Friday, February 14, 2014

www.apnaorbit.com

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Case against NGO SHAKTIVAHINI for forcing woman to file false rape case

Case against NGO for forcing woman to file false rape case

Get New Customers Online www.Google.com/AdWorAdvertise On Google. Get 2000 INR Advertising Credit When You Sign-UpAds by Google

Aneesha Mathur : New Delhi, Sun Feb 24 2013, 00:26 hrs

A city court has asked the Delhi Police to conduct an investigation into the role of a prominent NGO after a "rescued rape victim" told the court that a worker from the NGO had "tutored" her and told her to falsely depose that she had been raped by her employer, a businessman.

Additional Sessions Judge Nivedita Anil Sharma on Saturday acquitted the businessman — a Punjabi Bagh resident — of the charge of rape.

The court also noted that though the NGO Shakti Vahini had been associated "in over a thousand cases", this case was the first instance in which the NGO had gotten involved to the extent of filing an application for the cancellation of bail of the accused.

The businessman had been granted bail to conduct the last rites of his mother, after spending 72 days in jail. The NGO had filed an application seeking the cancellation of bail.

The court dismissed the application and noted that the NGO had no locus standi to file a petition regarding the bail of an accused.

During arguments, the court found that the woman, who was sent to the Nirmal Chhaya women's home, had written to superintendent of Nirmal Chhaya and that her employer had not raped her.

The prosecution said the woman, who hails from Assam, was a minor and was "rescued" by the NGO and police from the Punjabi Bagh home of the businessman in October 2012.

It said the woman had told police that she was being forcibly kept at the businessman's home for three years with very little pay. The prosecution had chargesheeted the businessman for rape and under the anti-human trafficking and anti-bonded labour laws.

The chargesheet also said the woman had given a statement that she had been raped numerous times by businessman, who had also "given her some tablets" after raping her.

However, the woman testified before the court that she had made false allegations after the NGO worker had told her that she would receive a lot of money if she filed a complaint of rape against her employer.

The woman told court that she was over 20 years old and had come to Delhi to find a job, along with a person known to her, with the knowledge of her family.

The court noted that "more than normal interest" was shown by the caseworker, who according to her own testimony, and the woman's statement, had remained with the woman all through the rescue proceedings as well as the medical examination, and had also remained present when police and the magistrate had recorded the statement of the woman.

Sahni's advocate R N Vats told the court that the accused did not have any access to the woman at the shelter home and could not have manipulated or bribed her.

Noting that "instances of apparent nexus between the placement agency, the NGO and police have been noticed, where a poor tribal woman has been used by any or all three to extort money", the court lodged a case of perjury against the woman.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

कैंसर की दवा का ट्रायल न होने से सुप्रीम कोर्ट नाराज

नई दिल्ली/पीयूष पांडेय

Story Update : Monday, July 23, 2012 1:01 AM

Clinical trials of cancer drug is not being done Supreme Court angrey

कैंसर को पूरी तरह से ठीक करने की दवा खोजने के दावे को मौका न दिए जाने से नाराज सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने केंद्र सरकार को कड़ी फटकार लगाई है। सर्वोच्च अदालत ने कहा कि ऐसी उपयोगी होम्योपैथिक दवा का क्लीनिकल ट्रायल कराने से सरकार कैसे पल्ला झाड़ सकती है। निजी चिकित्सक की खोज सरकारी प्राधिकरणों की ओर से स्वीकार नहीं की जाती, महज यह कहने से मामला खत्म नहीं होता। क्योंकि दावा यदि 10 प्रतिशत भी सही हुआ तो पूरे विश्व में हर तरह के कैंसर के मरीजों को काफी लाभ मिलेगा।

सर्वोच्च अदालत ने केंद्र के अधिवक्ता को इस मसले पर सरकार से निर्देश लेकर अदालत को तीन सप्ताह में सूचित करने का आदेश जारी किया है। डॉ. एएम माधुर की अध्यक्षता वाले गुड़गांव के एनजीओ वर्ल्ड होम्योपैथिक डेवलपमेंट आर्गनाइजेशन ने इस मामले में शीर्षस्थ अदालत में याचिका दायर की है।

