BeyondHeadlines

Tag: Shanti Bhushan

  • Shanti Bhushan Writes to Pranab on Two Versions of Draft Lokpal; Demands “Equal Weightage” to Both Drafts

    Shanti Bhushan Writes to Pranab on Two Versions of Draft Lokpal; Demands “Equal Weightage” to Both Drafts

    M Reyaz,  BeyondHeadlines

    New Delhi: Shanti Bhushan, the Co-chairman of the Joint Drafting Committee on the Jan Lokpal Bill, has written a letter to Union Finance Minister Pranab Mukharjee, who is the Chairman of the Committee, demanding “equal weightage” to both the versions of the draft.

    Bhusnan who is currently in USA referred to the release of comparative chart of different clauses in the media last week by Union Law Minister Verappa Moily, and alleged that the “chart does not present Jan Lokpal Bill accurately.”

    In the letter, a copy of which is available with BeyondHeadlines Bhushan argues that “there are inaccuracies at many places” and many clauses not fully quoted. He further added, “Any person hence reading this chart will be completely in the dark about the provisions of Jan Lokpal Bill.”

    He requested that if any comparative chart is to be prepared it should be done together; adding that “kindly do not release it without the concurrence of all members.”

    There were reports that the Law Minister has said that the government’s version will be treated as “real” and Anna’s draft a “dissent note.”

    Senior Bhushan clearly wrote, “We do not agree with that” as “both the drafts enjoy equal weightage as far as the outcome of the Joint-Committee is concerned” and hence both the drafts treated equally.

  • Arvind Says Sibal Does Not Want Them To Attend Lokpal Bill Meeting

    Afroz Alam Sahil, BeyondHeadlines

    New Delhi: Right to Information Act (RTI) activist Arvind Kejriwal today attacked Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal, saying it seems the Congress leader does not want the civil society representatives to attend the drafting committee meetings for a strong Lokpal Bill.

    “He (Sibal) is putting words in our mouth and it seems he wants us to say that we won’t be attending future meetings,” Kejriwal told reporters when asked about Sibal’s comments that it’s fine if they come or don’t come for the meetings.

    “We won’t let you off so easily,” he warned.

    The civil rights activists, headed by social activist Anna Hazare, had boycotted the Lokpal Bill drafting committee meeting on Monday to protest the post-midnight crackdown Saturday on yoga guru Baba Ramdev and his supporters.

    “We had yesterday (Monday) written to (finance minister and committee co-chair) Pranab Mukherjee that we won’t be present at the meeting and also urged him to postpone the next meeting after June 10 as Anna Hazare cannot make it. So, it’s clear that we are going for the next meeting,” Kejriwal told reporters here.

    Sibal had said that the government will prepare the legislation for introducing in parliament’s monsoon session despite their absence.

     

  • Govt Says Lokpal Bill Draft Will Be Ready Without Consulting Hazare Team If it Boycott Next Meeting

    BeyondHeadlines Staff Reporter

    New Delhi: Reacting strongly on the Anna Hazare-led civil society members announcement to boycott the next meeting of the drafting committe of the Lopal Bill, the government has said that it will prepare the legislation for Parliament’s monsoon session with or without Hazare’s team.

    Human Resource Minister (HRD) Kapil Sibal, who is one of the five ministers on the joint drafting panel, criticised civil society members, saying calling ministers “cheats, liars and tricksters” was “unacceptable.”

    “The kind of language and discourse that the civil society members, led by Anna Hazare, are indulging in against the government, calling the ministers cheats, liars and tricksters is unacceptable. We reject in strongest possible terms this load of allegations laid by Anna Hazare that the government is telling lies and the ministers are cheats,” Sibal said.

    Reacting to a letter written by committee joint chairperson Shanti Bhushan that raised doubts over the government’s intentions in drafting the anti-graft law, Sibal said civil society members were raising ‘extraneous’ issues not connected with the drafting of Lokpal. “Even in their absence, we discussed and passed several sections of the draft bill. We have a commitment to the people of India and we are bound by it. We will continue to discuss the draft bill and ensure it is before Parliament in the monsoon session,” Sibal told a press conference here.

