world. These officers also promised many times to discharge me from the case if I became an approver.
I, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, solemnly affirm that whatever has been stated here above is true and correct as per my knowledge and belief. 


Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @  # LIG-2   No  761, HUDCO  FIRST  STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL
,MYSURU – 570017  KARNATAKA  INDIA     Cell : 91 8970318202
  WhatsApp  91  8970318202

Home page :
http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in     
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com       

Contact  :  editor@dalitonline.in , 
 editor.dalitonline@gmail.com   



Share
No comments:
Post a Comment
Home
View web version
About Me
 
Dalit-Online
View my complete profile
Powered by Blogger.

Reliance Jio Illegal


Dalit-Online

License to Reliance Jio illegal ?
Dalit-Online
Weekly e news paper
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.16.....Issue.62.............12/07/2020

PIL -  Reliance Group Scams

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/pil---reliance-scams  

License to Reliance Jio  Illegal?
A Call for Review: Supreme Court’s Decision on Reliance Jio Perspectives

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta

The Supreme Court has ignored evidence of apparent forgery and auction-rigging while dismissing a petition seeking to quash the government's decision permitting Reliance Jio to provide voice telephone services over fourth-generation spectrum. The company, headed by India's richest man, has also failed to meet its roll-out obligations. The apex court should review its decision.

The writer acknowledges research and writing assistance by Abir Dasgupta, Honi Joshi, Natasha Bhide and Mugdha Kinjawadekar.

The 8 April decision of the Supreme Court to dismiss a petition (Business Today 2016) questioning the manner in which Reliance Jio (RJio) obtained a licence to provide a range of mobile voice services ignores evidence relating to criminal forgery of a bank document and rigging of auction procedures (Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India 2016). The country’s highest court also chose not to take into account the failure of the company, headed by India’s richest man Mukesh Ambani and which has reportedly invested a huge ₹1,50,000 crore in this venture, to adhere to contractual obligations relating to rolling out its services (DNA 2016). The verdict by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justices A K Sikri and R Banumathi needs review given the information that is now available in the public domain.

A public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan in May 2014 had argued that a kind of spectrum called broadband wireless access spectrum was acquired by RJio in 2010 using questionable means, by allegedly rigging the auction for it and by using a front company. The petition also argued that RJio had acquired a licence in March 2013 to offer voice telephony using the spectrum it had won in the 2010 auction without paying the amount it should have. Bhushan also requested an order from the Supreme Court directing the Department of Telecommunications (DOT), which is under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, to levy on RJio spectrum usage charges (SUC) at par with other operators providing voice telephony. Finally, the petition also sought a court monitored investigation into the decision of the government to grant the licence to RJio.

Incidentally, a draft report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, a constitutional authority mandated to oversee public finances, had found that a so-called front company, Infotel Broadband Services Private Limited (IBSPL), that had won the spectrum in the auction and which had subsequently been acquired by RJio, had used a forged document, a bank guarantee given by Axis Bank (BGR 2014; Majumdar 2014; Guha Thakurta 2016a). That is a criminal offence. However, the Supreme Court did not consider this as evidence of the auction being rigged and stated that it was “unnecessary to delve into” the subject as the bench felt that the auction of spectrum was not the subject matter of the dispute and was never questioned by anybody.

The Supreme Court bench disregarded CAG’s claims that the amount paid by RJio for its licence was much lower than what it should have been and declared that the grant of the licence was valid and legal. The Court held that CAG committed an error in forming its opinion though the bench heard neither the CAG nor the Director General of Audit (Post and Telecommunication) who prepared the draft audit report. On the issue of the company paying a lower SUC leading to loss of revenue to the exchequer, the Court chose not to act and instead left the matter to the government (in this case, the DOT).

The Background

Mobile phones communicate with one another by using electromagnetic waves of radio frequencies (RF) that lie in the range of 3 kHz (kilohertz) to 300 GHz (gigahertz). Mobile service providers (MSPs), such as Bharti Airtel and Vodafone, build and maintain networks through which these electromagnetic waves travel. To do this, they are allocated specific blocks of frequencies (ranging in size from 5 MHz (megahertz) to 20 MHz typically) in the RF range by the government (that is, the DoT) within which they are permitted to operate. This allocation of spectrum takes place by means of a public auction where competing MSPs bid for the rights to control frequency blocks. Batches of spectrum, that is, previously unallocated frequency ranges (as and when these become available) are periodically auctioned by the DOT which sets rules and conditions for the use of spectrum.

The country is divided into 22 administrative areas known as “telecom circles” or “service areas.” These include circles in three metropolitan areas—Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata—besides larger states (that are circles on their own) and groups of small states clubbed together into single circles. The spectrum blocks that are sold to MSPs are sold separately for each circle. For a company to provide pan-India services, it needs to buy spectrum blocks in each of the 22 circles.

On 25 February 2010, the DoT announced an auction of spectrum for MSPs to provide services using third and fourth generation (3G and 4G) technologies. The notice inviting applications (NIA) which announced the auction offered three or four blocks in each circle (depending on availability) for 3G services and two blocks in each circle for 4G services for MSPs to bid on. The 3G blocks were in the 2.1 MHz band and the 4G blocks were in the 2.3 MHz band of spectrum. The 3G blocks came in the form of two units of 5 MHz in each block, one unit for the “uplink” (the connection from a phone to a server) and the other unit for the “downlink” (the reverse connection from a server to a phone). The deployment of 3G technology demanded this kind of separation of the frequencies used for connections in opposite directions. The 3G blocks were priced at a “reserve price,” a minimum price that the government had determined, of ₹3,500 crore. The 4G blocks came in the form of single units of unpaired 20 MHz in each block, since 4G technology permits connections in both directions to take place in the same frequency range. The reserve price for each of the 4G blocks was ₹1,750 crore.

The NIA specified the criteria that would make a company eligible to participate in the auction. At that time, telecom companies operating in India could get three kinds of licences, each permitting a different kind of activity. A Cellular Mobile Telephone Services (CMTS) licence permitted a company to offer voice calls—the usual variety of mobile phone calls and text messaging. An internet service provider (ISP) licence permitted a company to provide internet services, both wireless and through fixed lines. A Unified Access Services (UAS) licence combined the possibilities of the CMTS/ISP licences, permitting the company to offer both voice calls as well as internet services. Under the terms of the NIA, a company holding any of these three kinds of licences could participate in the auction. Companies that did not hold any of these licences but committed themselves to obtain the necessary licences after the auction could also participate. Even foreign companies that were willing to incorporate Indian subsidiaries after the auction were allowed to participate.