चिकित्सक का दावा है कि उनकी तैयार होम्योपैथिक दवा से सभी तरह के कैंसर को ठीक किया जा सकता है। सरकार के तमाम प्राधिकरणों से उन्होंने इसके परीक्षण और क्लीनिकल ट्रायल के लिए गुजारिश की थी, जिसे ठुकरा दिया गया। इसके बाद उन्होंने सर्वोच्च अदालत से मामले में हस्तक्षेप करने की मांग की।

जस्टिस बीएस चौहान व जस्टिस स्वतंत्र कुमार की पीठ ने सरकारी प्राधिकरणों के रवैये पर नाराजगी जताते हुए कहा कि यदि चिकित्सक के दावे में सच्चाई हुई तो यह दवा बहुत महत्वपूर्ण और उपयोगी होगी। ऐसे दावे को सरकार को ठुकराना नहीं, बल्कि मौका देना चाहिए। पीठ ने केंद्र के अधिवक्ता से सरकार का पक्ष पूछा, जवाब में सरकारी प्राधिकरणों की ओर से निजी खोज को स्वीकार किए जाने की अनुमति न होने की दलील दी गई।

सर्वोच्च अदालत ने इस पर अधिवक्ता को आड़े हाथों लेते हुए कहा कि यदि सरकारी प्राधिकरणों का यह रवैया है तो फिर देश में निजी तौर पर होने वाली ऐसी महत्वपूर्ण खोज कभी आगे नहीं आ पाएंगी। यदि इस दावे में 10 प्रतिशत भी सच्चाई है तो भी सरकार को इसका परीक्षण कराना चाहिए। वहीं पीठ ने याचिकाकर्ता के अधिवक्ता सुकुमार से पूछा कि दावे की सच्चाई जानने के अनुमानित खर्च को वह अदालत में जमा करा सकते हैं। यदि दावा सही नहीं हुआ तो सरकारी प्राधिकरण उस राशि से अपनी भरपाई करेगा।

सुकुमार ने अदालत के सुझाव पर सहमति जताई। सर्वोच्च अदालत इस मामले पर अगली सुनवाई तीन हफ्ते बाद करेगी। चिकित्सक ने याचिका में दावा किया है कि सभी तरह के कैंसर के लिए प्रभावी इस दवा से मरीजों के इलाज का खर्च बहुत कम हो जाएगा। डॉ. माथुर ने विभिन्न तरह के कैंसर से पीड़ित कई हजार मरीजों को इस दवा से पूरी तरह से ठीक किया है।
गौरतलब है कि एनजीओ की ओर से सरकारी प्राधिकरणों से इस दवा के परीक्षण और ट्रायल के लिए 2008 से कई बार गुहार लगाई जा चुकी थी। लेकिन किसी ने भी इसे मौका देने के लिए कदम आगे नहीं बढ़ाया।

Saturday, May 14, 2011

MISUSE OF SEC. 498A OF IPC & DP ACT.

Misuse of Sec. 498A of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act
Men are redundant
In the eyes of our society, all abusers are monster men, all victims are pure and innocent sweet little women.
Misuse of Sec. 498A of IPC and Dowry Prohibition ActBy Virag Dhulia

Section 498A of the IPC:
This is the most controversial Section of the Indian Penal Code and one that receives the highest media attention these days. It reads as follows:

“498A – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation-For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand.”
The Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961:
The DP Act is a related law which defines giving, abetting and taking of dowry as criminal acts, and it also prescribes many rules as to the exchange of gifts, expenditure at the time of marriage and declaration of the same to the Government.

The purported aim of the DP Act is to curb the practice of dowry and to prevent extravagant marriages.

Anti-dowry laws ineffective:
Together, IPC Section 498A and the DP Act are promoted under the label of women-protection laws.

Law enforcement officials, judiciary, general public and even feminists criticize these laws for being ineffective in curbing dowry or dowry harassment.