    He also appealed to the members of the civil society to join the committee meetings. “I can only request them to come. There is no connection between what happened in Ramlila Ground and the drafting of the bill,” he said. Sibal said the panel’s mandate was to draft the bill, but it will have to go to the Cabinet for approval and finally to Parliament for passing.

    Shanti Bhushan had, in a letter to joint chairperson of the drafting panel and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee on Monday said the five civil society members led by Anna Hazare were keeping away from the day’s meeting as the police crackdown on Baba Ramdev at Ramlila Ground had “strengthened the doubts a strong anti-corruption body.

    “Recent events since our last meeting don’t inspire any confidence that the government is serious enough about the Lokpal bill. Further, what happened in the Ramlila Ground strengthened our doubts,” Shanti Bhushan said in the letter. He also sought rescheduling of the next meeting of the committee on Friday to some other date because of Hazare’s prior engagements. Activists have demanded that the government make public its stand on key issues relating to the proposed Lokpal bill, including the ombudsman’s ambit.

    The question of the Lokpal’s ambit has been a bone of contention between the government and civil society. The letter amplifies on the issue. The civil society representatives argue that the government wants to keep “practically everyone out of the Lokpal’s ambit -Prime Minister, horse trading of MPs, middle and lower bureaucracy, judiciary.” The civil society has been pushing for santri to mantri model, which would bring everyone under the purview of the proposed ombudsman.

     

  • Shanti Bhushan Writes Letter to Pranab; Questions Govt’s Intentions

    Shanti Bhushan Writes Letter to Pranab; Questions Govt’s Intentions

    M Reyaz   BeyondHeadlines

    Shanti Bhushan, Co-chairman of the Joint Drafting Committee of the Lok Pal Bill, has written a letter to Union Minister and Chairman of the drafting committee Pranab Mukharjee questioning government’s intentions on the proposed Lokpal Bill and police action at Ramlila ground on Saturday night.

    Civil Society members of the Joint-Committee on the Lokpal Drafting Committee (Courtesy: The Hindu)

    The letter dated June 6, a copy of which is available to BeyondHeadlines, question government’s “divergence even on the vision and model of the Lopal.”

    He also questioned the “frivolous manner” in which the responses of the state chief ministers and public parties were sought. He also accused the government of “shying away from any kind of public debate” and reiterated his demand for “televised live” debate on all issues concerning the said Lokpal.

    He further “raised doubts… (on) whether the government was at all serious in dealing with corruption and having a strong Lokpal Bill.”

    He has further written that the events of last Saturday night “strengthened our doubts” over the “high handed and brutal manner in which the grounds were evacuated shows that the government was committed to crush the people raising their voice against corruption.”

    He has accused the government of assaulting “helpless and unarmed people, who were protesting against corruption.”

    He also conveyed the decisions of the members of the “civil society” for not attending today’s meeting and assured that by tomorrow they will send a list of issues and has requested the government to “make government’s views public on these issues.

    The next meeting was scheduled for June 10, but he has also requested for rescheduling it due to some engagements of Anna Hazare.

     

  • There Are Enough Laws to Tackle Black Money; Parliament Cannot Take Dictation From Self-Appoi​nted Crusaders: Union Commerce and Industry Minister

    There Are Enough Laws to Tackle Black Money; Parliament Cannot Take Dictation From Self-Appoi​nted Crusaders: Union Commerce and Industry Minister

    BeyondHeadlines News Desk

    New Delhi: Making an attempt to rescue the government from the nationwide reaction on the crackdown of Baba Ramdev, Union Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma said yesterday that there were enough laws to tackle black money and that Parliament could not take a dictation from self-appointed crusaders.

    Talking to The Indian Express yesterday, Sharma said, “There are enough laws to tackle ill gotten money — be it from money laundering, crime or drug trafficking. The government’s actions so far were only to defuse the tension.”

    The minister admitted that such events did result in a negative projection of India in international forums. “But, our global partners will surely see through the political agenda,” Sharma said. “India has a rule-based governance system. Such decisions cannot be made in the streets and chowks.”

    The issue of black money is complex and the government is seriously addressing it. “We have signed agreements with a large number of countries including the Bahamas, Channel Islands, Switzerland. India is also part of the international task force set up on this issue by the G-20. The government is sincere and committed to tackling the black money issue,” he said.