The NIA also specified what the spectrum that was being sold could be used for. The 3G spectrum could be used for any purpose—voice calls or internet (mobile data)/videos. The 4G spectrum of a type known as broadband wireless access (BWA) could only be used for providing mobile data/videos.

The BWA/4G auction took place in May–June 2010. With virtually every Indian ISP being permitted to bid, a small and unheard-of company called IBSPL turned out to be the big winner of the 4G auction, successfully bidding for one block in each of the 22 telecom circles. For this, it bid a total amount of ₹12,847.44 crore. The remaining blocks were shared between five Indian/foreign companies—Bharti Airtel (four circles), Aircel (eight circles), Qualcomm (four circles), Tikona (five circles) and Augere (one circle). Immediately after the auction, IBSPL was sold to Reliance, and three years later it was renamed Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited. Evidence in the public domain suggested that IBSPL had apparently forged a crucial bank document to participate in the auction, that the BWA/4G auction was allegedly rigged, and that IBSPL acted as a front company for Reliance Industries Limited, the single biggest private corporate entity in the country.

What Was IBSPL?

IBSPL, incorporated in February 2007 and granted a pan-India ISP licence in November 2007, was ranked 150th in the list of ISPs by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) at the time of the auction. It had a paid-up capital—the amount of the company’s capital that had been funded by its shareholders—of ₹2.51 crore, a net worth of ₹2.49 crore, and just a single leased line client from which it earned ₹14.78 lakh. It had no more than ₹18 lakh in the bank, of which ₹11 lakh had been paid to banks for a “bank guarantee”—a security of sorts—that it had deposited with the DoT for the grant of its ISP licence (Guha Thakurta 2015; Guha Thakurta and Ghatak 2016).

The company that promoted IBSPL, Infotel Digicom Private Limited (IDPL), had an equity capital of ₹6 lakh and a net worth of ₹8.55 lakh at the end of the financial year 2008–09. IDPL held no fixed assets and earned revenue of ₹2.59 crore primarily in the form of “other income” and made a net profit of ₹42.80 lakh in 2009–10. According to IDPL’s audited accounts, it gave 100% margin money in the form of a fixed deposit of ₹25 lakh as security against issuance of a bank guarantee for ₹25 lakh as of 31 March 2010 (Guha Thakurta and Ghatak 2016).

IDPL was promoted by Anant Nahata—the son of Mahendra Nahata, who is the promotor of Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited (HFCL), a manufacturer of telecom products and provider of telecom services. HFCL had first been noticed in 1995 when it had bid a staggering sum of ₹85,000 crore to provide second generation (2G) mobile services in nine circles. At the time, it had failed to deposit the amount. Interestingly, HFCL also came in the limelight in 2011 when it was alleged that Datacom, a company owned jointly by Videocon and HFCL had been one of the prime beneficiaries of what has come to be known as the 2G scam—the allotment of 2G spectrum during the period when the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s Andimuthu Raja was the union communications minister (Guha Thakurta 2015)

Forgery in Bank Guarantee?

To participate in the auction, the DoT needed all aspiring companies to deposit a sum of money known as an “earnest money deposit” to demonstrate their commitment to bidding in the auction. This amount was set at ₹252.5 crore for pan-India spectrum. Despite its lack of financial muscle, IBSPL was able to furnish the required amount. It did so in the form of a bank guarantee from Axis Bank of the same amount (Jain 2015).

A draft report of the CAG which leaked to the media in July 2014 had examined the bank guarantee that IBSPL had submitted and found that it seemed to have been tampered with (see scanned extracts from draft report and the copy of the bank guarantee). The name of the beneficiary—that is, IBSPL—had been written by hand in ink on the body of the bank guarantee document after erasing the name of the actual beneficiary that was written earlier. This could have attracted criminal prosecution. The draft report also pointed out that no disclosure had been made of any margin money paid for the bank guarantee in IBSPL’s accounts for 2008–09 and 2009–10. All the evidence pointed to the bank guarantee having been facilitated by another company, a fact that IBSPL failed to disclose. This detail was omitted from the final version of the CAG report (2015) that was tabled in Parliament on 8 May 2015 (Guha Thakurta 2015).

Scanned Extracts from Draft CAG Report





Rigged Auction

This questionable bank guarantee was sufficient for IBSPL, a tiny ISP, to participate in the auction. And it thoroughly dominated the final auction. The auction was conducted electronically over 16 days beginning 24 May 2010, and at the end IBSPL acquired 20 MHz BWA spectrum for all 22 telecom circles in India at a final price of ₹12,847.44 crore, 5,000 times its net worth. Major players such as Anil Ambani’s Reliance Communications, Tata Communications (both participating in the auction through sponsored subsidiaries), Vodafone Essar and Idea had all dropped out of the auction midway apparently due to the high prices (Guha Thakurta 2015).

IBSPL, with its negligible net worth, was allowed to proceed by the government even as the bid amounts rose. There was no intervention to investigate or to stop the auction by either the auctioneer or DoT or an inter-ministerial committee (IMC), comprising officials from other government departments such as the Departments of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Information Technology, and Economic Affairs in the Ministry of Finance, which had been set up to monitor the auctions (Guha Thakurta 2015).

The BWA/4G auction ended on 11 June 2010 after 117 rounds of bidding. The provisional results recommended by the IMC were to be approved by a committee of secretaries to the Government of India headed by the cabinet secretary and including the finance secretary, the secretary to the now-defunct Planning Commission and the secretary of the DoT. The provisional results were declared, however, on the afternoon of 11 June with the approval of the IMC, indicating IBSPL as the winner. The final CAG report detailed how when the committee of secretaries met on 12 June to consider the IMC’s recommendations for approval of the provisional results, it was informed that the “auctioneer was satisfied with the conduct of the auction process.” The IMC reiterated that “the electronic auction system was not compromised from both security and competition aspects and there was no indication of any collusive and coordinated bidding” (Guha Thakurta 2015).