This factsheet highlights the magnitude and intensity of harm caused by Section 498A and the current implementation of the DP Act. The information presented below sheds light on the reasons why anti-dowry laws are ineffective.

Number of cases filed:
Case Type 2005 2006 2007
498A 58319 63128 75930
DP Act 5243 4504 3204
Table No.1

Number of Persons arrested in Section 498A:
Gender 2005 2006 2007
Male 98815 105927 120745
Female 28745 31253 35667
Total 127560 137180 156412
Table No.2

Note: The total number of persons arrested under Section 498A is 421,152 in just 3 years!

Low conviction rate:
Ad-hoc studies have hinted at a very low rate of conviction – 2% or even less – under section 498A.

There are several instances where convictions by lower courts have been reversed by the Higher Judiciary.

Taking the conviction rate to be 2%, out of the 421,152 people arrested, 8423 people could not prove their innocence while 412,279 people were successful in proving their innocence.

Unfortunately, proving one’s innocence is an extremely expensive and time consuming affair, costing an individual lakhs of rupees and 4-10 years of one’s life.

Voices of reason ignored:
Numerous authorities including Her Excellency the President of India Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil, the Supreme Court of India, Chief Justice of India Shri K G Balakrishan, various High Courts, eminent lawyers, and several NGOs under the aegis of the Save Indian Family movement have raised concerns over the misuse of Section 498A and the arrest of innocent people under false cases filed by greedy, disgruntled women.

So far, no measures have been taken to curb the arrests of innocent citizens or to prevent misuse of the law.

Constitutional and Human Rights violated:
IPC Section 498A and DP Act consider the accused as guilty until proven innocent, and under these laws, the accused are punished even before investigation or trial.

The criminal justice system, which has been thoroughly “sensitized” by radical feminists, is jeopardizing the life and liberty of everyone in the accused husband’s family (including minor children, pregnant sisters and senior citizens) just to satisfy the greed and ego of one ‘woman’ – the wife/daughter-in-law.

These laws violate a citizen’s basic right to life and liberty, right to due process, and right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The Paradox:
Radical feminists vehemently reject all proposals to amend Section 498A claiming that its enactment was the result of years of tireless campaigning to provide protection to the married woman.

Radical feminists ignore the fact that over 123,000 innocent women (mothers and sisters of men who were implicated in 498A cases) were arrested under Section 498A over a span of just 4 years (2004 – 2007) without evidence or investigation.

Radical feminists ignore the fact that for every woman who files a false case under Section 498A and DP Act, at least TWO women in the husband’s family suffer unnecessary arrest and legal harassment.

Radical feminists ignore the fact that due to a spate of false cases, timely justice is denied to genuinely abused women.

This is the most deplorable fact about Section 498A – the law claiming to protect women is their worst abuser.

DP Act not implemented, only misused:
The DP Act came into effect 48 years ago, and yet women’s rights activists claim that the problem of dowry is only getting worse every day.

Basing their claim on the rising number of dowry cases, they constantly urge the Government to introduce more stringent provisions against the husband and his family.

The current DP Act is sufficient to contain the dowry menace if it is implemented in its true spirit i.e. penalizing BOTH dowry givers AND dowry takers.

To date, not a single woman or her family has been punished for either “giving dowry” or “admitting to giving dowry”, whereas scores of husbands and their relatives have been arrested upon mere allegations every day.

Section 498A and DP Act destroy families:
Once a case if filed under IPC Section 498A and DP Act, the marriage invariably ends in divorce.

Section 498A and DP Act have not only converted marriage into a crime, but also serve as weapons that break marriages and destroy families.