    Sharma said in his meeting with industry captains in the two cities, there was general concern about these self-appointed activists being unelected and unaccountable to any institution. “There are issues that need to be taken care of through legislation. There is a clear political agenda behind orchestrating such events,” he said.

    In a press statement earlier in the evening, he claimed that developments in the recent weeks to project India as a country of scams and corruption were part of a diabolic and sinister political agenda. “The coercive attempts to hold the state to ransom and dictate to Parliament in discharge of its sovereign function have no place in democracy,” he said.

    According to him, Ramdev’s agitation was a coalition of a partisan political agenda and political forces rejected by democratic processes in recent elections. “Hiding behind the mask were communalist and fascist forces — Bajrang Dal, RSS and VHP which had at their heart an aim to destabilise Indian polity.”

  • Ramdev Row: Hazare to Launch One-Day Nationwide Hunger Strike on June 8, His Team to Boycott Joint Committee Meeting to Draft Lokpal Bill

    BeyondHeadlines Staff Reporter

    New Delhi: Veteran Gandhian Anna Hazare has made his stand on the Lokpal Bill all the more tougher following the forceful eviction of Baba Ramdev from Delhi’s Ramlila Ground. Although the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in the centre made so far made several efforts to give explanations in support of the early morning of June 5 crackdown  on the yoga guru, Hazare is no more ready to soften his stand calling the government’s intention to curb corruption “suspect.”

    His group, which comprises of RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal, former IPS Kiran Bedi, Swami Agnivesh, former Union law Minister Shanti Bhusham, among others, has decided to boycott the meetings of the joint committee to draft the Lokpal Bill till the government come clear on some of the key issues related to that proposed legislation. It also announced its decision to observe a one-day nationwide hunger strike on June 8 to protest against the government’s action against Ramdev and threatened to re-launch its agitation at Jantar Mantar if the government continued to dither on taking anti-corruption measures.

    Addressing the media, Hazare said: “We are writing a letter to Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee raising certain issues on the Lokpal Bill. We have already made our stand clear on these issues. We would like the government to also state where it stands. After we receive the government’s response, we will decide whether any useful purpose can be served by our attending the committee meetings.”

    In addition, the group said it would attend future meetings of the joint committee only if they were telecast live.

    The next meeting of the 10-member joint committee is scheduled for today. Hazare and four of his colleagues — Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan, Santosh Hegde and Arvind Kejriwal — are the non-government representatives on the panel that also has five ministers as members. Pranab Mukherjee and Shanti Bhushan are the co-chairs of the committee that has given itself until June 30 to draft a strong legislation to set up the office of Lokpal. The panel, which was constituted in response to an agitation launched by Hazare, has had three meetings so far.

    “The government has been trying to crush the anti-corruption movement. We have therefore decided not to attend the joint committee meetings,” Hazare said.

    Shanti Bhushan went to the extent of demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers for the crackdown on Ramdev. He said the action was reminiscent of the Emergency years and sought an explanation from the Prime Minister on the reasons that provoked the police assault.

    Interestingly, the belligerent stand of the Hazare group came on a day when its version of the Lokpal Bill came under sharp attack from a number of prominent civil society voices, including former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court A P Shah and former BSF director general Prakash Singh.

    At a debate organised by the Foundation for Media Professionals, these independent voices tore into the stringent provisions being proposed in the Lokpal Bill by Hazare and his colleagues, saying investing the office of the Lokpal with extraordinary powers to investigate, prosecute and act as a judge would be counter-productive.

    “Let us not draw a legislation that can be challenged on the grounds that it is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. It would be wrong to assume that the Lokpal in itself would be able to change the world. Please do not overload the Lokpal with so much work that it gets crushed under its own responsibility and public expectations,” Prakash Singh said.

    Environmental lawyer and social activist Usha Ramanathan said the kind of powers that are envisaged to be given to the Lokpal would invariably corrupt the institution, a view echoed by A P Shah as well. Shah favoured the exclusion of judiciary from the purview of the Lokpal.