An independent analysis of the 3G and BWA auction which is available with this author revealed the highly aggressive bidding behaviour of IBSPL which should have raised multiple red flags with the IMC. Figure 1 (p 35) depicts the 3G auction in which IBSPL did not take part and the blocks up for grabs were shared between companies that had made full disclosures and is representative of a fair and transparently conducted auction.

Figure 1: Service Areas Won in the 3G Auction






Here, Reliance Communications, Bharti Airtel, Aircel and Idea bid on blocks in all the service areas and each won a certain share. When the bids for the blocks won are scrutinised, it reveals that each company focused on specific areas where it could reasonably expect market conditions to be such that introducing 3G services made financial sense. This is also reflected in the eligibility points that each company held over the course of the auction.

Eligibility points are a mechanism for monitoring the bids of different parties in an auction. Each starts off with a certain number which determines how many blocks it is eligible to bid for. As bids are made over several rounds of the auction, the bidders begin to lose eligibility points if they do not bid for all the possible blocks. The auction procedures require that a certain level of eligibility points be maintained in the early stages of the auction, after which companies can focus on the blocks they intend to win. As their focus on certain areas increased, their bidding for other areas dropped off and thus their eligibility points also dropped. This aspect is depicted in Figure 2 (p 36).

Figure 2: Eligibility Points of the Bidders in the 3G Auction



4G/BWA Spectrum Auction

Despite its low net worth, IBSPL was the only company which bid the reserve price of ₹ 1,750 crore for each and every service area in the first round of bidding on the first day of the BWA auction. It was the provisional winner, ranked first, in almost every round of bidding in all service areas. Despite being the smallest of the eight bidders which started the auction with 350 eligibility points in the first round, it was the only bidder that ended with all 350 points in the final round. It even surpassed the bidding requirements specified by the auctioneer, maintaining 100% bidding activity across all rounds surpassing the required 80–90% prescribed for the first 81 rounds. It was the only bidder that raised a bid or maintained the bid of the previous round in 2,564 rounds (99.61%) of the 2,584 rounds of the auction. Its closest competitor, Aircel, by way of contrast, bid only during 607 rounds (24%), followed by Bharti Airtel (579 rounds) and Qualcomm (538 rounds). IBSPL was ranked second only in one round, and did not bid in eight. The daily bids are summarised in Table 1 (p 37). At the end, IBSPL ended up winning blocks in every service area (Figure 3, p 36).



Figure 3: Service Areas Won in the BWA/4G Auction



Tellingly, whereas larger bidders like Bharti Airtel, Aircel and Qualcomm concentrated their bids largely in Category ‘A’ service areas in the large metropolitan cities, keeping in mind higher per capita incomes, higher literacy rates and other factors that indicated the likelihood of the area being a good market for 4G data services, IBSPL bid equally without discrimination on all categories of service areas including Categories ‘B’ and ‘C’ areas which were semi-urban and rural areas with much lower smartphone ownership and internet penetration. These reflect in the trend of eligibility points that each company held as the bidding proceeded (Figure 4, p 38).

Figure 4: Eligibility Points for Bidders in the BWA/4G Auction



For a company like IBSPL with no apparent known sources of finance, these astronomical bids showed clearly that it had some kind of financial backing that it had not declared. The IMC was supposedly monitoring the auction and producing a daily report. How a small company was able to bid huge amounts unnoticed is a mystery that the auctioneers and members of the IMC must uncloak.

On 11 June 2010, while the day’s auction ended in the forenoon, IBSPL called an extraordinary general meeting of its shareholders at short notice, where it raised its authorised share capital 2,000 times, from ₹3 crore to ₹6,000 crore, by issuing 75% of its shares to Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), a listed company and India’s single biggest private corporate entity, making itself a subsidiary of the latter. These events took place in full public view. On 10 June, a front-page report in the Economic Times mentioned that IBSPL could be taken over by RIL, with all-India 4G spectrum prices touching ₹12,257 crore (Guha Thakurta and Ghatak 2016). The draft CAG report found that this disclosure had an immediate impact on the auction process as Bharti Airtel, which was fiercely competing with IBSPL and Qualcomm for blocks in the Delhi and Mumbai metropolitan circles, withdrew from the auction within hours.

The draft CAG report noted that Anant Nahata had confirmed on television on 11 June that talks were on with the Reliance group since the start of the BWA auction. Six days later, on 17 June IBSPL authorised its board of directors to allot 4.75 billion equity shares of ₹10 each to RIL and 250 million shares to IDPL, totaling ₹5,000 crore. RIL now owned 95% of the company with 5% held by IDPL. On 19 June, IBSPL ceased to be a private limited company and became a public limited company. All this was done before IBSPL’s memorandum of association—a document that governs the relationship of the company with external entities—was altered and the increase in its authorised share capital recorded by the Registrar of Companies in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. On 22 June 2010, IBSPL paid the staggering bid amount. On 22 January 2013, it was renamed Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited. Mahendra Nahata was made a director in RJio (Guha Thakurta 2015).

The draft CAG report had some sharp observations to make. It noted that IBSPL had not declared its relationship with RIL as an associate or partner in its application for participating in the auction for 4G spectrum when details of all applications were disclosed on the website of the DoT on 6 April 2010. This non-disclosure, the CAG argued, deprived IBSPL’s competitors of their right to know about the financial status of all bidders in the auction and violated the transparency and sanctity of the auction. The CAG report held that IBSPL violated the confidentiality clause of the auction rules by leaking the information of their continued participation in the auction on the 15th day of the auction to the media. Further, the draft report indicted the DoT as “[having] failed to recognise the tell-tale sign[s] of rigging of the auction right from [the] beginning of the auction” in which a small ISP emerged as the winner by bidding 5,000 times of its net worth. It recommended that “[t]he government should get the matter investigated even at this juncture, fix responsibilities on the bidders which violated the auction conditions/rules prescribed and cancel the allotment of the BWA spectrum along with exemplary punishment on the colluding firms.” None of these observations of the CAG found their way to its final report (Guha Thakurta 2015).

From 4G Broadband to Voice Services

In 2011, after the auction, IBSPL, now owned by RIL, applied to DoT for a “mobile country code” and a “mobile network code” that would enable it to set up a “public land mobile network.” This would permit it to provide landline and mobile voice services (Guha Thakurta 2016b).