Section 498A and DP Act are two examples which illustrate the success of the radical feminist campaign of hatred against men and disdain for the family.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Deaf seek level field on disability Mar 19, 2011, 03.52am ISTNEW DELHI: The hearing impaired on Friday moved the Supreme Court seeking parity with the blind and other physically challenged people in government service in promotions and allowance entitlements. A bench comprising Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar wanted petitioners — "Deaf Employees Welfare Association" and " Railway Employees Association of Deaf and Dumb" — to make a representation to the ministry of social justice and empowerment about their grievance. However, solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam, taking note of the complaint of discrimination by the hearing impaired government employees, agreed to entrust the concerned department to examine the issues raised by the petitioner through advocate Kamal Kumar Pandey. The bench asked the two associations to give the SG a copy of their petition and wanted the ministry concerned to report back to the court with its stand in four weeks. Quoting Article 41 of the Constitution obliging governments to provide effective mechanism and public assistance to disabled people, the petitioners said prior to 1995, there was no specific legislation to address the rights and needs of the disabled people. The governments confined their efforts to providing medical rehabilitation and removal of the stigma limited to visible disabilities like blindness, orthopaedically handicapped and leprosy, they said. However, the concept of disability and the social attitude towards it has undergone a radical change since India signed the "Proclamation for Disabled, Full Participation and Equality for Asia and Pacific Region" in 1992. The Centre framed a national policy for disabled in 1993, which was revised in 2005, and provided 3% reservation to blind, hearing impaired and locomotory disabled people in government jobs. However, the approach of the central and state governments underwent very little change and they have been discriminating against the the deaf employees by not providing them travelling allowance, on-job training and promotions on a par with the blind and orthopaedically handicapped.

Writ petition (civil) 107/2011

ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.1 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.107 OF 2011

DEAF EMPLOYEES WELF.ASSOCIATION & ANR Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date: 15/04/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey,Adv.
Mr. Sukumar,Adv.
Mr. Abhisth Kumar,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Subramaniam,SG.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Place the writ petition after the ensuing
summer vacation.

[ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

Sunday, April 25, 2010

No longer juvenile, murder convict set free

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN, Apr 25, 2010, enNEW DELHI: Age was really on his side. As a 16-year-old boy, he had murdered his relative 19 years ago. He had spent two years and four months in juvenile remand before being granted bail during the trial and appeal before HC, both of which convicted him and sentenced him to life.

The Supreme Court accepted Dharamvir’s plea that he was a juvenile when the murder was committed. It upheld the conviction. But under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, he could be sent to a remand home for a maximum period of three years, whatever be the crime.

This meant he would have to undergo confinement in a juvenile home for another eight months. But, should the convict, who is now 35 years old, be sent back to a juvenile home to serve out the remaining remand period? The SC felt it would be pernicious to send a 35-year-old man to a juvenile home and thought it would be better to release him.

So despite a bench comprising Justices D K Jain and J M Panchal fastening the murder charge on him, it had to him let go, for under the JJ Act, he had no place in a remand home. In this case, the Bench had tasked a registrar of the SC to conduct inquiries at the three schools the accused had attended till the commission of crime. Based on records available and inquiries made with the schools, the report of the registrar concluded that the accused was 16 years, 9 months and 8 days at the time of commission of the crime, clearly a juvenile.

The bench was left to decide the quantum of punishment. Under the 2000 act, no juvenile could be detained in a juvenile home beyond a period of three years. In the case of the accused, he had already undergone two years, four months incarceration.

So should he be sent back there again, that too when he is 35 years old? The court agreed with senior advocate K Parasaran and counsel Sukumar, who appeared for the accused, and said it would be unfair to the inmates of a juvenile home if he was sent there now.

“We feel that, keeping in view the age of the appellant, it may not be conducive to the environment in the special home and to the interest of other juveniles housed there, to refer him to the board for passing orders for sending the appellant to special home,” the bench said.

Monday, March 22, 2010

SC''s fiat to EC on plea to freeze BSP symbol

Mon, Mar 22 09:15 PM

New Delhi, Mar 22(PTI) The Supreme Court today directed the Election Commission to club together and hear various applications filed by individuals seeking derecognition of the BSP''s election symbol "elephant" for its alleged misuse by the Mayawati government. A bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice Deepak Verma passed the direction while dealing with the PIL filed by two advocates Ravi Kant and Sukumar accusing the UP government of misusing public money for installation of statues of the Dalit leaders, including Mayawati, and the party symbol elephant at various places in the state.