  • Murli Manohar Joshi Reappointe​d as PAC Chairman for One More Year

    Murli Manohar Joshi Reappointe​d as PAC Chairman for One More Year

    BeyondHeadlines News Desk


    New Delhi: Former Union Human Resources Development (HRD) Minister Murli Manohar Joshi was once again reappointed as the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) for more year notwithstanding the raging row over his report on the 2G scam even as the government rejected the BJP leader’s claim that majority does not count in finalising reports of the committee.

    Joshi (77), who had trained his guns on the prime minister, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and also the home minister, was again nominated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), following which Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar reappointed him as chairman of the PAC.

    The term of the previous committee had ended on April 30. Joshi had triggered a political storm with his draft report circulated among PAC members. 11 of the 21-member committee had rejected his report but Joshi had decided to submit it to the Speaker for being tabled in Parliament.

    Joshi termed the rejection by the majority as “unconstitutional.”
    “Going by Joshi’s queer theory, the entire democratic system would crumble with a minority in Parliament insisting on treating their views as the decision of the Parliament,” Bansal said adding that Joshi and the BJP should make amends for “inflicting a lacerating wound on Indian Democracy”.

    He said this noting that Joshi at his press conference on Saturday had emphatically asserted: “Several members had demanded a division but some others had opposed it too. The numbers are not important, the process is. I don’t have to go by a majority…. They cannot reject the report.”

    Bansal said in his anxiety to hurriedly get the PAC stamp of approval on his draft report, prepared by ignoring or twisting facts, Joshi has chosen to mislead the public by his assertions.

    The BJP claimed that senior Union ministers, present in Parliament, passed slips to UPA members during the PAC meeting last week on the 2G scam issue which eventually ended in chaos.

    “I think it is a bad precedent. They should be ashamed of what they are doing,” BJP spokesman Rajiv Pratap Rudy said.
    HRD Minister Kapil Sibal termed the draft as “not a report” as it was not adopted by the Committee, but said it is for the Lok Sabha Speaker to decide on the matter.

    Noting that decision by voting is inherent to democratic functioning of institutions, Bansal reminded Joshi that he himself had resorted to voting on April 15 when out of the members then present, NDA had the majority.

    “He chose not to do so on 28/04/2011, when all the members of PAC were present and a majority of them had explicitly demanded voting on the draft report,” Bansal said.

  • NOIDA Plot Allotments to Shanti And Jayant Bhushan

    Coalition of Democratic Movements, an independent group has come up with  answers to specific allegations put on Bhushans

    BeyondHeadlines News Desk

    New Delhi: A lot of ‘misinformation’ has been spread regarding the allotment of farmland plots by the NOIDA authority to Jayant Bhushan and Shanti Bhushan. In this connection it has to be emphasised that:

    (1) This allotment was not made under any discretionary quota.

    (2) The total price of the property is Rs. 3.67 crores (not Rs. 35 lacs, as has been quoted in many newspapers) plus Rs 9.18 lakhs per annum lease rent.

    Coalition of Democratic Movements, an independent group has come up with  answers to specific allegations put on Bhushans.

    NOIDA plot allotments:

    Q1. Was the land allotted under discretionary quota?

    No.

    1. The allotment of farm land was not from any discretionary quota but from a regular scheme floated by NOIDA. This scheme was advertised in the news papers and was open for application by any person. It was for farmland plots of 10,000 sq. meters on which a farmhouse of upto 15,000 sq. ft is allowed to be constructed. It was not specified as to where in NOIDA the plots would be allotted.

    2. The Bhushans applied for the plots as per the scheme in March 2009.

    3. In May 2009, they were called for an interview which they attended, in which the means of finance was verified.

    4. In January 2010, NOIDA sent a letter stating that a plot of 10,000 sq. Mtrs in sector 165 had been reserved and the allotment letter would be issued separately.

    5. Thereafter nothing was heard from NOIDA authority till January 2011 when by  allotment letters dated 05/01/2011, plot Number FH-18 & FH-19, sector-165 measuring 10,000 sq mts was allotted for a total premium of Rs 3,67,50,000 at an allotment rate of 3,500 per sq mtr plus location charges for being on 30m wide road. It may be noted that the allotment rate had gone up from Rs 3,100/persq mtr prevailing earlier to Rs 3,500/-per sq mtr.