The DoT had considered the issue first in July 2008. It had then held that in case prospective BWA spectrum holders applied to the government to acquire licences permitting them to provide voice services in addition to data services, their request may be considered if they paid the same price that the successful bidder in the 3G auction paid. They clarified again in 2010 that voice services were only permitted using 2G and 3G spectrum (Guha Thakurta 2016b). The TRAI had recommended that while 3G spectrum was meant for both voice calls as well as data services, 4G spectrum, or BWA spectrum, was meant for faster diffusion of broadband and data services only. These were the conditions that were known to the bidders at the time of the auction, and their bids were prepared accordingly (Guha Thakurta 2016b).

So when IBSPL/Reliance said that it wanted the BWA spectrum to provide data services on a technological platform called long-term evolution or LTE, a 4G technology that was developed by the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), a global industry trade group, this was objected to by the technical wing of the DoT, the Telecommunication Engineering Centre in March 2012, on the grounds that “the capabilities of LTE technology are much wider in scope than what is permitted in the ISP license and since LTE is a technology which can be used for providing full-fledged mobile services along with high speed data services, it is possible for an ISP licensee to use LTE for both internet services as well as full-fledged mobile services.” It reminded the DoT that “currently full mobile services are provided under UAS license only” and recommended that the issue needed further examination (qtd in Guha Thakurta 2015).

Thereafter, various committees were set up to examine the issue. In April 2012, at the request of the DoT, the TRAI furnished guidelines on changing the licensing framework and replacing it with a new unified licence (UL) regime, which would facilitate the migration of internet service providers into full service operators offering voice services. The TRAI guidelines were deliberated upon by a DoT committee and subsequently by the Telecom Commission (Guha Thakurta 2016b).

In August 2012, another DoT committee held that spectrum sold in 2010 was not a “liberalised” spectrum—wherein the terms of the licence do not require that the frequencies be used for a specific service or technology—and argued that had the spectrum blocks been specified and declared as liberalised spectrum blocks in the NIA, the bidders would have taken “informed” decisions while placing bids during the auction and the “market discovered price” might well have been different. In earlier telecom regimes, the DoT would specify the purpose for which spectrum could be used, for instance, voice or data or both, etc (Guha Thakurta 2016b).

Essentially, the committee was arguing that had it been known that those using 4G/BWA spectrum would be allowed to provide voice services, the bidders would have bid for spectrum based on a different set of commercial criteria. In essence, all bidders would have known in advance that the 4G/BWA spectrum could be used for both data and voice, and not data alone, and the playing field would have been level (Guha Thakurta 2016b).

In September 2012, the Telecom Commission decided that, given the complexities of the UL regime, further analysis and deliberations were required. It was felt that there were serious implications in implementing the TRAI’s recommendations on the UL regime for new entrants as well as for existing licensees providing various services. Yet another committee of the DoT was constituted in September 2012 to examine the issue and suggest the way forward. Till January 2013, this committee failed to decide on this issue. On 25 January 2013, this committee was expanded by including all the full-time members of the Telecom Commission, including the secretary of the DOT, and other technocrats (Guha Thakurta 2016b).

In February 2013, this committee approved the conversion of ISP licences to the new UL. Reliance Jio (as IBSPL had been renamed by then) was the first to take advantage of this decision. The company paid an “entry fee” of ₹15 crore and a “migration fee” of ₹1,658 crore in August 2013 and was granted a UL on 21 October 2013, formally authorising it to provide voice services (Guha Thakurta 2016b).

According to the CAG, the fee of ₹1,658 crore was decided upon in 2001 and this price did not reflect the “present value” of the spectrum in August 2013. Taking into account the rate of inflation between 2001 and 2013, the value of the licence would have been, the report estimated, at least ₹5,025 crore. This meant that RJio got an “undue advantage” of ₹3,367.29 crore since the price at which Reliance migrated did not factor in changes in the value of the spectrum over a period of 12 years (Guha Thakurta 2015).

During the 2010 auctions, the UAS/CMTS licensees had paid ₹1,658 crore as an entry fee, while the ISP licensees had paid only ₹30 lakh. Between 2001, when the price had been decided upon, and 2013, when Reliance paid the entry fee, the market conditions had changed drastically. But the price was not modified to reflect the present value. DoT’s permission had allowed ISP licensees holding 20 MHz BWA spectrum to offer pan-India voice services by paying the incremental entry fee of ₹1,658 crore, a fraction of the market price of the same quantity of 3G/2G spectrum.

According to the draft CAG report, the difference between the proportionate prices would have amounted to ₹20,653 crore on the basis of the 2010 auction price. Add to that the net present value of the entry fee for UAS licensees at the end of financial year 2009–10, that is (₹3,847 crore minus ₹1,658 crore), and the figure would increase to ₹22,842 crore. Thus, the alleged “undue benefits” were calculated to be ₹22,842 crore. The final report of the CAG presented in Parliament on 8 May 2015 omitted any reference to the above calculation but it reiterated that loopholes were never plugged by the DoT. When the deputy CAG Suman Saxena was asked about the changes at a press conference following the tabling of the report, she refused to provide a clear answer, merely stating “a draft is a draft” (Guha Thakurta 2016b).

Interestingly the issue of a unified licence was first considered by the TRAI in October 2003. UAS licences had been issued in November 2003 on migration of/from existing CMTS licences. UAS operators were free to provide, within their area of operation, services which cover collection, carriage, transmission and delivery of voice and/or non-voice messages over the licensee’s network by deploying circuit and/or packet switched equipment. It had been recommended by the TRAI in January 2005 that all existing licensees should migrate to UL in the next six months. However, these recommendations were not accepted and acted upon.

In the last three years, Reliance Jio has been the only 4G spectrum holding ISP which has voluntarily opted for migration to the UL regime. No other BWA spectrum holding ISP migrated to the UL, as per the list of UL licensees available on the DoT website as on 18 March 2016. Other telecom operators opted for the UL only when it was made compulsory.