The PIL had sought a direction to restrain the Mayawati government from installing her statues and those of elephants at public places and demanded a CBI probe into the alleged misuse of public funds. The advocate had claimed the total money used by the Mayawati government from the state budget for 2008-09 and 2009-10 for such projects was to the tune of Rs 2,000 crore.

Subsequently, certain other individuals had also moved the EC seeking action against the BSP which said it would decide on the applications in April. Meanwhile, the Election panel told the apex court that it has rejected the application of one Manoj Agnihotri seeking freezing of election symbols of political parties like the Congress, BJP, BSP and the SP for allegedly using them in official programmes.

Counsel Meenakshi Arora told the bench that Agnihotri was vague, unsubstantiated and unrelated to the powers exercised by the Election Commission. Agnihotri had alleged that the political parties were issuing advertisements in newspapers, carrying out propaganda of their official government programmes in the name of their political leaders to further their own party interests.

Supreme Court's fiat to Election Commission on plea to freeze BSP symbol

PTI

Monday, March 22, 2010 21:33 IST

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today directed the Election Commission to club together and hear various applications filed by individuals seeking derecognition of the BSP's election symbol "elephant" for its alleged misuse by the Mayawati government.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Why the fetish for statues, SC asks Maya govt

What About Teen Murti, Retorts BSP

Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN

New Delhi: In what could trip UP chief minister Mayawati’s plans to construct grandiose stone images of herself, BSP founder Kanshi Ram and Dalit icon B R Ambedkar, the Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the leader on a PIL alleging a massive waste of public money.
The Supreme Court has indicated that it might have some tough questions for the Mayawati government even as the BSP leader’s aide Satish Mishra, who also pleaded her case in court, hit back claiming that monuments and memorials to upper caste leaders, like Teen Murti, never seemed to generate the same outrage.
The BSP argued that the developmental work of the Mayawati government never attracted any attention while the monuments were selectively highlighted. The BSP’s accusation of a political agenda and bias did not deter the SC from asking for some responses while it explained that it was not passing any sort of interim order.
With the PIL arguing that public funds could be better utilised to help UP’s poor, the SC seemed to pose a “why the fetish for your own statues” query to the Mayawati government with a Bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and A K Ganguly quoting from the petition filed by advocates Ravi Kant and Sukumar. The PIL alleges that spending over Rs 1,200 crore on statues was irresponsible when UP had the largest population — 59 million — of people below the poverty line.
Appearing for the state, Mishra tried to convince the Bench that the PIL was politically motivated. He even objected to a large portion of the petitioner’s allegations being quoted in the order.
BUILDER BEHENJI
5.5 lakh metric tonnes of pink and red sandstone being ferried from Rajasthan and Mirzapur to Lucknow
46 statues of Mayawati, Kanshi Ram and other Dalit leaders to be built, also 60 elephants in chunar stone
Memorials to cover some 413 acres of prime land in Lucknow
Construction in Lucknow alone to cost Rs 2,681cr , plus Rs 270cr in maintenance ‘Questions raised only in case of Dalit memorials’
New Delhi: BSP leader Mayawati’s aide Satish Mishra, who pleaded the UP CM’s case in court, said memorials for other leaders seldom raised an eyebrow, except when they were meant for a Dalit icon. He sought to buttress his argument by citing the example of the sprawling Teen Murti Bhawan in Delhi, which is a memorial for the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.
“We would like the court also to focus on larger issues like Teen Murti Bhawan which at present would be worth more than Rs 3,000 crore. It hurts when no one questions such memorials. But, if a memorial for Dr Ambedkar is built, then objections are raised,” he said after the court issued notices. Earlier, senior advocate U U Lalit said the PIL petitioners had no connection with UP and that all the expenditure on the statues and renovation of parks had been duly sanctioned by the assembly and that nothing was being done without proper sanction.
When the court said it has not issued any interim order but was merely seeking response of the state government, Mishra said: “We will bring all the larger issues before the court and it should deal with them.” Given the tone of arguments, Mayawati government is sure to list out the number of memorials for upper caste leaders and draw a contrast with the smaller numbers dedicated to Dalit leaders.