    Q2. Has the plot been purchased for a “song”, i.e. a throwaway price?

    1. The cost of each plot is Rs.3.67 crores plus additional annual lease rent of Rs.9.18 lacs every year for 90 years which translates to more than 75,000 per month will have to be paid for the entire duration of the lease. It is certainly not a throwaway price.

    2. The total price of each property is NOT Rs. 35 lacs (as has been quoted in some newspapers). Rs. 83 Lacs have been paid till date. The rest is payable along with interest at the rate of 11 percent.

    3. It seems some people have misunderstood the first installment as the total cost of the land.

    4. There is nothing to suggest that the Bhushans have been charged less than the market price.

    5. Allegations that the allotment rate is a fraction of the market rate are totally unsubstantiated. No sales have taken place in the open market. No one has explained how the alleged market rate has been arrived at.

    Q3. What was the criterion for allotment of plots?

    1. No criterion for allotment was mentioned either in the advertisement or in the subsequent brochure of the scheme. Applicants were called for an interview which was supposed to determine their ability to pay the requisite amounts for the plots and to determine what the applicants planned to do with their plots.

    2. The CEO of Noida has clarified (Business Standard 23/4/11) that out of the 160 applications received, 97 persons were allotted so far and the rest are being considered. Possibly the number of applications was not very high due to the high price and onerous conditions. In case the rate of allotment was much lower than the market value or intrinsic value, clearly the number of applicants would have been many times larger.

    3. The brochure did not indicate on what basis the allotment would be made in case the number of applicants was more than the number of plots. Even when the allotment was made, it was unclear as to whether at all the number of applicants was greater than the number of plots or whether a draw of lots should have taken place.

    Q4. If the Bhushans knew that the allotment was arbitrary, then why did they not return/cancel their plots? If the Bhushans knew that the allotment was arbitrary, then why did they not return/cancel their plots?

    1. No criterion for allotment was mentioned either in the advertisement or in the subsequent brochure of the scheme. However this did not indicate that the criteria used by the NOIDA authority for the allotment of plots would be arbitrary.

    2. In fact the Bhushans have already stated that if the allotment of plots is found to be questionable, they would be more than willing to surrender their plots.

    3. Moreover, if the plots were to be surrendered after allotment, it would entail a substantial forfeiture of the money already paid.

    Q5. Jayant Bhushan was fighting a case against Mayawati. Were the plots then given to the Bhushans to dissuade them from fighting a case against her?

    1. No. There is no connection between the cases and the plots. The Noida Park case was argued by Jayant Bhushan tooth and nail in full media glare right till the end. Anyone can look at the judgement delivered in the case or contact the 2 petitioners in the case.

    2. The fact also is that there are two blocks in which farm plots were allotted. The Bhushans have been given plots in the worse of the two which is about 10 kms further away and currently in a totally undeveloped area unapproachable by any proper road.

    3. It now turns out that several persons were allotted plots in a much better location (in/around sector 125 NOIDA) and much earlier and at a lower rate of Rs 3,100/-per sq mtr even though applications were made at a similar time. The Bhushans may infact have been discriminated against by :

    a. Making them wait for an extra year for allotment without giving any extra interest on the registration money.

    b. Allotting plots at a location more than 10 km further away than the plots allotted to the initial allottees. These plots are obviously of much lower value than the plots in the initial sectors.

     

    c. Allotting the plots at a higher rate (3,500/sqm as compared to 3,100/sqm)

    4. Any suggestion that the Bhushans got the allotment as a favour from the Mayawati government because Jayant Bhushan was arguing the NOIDA park case against the government is totally incorrect. On the contrary, that may be the reason for the delay and poor location of allotment.

    5. In fact even now, Prashant Bhushan and Mr. Shanti Bhushan are appearing against the Mayawati government in the very important case relating to the Taj corridor scam. The question of favouring the Bhushans by the Mayawati government does not arise.

    Q6. Do you think the doubts raised by people on the allotment of these plots are reasonable?

    1. A PIL was filed in the Allahabad High Court challenging the scheme/allotments. This was dismissed last year by a bench of the High Court.