Roll-out Obligations

Every MSP has to pay a fee known as SUC annually, over and above spectrum auction fee, to the government for the spectrum they utilise to provide their services. These are calculated as a percentage of the company’s adjusted gross revenue (AGR). The AGR is the total revenue received after any allowed deductions or allowances. In its final report, the CAG had alluded to the liberal roll-out obligations of five years that had been a part of the NIA. Under its terms, the winner of the BWA spectrum had to ensure that at least half the rural short distance charging areas (these are units that the large telecom circles are further divided into) had to be covered within five years of the effective date of grant of the spectrum. Coverage of an area would mean at least 90% of the area would get the required street level coverage. To incentivise the roll-out in rural areas, the SUC for use of BWA spectrum were kept low. However, the TRAI also felt in 2008 that if annual fees for BWA spectrum were lower than the slabs defined for the cellular telephony spectrum, it would open the possibility of arbitrage. This was a concern because using BWA technologies, cellular operators could offer VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) services on a mobile platform and pay less in spectrum use fees. It would then be difficult to segregate the subscribers making the collection of fees on cellular telephony even more complicated than it already is.

Keeping these concerns in mind, TRAI had also felt that the BWA operators should pay the same AGR share as the cellular operators. In order to lessen the burden on rural subscribers TRAI however recommended that the DoT should not charge an annual spectrum fee for the first year of operation of the BWA network. After this one year, it recommended charging an annual fee of 1% of AGR, which was to be added to the applicable slot of spectrum fees that the operator was already paying. The DoT accepted the recommendations of the TRAI and laid them down in the NIA.

The CAG noted in its final report that despite the liberal roll-out obligations of five years, the 4G spectrum remained largely unutilised with hardly any significant roll-out of services since the allotment of spectrum in 2010. “The liberal roll-out obligations have not been achieved by any of the six winners even after four years since the award of the spectrum,” it pointed out. “BWA services have been started only in a few select cities by only one operator. BWA services have not been rolled out in rural areas which was one of the prime objectives of the auction.”

With RJio being granted permission to provide voice services over the BWA network, it was effectively put in a position of advantage over other providers of voice services who pay SUC at 5–8% depending on the quantum of spectrum held. The final CAG report pointed out this discrepancy and noted that this combined with the failure in roll-out led to a “lack of efficient use of spectrum, hoarding of spectrum in view of absence of roll out of BWA services and non-realisation of the expected revenue share in the form of SUC even after more than four years of allocation.” The TRAI had, in subsequent recommendations in September 2013, suggested making the SUC rates uniform for all UL holders irrespective of which spectrum band they used. It suggested the rate be fixed at 3% for BWA spectrum where services are being provided under the CMTS/UASL/UL regimes. However, this suggestion was not accepted.

Supreme Court Verdict

The observations about the rigging of the auction and the irregularities in the bidding process failed to attract the attention of the Supreme Court, just as they had disappeared from the final CAG report. Nor was the auction challenged by any of the competing companies at the level of the TRAI or the DoT. In its judgment, the Court stated:

We may like to add here itself that the auction of BWA in which IBSPL turned out to be a successful bidder resulting into the acquisition of pan India BWA spectrum in its favour is not the subject matter of dispute and was never questioned by anybody….

Further, as already noted in the earlier part of this judgment, though 11 bidders had participated, none of the other bidders make [sic] any complaint about the fairness, transparency and as well about the process of bidding (Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India 2016).

In light of the observations made in the CAG’s draft report, this position appears to be open to challenge. In the final CAG report, it was pointed out that the violation of the confidentiality clause of the auction rules would have necessitated cancellation of the allocation of spectrum. As per paragraph 4.1.1 of the NIA on “confidentiality,” bidders and insiders were prohibited from conveying any confidential information to any other person, including any other bidder or its insiders. They were also not permitted to disclose the status of their participation, including whether they continue to bid on any or all service areas, in any of the auctions, until the auction was completed.

The Economic Times report on the 15th day of the auction (10 June 2010) clearly violated this condition. Its report had an immediate impact, with Bharti Airtel which had been competing for the Delhi and Mumbai circles since start of the auction withdrawing from the bidding for these circles on 10 June within hours of the publication of the story. The non-disclosure of its partnership with RIL should have also disqualified IBSPL’s bid. As per paragraph 4.2.1 of the NIA, applicants were required to inform the DoT promptly in case of any change in information submitted by them as part of their application. The DoT was only informed of the sale of the 95% of IBSPL shares to RIL on 22 June 2010, well after the auction ended.

Having swiftly disposed of the possibility of serious discrepancies in the auction process itself, the first issue that the Supreme Court turned its attention to was the change in licence which permitted voice telephony to be provided in addition to data services over the 4G spectrum. In his PIL, Bhushan had asked the Court to quash the 2013 order of the DoT, arguing that it constituted a “back-door entry” for RJio into obtaining a unified licence. He argued that an undue financial benefit had been passed on to RJio by this mechanism. He had brought to the Court’s attention the calculations in the draft CAG report. He had also alleged irregularities in the formation of the final DoT committee that issued the order, saying that the secretary of the DOT, under whose chairmanship the committee operated was due to retire in two months. He alleged further that the representative of the finance ministry who attended the meeting of the Telecom Commission that approved the recommendations of the DoT committee ignored the finance ministry’s own recommendation of 2007 where it had objected to the telecom minister’s attempt to grant 2G licences for ₹1,658 crore (Guha Thakurta 2016a).

On this issue, the Supreme Court relied on the arguments of the Solicitor General of India Ranjit Kumar (Centre for Public Interest Litgation v Union of India 2016). He argued that BWA/4G spectrum cannot be compared with the 3G spectrum as the latter was operated in the frequency division duplex (FDD) mode while the former operated in the time division duplex (TDD) mode. FDD and TDD are two different standards of LTE technology which use frequency bands in different ways. Under FDD, separate blocks of spectrum are used for the uplink (connection from the end-user’s device to the provider’s server or tower) and the downlink (connection from the tower to the end-user’s device). So when the 3G auction was for 5+5 MHz blocks, this indicated that each successful bidder was granted a 5 MHz uplink block and a 5 MHz downlink block in the 2.1 GHz frequency band.

This separation of blocks is ideal for voice calls where equivalent amounts of data are sent in both directions. TDD, however, uses the same frequency block for both uplink and downlink connections. This makes it more suitable for data uses where the downlink connection carries much more traffic than the uplink on average. The solicitor general stated that FDD needed fewer base stations, incurred lower costs, had higher frequency usage efficiency than TDD and, therefore, their prices were different. Since RJio was granted permission to offer voice calls over the 4G network in the TDD mode, it could not be charged at the rates for 3G in the FDD mode. The solicitor general, however, overlooked DoT’s own decision of 2008 when it had decided to charge any BWA/4G winner the price of 3G spectrum, if it asked for permission to provide voice services after the auction.