Petition challenges UP Govt stand on statues in SC

Updated on Monday, August 24, 2009, 19:09 IST Tags:Uttar Pradesh, statue erection, Kanshi Ram, Mayawati

E-Mail

New Delhi: Uttar Pradesh government's stand that statues of Chief Minister Mayawati was installed to fulfil the wishes of her mentor Kanshi Ram was on Monday opposed in the Supreme Court on the ground that tax payers money cannot be used for implementing the wish of a private person.

"They (state government) are implementing the will of a private person. They have said it in the affidavit. Can tax payers money be used for fulfiling the Will of a private party?" the advocates, who have filed the PIL on the issue, contended before a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan.

The advocates said Rs 5000 crore of public money cannot be allowed to be misused for glorifying Mayawati. They said that during the pendency of the petition two more statues of the BSP supremo had been installed in a park in Noida, adjoining Delhi.

The affidavit filed by Uttar Pradesh government has said Mayawati's statues were installed only to fulfil the wishes of Kanshi Ram who willed that wherever his statues were installed, the statues of Mayawati, "his only heir, must also be installed."

Senior advocates Harish Salve and S C Mishra, appearing for the state government, said the PIL was not maintainable and the budgetary allocation for the projects were made after discussion in the Assembly.

"The House had passed the resolution. There is no violation of law," they said.

The PIL filed by advocates Ravi Kant and Sukumar has accused Uttar Pradesh government of misusing public funds for the installation of statues of Mayawati, Kanshi Ram, other Dalit leaders and that of elephants-- BSP's election symbol-- at parks in Lucknow and Noida.

Responding to the notice issued to it, the state government has in an affidavit said it is a wrong notion that only statues of dead persons can be installed.

The state government expressed dismay over the manner in which the hype is being created over installation of statues of Mayawati and quoted examples of superstar Amitabh Bachchan and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee whose statues were erected.

"It is a wrong notion that only statues of dead persons can be installed. There is no dearth of examples, whether in the country or abroad, about statues of living persons. In the Indian context, one can easily refer to A B Vajpayee Institute of Technology and Management, Gwalior, and Amitabh Bachchan Institute at Saifai, Etawah," the state government said in an affidavit.

View article on single page

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

SC asks EC to decide if elephant statues in UP are poll symbols

PTI, Feb 22, 2010, 02.46pm IST

SC asks EC to decide if statues in UP are poll symbols

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Election Commission to decide whether the installation of statues of elephants at the cost of the state exchequer by the Mayawati government in Lucknow and Noida amounts to the installation of election symbol of the party.

A bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan granted three months to the Election Commission to decide the issue.

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by two advocates Ravi Kant and Sukumar, who have accused the UP government of misusing public money for the installation of statues of the Dalit leaders including Mayawati and party symbol, elephant at various places in the state.

Kant had submitted before the bench that the information gathered through an RTI disclosed that 60 statues of elephants were being installed by Uttar Pradesh government at a cost of Rs 52.20 crore at public places by utilising state funds.

The particular issue of election symbol was referred to the Election Commission as the petitioners have also made a representation before the Commission.

The PIL had sought a direction to restrain Mayawati from installing her statues and those of elephants at public places with public funds and demanded a CBI probe into the misuse of state exchequer.

The advocate had claimed the total money used by Mayawati from the state budget for 2008-09 and 2009-10 for such projects was to the tune of Rs 2,000 crore.

THE HINDU

Court asks EC to decide U.P. statue issue J. Venkatesan

Whether installation of statues of elephants amounts to putting up BSP’s election symbol

Three-judge bench of the Supreme Court gives three months’ time to poll panel
Court is hearing a PIL accusing Uttar Pradesh Government of misusing public money

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Election Commission to decide whether the installation of statues of elephants by the Mayawati Government in Lucknow and Noida near the national Capital would amount to installation of BSP’s election symbol.