In its recommendations made in October 2003 for the UAS regime, the TRAI had clarified that UAS licensees were free to use any technology without any restriction. Though there is no denying the fact that the TRAI had recommended in September 2006 and in July 2008 the differentiated prices for 3G and BWA spectrum, it had also stated in its recommendations that “the primary aim of the Authority in recommending a reserve price for BWA spectrum in India is that the spectrum should be affordable to allow all interested and qualified operators to acquire it, while at the same time, dissuade non-serious players and also to encourage efficient use and roll out.”

The solicitor general did not mention the fact that the DoT had, in its guidelines for the BWA auction issued in November 2007, proposed to auction BWA/4G spectrum in 2.5 GHz band in the FDD mode. The TRAI in its recommendations in July 2008 had suggested the auction of available spectrum in 3.3–3.4 GHz band for BWA services in blocks of 7+7 MHz (7 MHz for uplink and 7 MHz for downlink) and had left the mode of operation—FDD or TDD—to the service providers. The TRAI had stated that it did not want to specify any one mode in line with its policy of technology neutrality. The TRAI had, though, recommended auction of BWA spectrum in the 2.3–2.4 GHz band in TDD mode. However, the TRAI did not differentiate on the pricing of the BWA spectrum based on FDD or TDD modes and recommended a uniform price for spectrum in all the three bands, that is, the 2.3–2.4 GHz, 2.5–2.69 GHz and 3.3–3.4 GHz bands. In line with this thought process, neither the information memorandum for BWA spectrum nor the NIA made any reference to the mode of operation, again ostensibly to follow the established policy of technology neutrality.

The solicitor general further claimed that 4G LTE technology only appeared in 2012, a claim that the Supreme Court accepted without question. There are, however, credible documents, including TRAI reports which prove that bidders were fully aware of upcoming 4G LTE technology as early as 2008. Records show that there were more than 100 operators in 46 countries which had already committed themselves to LTE trials and deployments by the end of 2010. A few countries had already installed 4G LTE networks by late 2009.

Global Monthly Data Traffic

The court accepted the solicitor general’s submissions about the mode of operation being the reason for the costs of 3G and BWA being incomparable. It combined these with the arguments put forward by senior advocate Harish Salve who appeared in the Supreme Court for RJio. Salve argued that trends in the growth of total global monthly data and voice traffic indicated that data traffic was growing much faster than voice traffic. He also argued that the share of data traffic was nearly seven times more than that of voice traffic in the overall services provided by operators worldwide. The Court used this contention to argue that the “main source of revenue for the service providers is from data services and not voice-telephony.” The bench held that

... [i]n fact, Mr. Salve even claimed that voice-telephony for mobile companies, insofar as income generation is concerned, does not remain that attractive and in near future, there is a possibility of a situation when voice-telephony services may be provided free of charge to those using mobile data services by paying for those services. Whether this happens or not is anybody’s guess. However, what cannot be disputed is that main source of income for mobile companies is data services and not voice telephone services. This needs to be borne in mind while testing the argument of the petitioner (emphasis added) (Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India 2016).

The court thus held that these contentions formed a legitimate basis for the decision to grant a unified licence to RJio and that the change in the CAG’s calculations from the draft to the final report were due to the CAG making the mistake of treating 3G spectrum and BWA spectrum as equivalent. The Supreme Court bench traced legal precedents to establish the principle that a policy decision when not found to be arbitrary, based on irrelevant considerations, or mala fide or against any statutory provisions it was not within the remit of the courts to interfere by means of a judicial review. Using these arguments, the Court ruled that the grant of the unified licence was valid and did not constitute a “back-door” entry.

On the issue of “undue benefit” being passed to RJio, the Supreme Court noted that in 2010 the spectrum was delinked from the licence unlike in 2001 when the value of the 3G spectrum was determined, and thus charging the inflation adjusted cost of the 3G spectrum as an entry fee to acquire the licence would have been incorrect. Even the calculation contained in the final CAG report was rejected on the basis of the Solicitor General’s and RJio’s submissions and the amount of ₹1,658 crore that had been charged to achieve parity between ISP licensees and UAS/CMTS licensees, was considered correct. The Supreme Court thus found no merit in the claim that undue financial benefits had been accrued by RJio. The Supreme Court also noted that the promoters of IBSPL did not derive any unfair gains and also that they did not divest or sell their equity to RIL.

Salve’s Flawed Assumptions

These arguments on which the Supreme Court relied appear to be based on flawed assumptions. First, the global monthly traffic data referred to by Salve is not relevant for India at this juncture. In India, though data traffic growth is indeed rapid, it is still generating much lower revenue than voice calls. The rural “teledensity,” as per the latest TRAI data, is 50.88% only (TRAI 2016). This means that roughly one out of two rural Indians use mobile phones while in many urban areas in India, there are more mobile phones than human beings. More importantly, mobile service providers in the country continue to derive more than three-fourths of their revenue from voice calls, as the figures in audited financial statements of major Indian telecom companies for financial year 2014–15 clearly indicate.

In 2016, Bharti Airtel, the largest such provider in India, disclosed that data revenues were only 23.3% of total revenues from mobile services. For Idea, the same figure stood at 20.1%. For Vodafone, it stood at 18%. For the public sector Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, it was a mere 10%. Thus, the rapid growth of mobile data services in India notwithstanding, as rural mobile phone ownership rises, voice services will continue to remain the major source of revenue for mobile service providers in the foreseeable future. Hence, the Supreme Court should have been far more circumspect before accepting the claim of Salve that voice services were of little value to mobile service providers like RJio.

Voice Services: Critical for RJio

Further, TRAI data shows that more than 95% of data traffic in India is managed by mobile service providers that also provide voice services. Had RJio not been able to obtain the permission of voice services, it would have found it extremely difficult to enter and be successful in the data market. Hence, the permission to provide voice services was precious and of utmost importance to RJio. While the technical factors distinguishing 3G and 4G technology are indeed valid, the issue of whether a 4G voice call licence can be valued at the price of a 3G licence, or how their respective prices are to be determined is still open to question. Finally the question that remains unanswered is why the scope of 4G was initially limited. It could be argued that this was done only to favour RJio.

As for the issue of bundling of spectrum with CMTS/UAS licences, in 2001 the 2G CMTS licence was bundled with 4.4 + 4.4 MHz spectrum blocks in the 1.8 GHz band whereas in 2012, the licence was delinked from the spectrum. It should however also be borne in mind that while CMTS/UAS licensees were getting 4.4 + 4.4 MHz start-up spectrum to provide voice services only, RJio got permission to provide voice services on a contiguous pan-India 20 MHz BWA spectrum. No other operator in India had this quantity of spectrum for providing voice services throughout the country. As the reserve price of per MHz paired pan-India spectrum in the 1.8 GHz band recommended by TRAI in April 2012 was ₹3,622 crore, for an additional 11.2 MHz paired spectrum provided to RJio, the corresponding price in 2012–13 would have been ₹40,566 crore. Hence undue benefit accorded to RJio would then amount to ₹26,060 crore.

Though Salve claimed that IBSPL promoters did not gain anything out of divestment of the company to RJio, it is widely known that Infotel’s promoters have been given board-level positions in the Reliance group and significant work orders have been given to Infotel group firms. These companies, which were in the red earlier, have now started earning significant profits.

As for the changes between the draft report and the final report of the CAG report, Salve claimed in the Supreme Court that the discrepancy in the numbers was due to someone “planting” misinformation in the CAG’s office. According to a reliable source within the CAG who spoke to this writer on condition of anonymity, it was other way around. He stated that key officials were under both external and internal pressure from the company. Two senior government bureaucrats who were the members of the IMC allegedly tried to influence officials in the CAG’s office to “tone down” the report. The source said that the head of RJio in Bihar met top officials in the CAG’s office and attempted to convince them to meet Mahendra Nahata, now a director in RJio. In March 2014, CAG officials allegedly received instructions from the “top” to “save” senior government officials and meet those who had sought appointments with them (Guha Thakurta 2015). Unfortunately, the PIL did not name or summon as witnesses or respondents either the CAG himself or the Director General of Audit (Post and Telecommunication) who conducted the audit and had prepared the draft report. Their views were not recorded before the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

The CAG report on 4G/BWA auction was selected by the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament in May 2015 for examination during the year 2015–16, but this did not take place. The report has again been selected for examination by the committee of MPs (Members of Parliament) in May.

‘Let Government Decide’

The final issue before the Supreme Court related to the loss on account of lower spectrum usage charges. It had to determine whether the SUC rate being charged from RJio was correct. The Court chose not to intervene. It noted that RJio had submitted proof of compliance of roll-out obligations in 2015 within the deadline prescribed in the contract by registering with the Telecom Enforcement and Resource Monitoring Cell of the DoT before the due date in all 22 service areas. It stated that the date of this registration is taken as the date of completion of roll-out obligations on successful testing. In this case, testing is in progress and the Court concluded it was likely to be completed in a few months, although now the five-year period has passed. Technically, however, if the completion of testing is also necessary to meet the roll-out obligations, RJio has failed to meet this requirement.

Though the deadline of five years for roll-out ended on 31 August 2015, RJio has not yet rolled out the services to the general public anywhere in the country. Initially, it was to be launched in December 2015, then it was postponed to March–April 2016 and it has now been further extended to December 2016. As per the NIA, if the licensee failed to achieve its roll-out obligations, its spectrum assignment was to be withdrawn. The Supreme Court has, however, not prescribed the levy of any penalty or the withdrawal of spectrum, though neither RJio, nor for that matter any other 4G spectrum winner (such as Aircel, Qualcomm, Tikona or Augere) has rolled out 4G services for general customers as yet. The exception is Bharti Airtel which has rolled out 4G services in some limited areas.

It is to be noted here that though the 3G licensees were permitted a grace period of one year beyond the five-year period for achieving their roll-out obligations, they could use this grace period by paying liquidation damages at the rate prescribed in the NIA. On the other hand, BWA/4G licensees were not given any such grace period in the NIA. If the BWA operator does not complete its roll-out obligations within the five-year period, the spectrum assignment is required to be withdrawn. This has not been done in the case of any of the BWA spectrum holders.

As regards lower SUC charges payable by RJio, it must be stated that the BWA technologies have developed to 4G LTE (or long-term evolution) technologies over time, which also includes voice services. Post auction, RJio has been permitted to provide voice services as well, placing them at an advantageous position in comparison to other voice service providers which pay SUC at 5–8% depending upon the quantum of the spectrum held. Hence, the SUC rates should have been made uniform for all UL holders irrespective of spectrum band they use. Even TRAI had, in September 2013, recommended that SUC rate for BWA spectrum should also be uniformly fixed at 3% for CMTS/UAS/UL licensees. The CAG report raised this issue and stated that continuation of SUC at 1% for BWA/4G licensees would not only disturb the level playing field and provide significant undue advantage to RJio, but also cause a huge loss of revenue to the government over the 20-year licence period.

On the subject of the SUC, the Supreme Court noted that the matter was under “consideration” by the DoT and chose to leave it to the department’s discretion, stating that the decision was one for the government to take. Even if one agrees with this line of reasoning, the issue of SUC demands further scrutiny. It was reported on 23 May 2016 that the DoT had submitted its recommendations to the attorney general’s office seeking legal opinion. These recommendations suggested a uniform SUC for all spectrum bands ranging between 3% and 4.5% to ensure a level playing field. The suggestions would apply retrospectively, meaning that if accepted and notified, RJio and other BWA service providers would have to pay back-charges. A widely-reported note prepared by the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) in April 2016 has highlighted how every major telecom operator with the sole exception of RJio is in favour of a uniform SUC, preferably at 3% (Srivas 2016).

A Deloitte report quoted in the COAI note has described how even a reduction of 1% for the companies that pay SUC of up to 8% at present could result in industry-wide investments to the tune of about ₹58,000 crore and an increase in 3G connections to the extent of 230 million. An industry source told this writer on condition of anonymity that one could “read between the lines” and find out the “real game” being played on the setting of SUC rates for 3G and BWA spectrum. Whatever be the final decision of the DoT in this regard, it is certain that it will have significant financial implications, not just for companies like RJio but for the exchequer as well.