A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Deepak Verma and Justice B.S. Chauhan granted three months time to the Commission to dispose of the petition filed by advocates Ravi Kant and Sukumar questioning the installation of elephants being the party symbol with tax payers money.

Senior counsel for BSP S.C. Mishra, who is also the party General Secretary submitted: “We have given reply to the Election Commission that the elephants installed in parks are not the election symbol of the party but only a welcome symbol. Even in the North Block and South Block, Lok Sabha and Rashtrapathi Bhavan, there are elephants statues. Statues of elephants are also found in temples and the distinction is quite clear.” He said the State Legislature had accounted for every rupee spent on statues and erection of elephants.

Commission’s Counsel Meenakshi Arora, said the Commission was not in favour of pre-judging the issue and wanted to wait till the Supreme Court decided the matter.

The Bench was hearing a PIL filed by the two advocates accusing the Uttar Pradesh Government of misusing public money for installation of statues of the Dalit leaders, including Ms. Mayawati and the party symbol elephant at various places in the State.”

Mr. Kant submitted that 60 statues of elephants were being installed by Uttar Pradesh Government at a cost of Rs 52.20 crore at public places by utilising State funds. Senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for the State raised the maintainability of the PIL.

However, the bench said the question could be considered after the Election Commission decided the issued.

In the petition, it was alleged that the State had shown utter disregard to the constitutional mandate while deciding to spent huge money on installing a very large number of statues.

According to the petitioners, the funds need to be used for the welfare and development of people and particularly of the weaker sections of the society.

EC asked to decide if elephant statues in UP are poll symbols

Posted by 233news.com February - 22 - 2010

The Supreme Court on Monday put the onus on the Election Commission to decide whether installation of statues of elephants at the cost of the state exchequer by Uttar Pradesh government in Lucknow and Noida amounts to putting up of BSP’s election symbol.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices Deepak Verma and B S Chauhan granted three months to the Election Commission to decide the issue even as Uttar Pradesh government contended that the statues of elephants are not the election symbol of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), but a welcome symbol.

“We have given reply to the Election Commission that the elephants installed in parks are not the election symbol of the party as alleged, but a welcome symbol.

“Even in the North Block and South Block here, You have elephants statues,” senior advocate and Mayawati’s close aide S C Mishra told the Bench. Mishra, who is the General Secretary of BSP and appearing along with senior advocate Harish Salve for Uttar Pradesh government, said statues of elephants are also found in temples and “the distinction is quite clear”.

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by two advocates Ravi and Sukumar who have accused the UP government of misusing public money for installation of statues of the Dalit leaders, including Mayawati, and the party symbol elephant at various places in the state.

The Bench said “we have to look what is the solution.

More money will be spent for removing the statues. Who will give the mone? From where the money will come?”

Mayawati's elephant statues a poll symbol?

PTI

First Published : 22 Feb 2010 06:59:09 PM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today asked the Election Commission to decide whether the installation of statues of elephants at the cost of the state exchequer by the Mayawati government in Lucknow and Noida amounts to the installation of election symbol of the party.A bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan granted three months to the Election Commission to decide the issue.The bench was hearing a PIL filed by two advocates Ravi ant and Sukumar, who have accused the UP government of misusing public money for the installation of statues of the Dalit leaders including Mayawati and party symbol, elephant at various places in the state.Kant had submitted before the bench that the information gathered through an RTI disclosed that 60 statues of elephants were being installed by Uttar Pradesh government at a cost of Rs 52.20 crore at public places by utilising state funds.The particular issue of election symbol was referred to the Election Commission as the petitioners have also made a representation before the Commission.The PIL had sought a direction to restrain Mayawati from installing her statues and those of elephants at public places with public funds and demanded a CBI probe into the misuse of state exchequer.The advocate had claimed the total money used by Mayawati from the state budget for 2008-09 and 2009-10 for such projects was to the tune of Rs.2,000 crore.