On 2 June, the Times of India reported that Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi has rejected the suggestion of a uniform SUC on the ground that it would violate the terms of BWA/4G auction (Doval and Mahapatra 2016). The government’s chief legal officer reportedly stated that the 2010 agreement for sale in the 2,300 MHz band “shows that the government has not kept any scope for revision of the rate” whereas in the subsequent auctions there was scope for revision and the government had indeed changed the rates. Rohatgi added that his predecessor G E Vahanvati had made a similar recommendation in 2014. If the attorney general’s recommendation is accepted, RJio would continue to pay 1% SUC against 5-8% paid by its competitors like Bharti Airtel, Idea Celullar, Aircel and Vodafone (which are all represented in the COAI) and the issue of a level playing-field again comes up. The COAI had earlier described the fact that RJio paid a lower SUC as “discriminatory.”

An editorial in the Economic Times on 3 June reacting to Rohatgi’s opinion argued that the variation in SUC amounted to “[i]nstitutionalised, unequal competition...earn[ing] for the country a damaging reputation for crony capitalism” and was “against natural justice and fair competition.” It suggested a solution to the problem: if the law prevented the government from increasing RJio’s SUC, then to level the playing field the government should bring down the SUC for all the other operators to the same 1%. It also recalled that the SUC is a legacy of the age when spectrum was bundled with licences and allotted by the government without any separate payment, and made little sense in the system of spectrum allocation by competitive bidding (Economic Times 2016).

On Prashant Bhushan

On 12 January 2016, Prashant Bhushan was grilled by the Supreme Court bench in open court.

Why should we hear PILs filed by CPIL [Centre for Public Interest Litigation, an NGO that Bhushan runs which had filed the PIL]? You are a professional litigant. Can you become a ‘centre’ for PIL? Can anyone walk into your office and tell you ‘I want to file a PIL?’ (Mahapatra 2016 qtd in Guha Thakurta 2016a).

Bhushan replied that it was an organisation formed by senior lawyers and had a committee comprising senior advocates who scrutinise every petition before it is filed in court. “There is a committee which comprises Fali Nariman, Anil Divan, Kamini Jaiswal, my father and myself and all petitions are scrutinised by us,” he replied.

The bench asked whether it could be confident that “a litigation is not at the instance of a party trying to settle scores with some other party” and whether the CPIL had a process by which it evaluated petitions to ensure that it was not acting on behalf of private parties trying to settle scores with others through the instrument of a PIL. It suggested that CPIL’s credibility permitted commercial interests to use it as a proxy in battles against competitors. Justice Thakur said,

When you come to us, we take you seriously. But when a commercial competitor comes to us, we might not. This competitor knows this and might send a proxy to you with documents and information which you otherwise don’t have access to. You have to establish a credible mechanism to justify that a particular case is fit to be agitated.

Outstanding Issues

Several significant issues have emerged following the 8 April judgment of the Supreme Court. First, the questionable behaviour of IBSPL during and after placing bids needs to be thoroughly investigated to ascertain whether the norms of the BWA/4G auction were violated in 2010, that is, to find out whether the auction was “rigged” as has been alleged in the draft CAG report. Even if the Supreme Court states that it is satisfied that the auction results were not challenged, this should not preclude the possibility of further investigation.

The second issue is the grant of the unified licence and the price RJio paid for it. The Court has ruled that neither the inflation-adjusted price of 3G spectrum from 2001, nor the winning bids for 3G spectrum in 2010 are appropriate prices for licensing voice telephony over the BWA network. The Court has accepted that the amount of ₹1,658 crore that was paid to achieve parity between UAS/CMTS and ISP licensees at the time of the auction is the correct amount. Nevertheless, the question that remains unanswered is how the price of a unified licence for a user of BWA spectrum is to be determined particularly when a 4G licensee gets the permission to provide voice services on 20 MHz spectrum in all 22 circles, which no other telecom service providers had.

The rate of the SUC is another significant issue that is yet to be decided. Moreover, the question as to whether RJio and other circle-specific BWA spectrum winners Aircel, Tikona, Qualcomm, Augere and Bharti Airtel should be penalised for failing to meet their roll-out obligations as per the NIA to maintain the sanctity of the auction process needs to be answered.

As for the judgment on the PIL itself, Bhushan could seek a hearing on a review petition before a larger bench of the Supreme Court. It should be possible for new individuals and organisations to be impleaded in the review petition. In that case, the Court could summon as witnesses some of the following individuals who are familiar with what has taken place: Suman Saxena, Deputy CAG, R B Sinha, former director general of audit, posts and telecommunications, S K Ghosh, senior vice president RJio, Mahendra Nahata, chairman, HFCL, Anant Nahata director, IBSPL, Arun Rane and Ajay Udgirkar of Axis Bank and Vijayalakshmy L Gupta, the then chairperson of the IMC that monitored the 2010 auction. Gupta was a former member (finance) of the Telecom Commision. She was a 1974 batch officer of the Indian Defence Accounts Service who later became financial adviser (defence finance) in the defence ministry when the present CAG of India Shashi Kant Sharma was defence secretary between 2011 and 2013. After her retirement from goverment service, she became a member of the TRAI. The other important person who knows exactly what happened during the 4G spectrum auctions in 2010 is of course the current secretary DoT, J S Deepak.

In the interest of fairness, this writer sent detailed questionnaires to the following individuals and representatives of companies to find out their responses to the issues raised: Ravi Shankar Prasad, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology (who, incidentally, served as a legal consultant for and was paid a retainer by Reliance Industries Limited, RJio’s parent company, between April 2013 and March 2014) (Livemint 2014), J S Deepak, secretary, DoT, and spokespersons of Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, Idea Cellular, Vodafone India, Aircel India, Tata Teleservices and Qualcomm India. Responses were solicited to questions relating to the conduct of the auction, the role of a small firm called IBSPL, the issuance of an allegedly forged bank guarantee document by Axis Bank and the points made in the Supreme Court judgment. All these nine questionnaires were emailed on 17 May. Till the time of publication, only one response was received, namely, from the spokesperson of the Bharti Airtel group declining comment.



Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @  # LIG-2   No  761, HUDCO  FIRST  STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL
,MYSURU – 570017  KARNATAKA  INDIA     Cell : 91 8970318202
  WhatsApp  91  8970318202

Home page :
http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in    
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com       

Contact  :  editor@dalitonline.in          , editor.dalitonline@gmail.com  


Share
No comments:
Post a Comment
Home
View web version
About Me
 
Dalit-Online
View my complete profile
Powered by Blogger.