    2. Another writ petition was filed by Mr Vikas Singh, former additional solicitor general, who had also been allotted a plot in the same vicinity as that of the Bhushans. His grievance was that the better plots in the initial sectors (in/around sec-125) had been allotted to favoured persons and that his plot was in a very bad location. 2 other persons who had not as yet been allotted a plot also

    Challenged the allotments. This petition has also been dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on 16/04/2011. Vikas Singh has been shouting in the media that these plots were worth 15-20 Crores and were being given by paying bribes. His petition was not a PIL challenging the allotments. He was seeking a better plot for himself and allotments for his co-petitioners. In fact, though he had applied in the 2010-11 schemes (19 months after the Bhushans, he was allotted a plot at the same time and at the same price at in an adjacent sector. He made an alternative prayer that if he is not allowed a better location, then the allotments should be cancelled and the plots be auctioned. Obviously, he did not think that the plots were worth much more than what he was being asked to pay.

  • Smear campaign against the Bhushans: The ‘True’ Facts

    Smear campaign against the Bhushans: The ‘True’ Facts

    Coalition of Democratic Movements , an independent group has come up with  answers to specific allegations put on Bhushans

    BeyondHeadlines New Desk

    New Delhi: Shortly after the notification of the joint drafting committee, a smear campaign against the Bhushans was unleashed. A ‘fabricated’ CD was circulated to select media organizations. Allegations were made about stamp duty evasion with regard to the purchase of a property in Allahabad. Aspersions were cast on the allotment of 2 farm land plots in NOIDA to Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Mr. Jayant  Bhushan. A lot of misinformation was spread through innuendos by sections of the media. A campaign was mounted to get the Bhushans to resign from the drafting committee. In the swirl of allegations and innuendos the hope of those who carried out this campaign along with their spin doctors in the media was that the facts would not be examined by the people and an impression would remain that the Bhushans were not as clean as people thought them to be. It is therefore important to examine the facts in order to unravel the smear campaign. Coalition of Democratic Movements , an independent group have come up with a answers to specific allegations.

    Statement of facts regarding Shanti Bhushan CD

    Q1. How did this CD surface and what are its contents?

    1. On 13th April 2011, a CD was mysteriously delivered to some select media organizations, including Indian Express which contained a purported telephonic conversation between Mr. Amar Singh and Mr. Mulayam Singh as well as between Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Mr. Mulayam Singh. The purport of the conversation was to suggest that Mr. Shanti Bhushan was telling Mr. Mulayam

    Singh that his son Mr. Prashant Bhushan can fix a particular judge in Supreme Court for Rs. 4 crores.

    2. This CD was played out by an Indian Express reporter before Mr. Shanti Bhushan on the night of 13th April. Since Mr. Shanti Bhushan had never met Mr. Amar Singh with whom he is purported to be sitting while having this conversation, and because it was preposterous to suggest that such conversation had taken place, he lodged an FIR regarding fabrication of CD the very next day.

    Q2. What are the facts about the verification of this CD and what role has the media played in disseminating this information?

    1. On 16th April 2011, Hindustan Times carried a front page story that they had got  the CD verified from a Govt Lab, which had certified it to be genuine. They, however, did not publish or report the name of the lab or expert.

    2. On 17th April 2011, Mr. Prashant Bhushan and Mr. Arvind Kejriwal held a press conference, where they released the reports from two renowned forensic labs; Hyderabad-based Truth Labs, which is amongst the best forensic labs in India, headed by Dr. Gandhi Kaza and US-based Sound Evidence headed by Dr. George Papcun. These reports authored by Dr. S R Singh, Former Director, CFSL-CBI,

    New Delhi and Dr. George Papcun, PhD (Acoustic Phonetics) who is a forensic expert in acoustic analysis and has been relied upon as an expert witness in numerous high profile cases. Truth Labs’ Advisory Board is headed by former CJI Mr. M N Venkatachaliah.

    3. These reports found that most parts of Mr. Mulayam Singh’s speech were copied from the 2006 conversation between Mr. Amar Singh and Mr. Mulayam Singh, onto the fabricated CD. Moreover, on the basis of spectrograms, it was established that there were multiple signs of editing and gaps in Mr. Shanti Bhushan’s purported speech in the conversation. Words/phrases have clearly been edited/lifted from many different conversations and stitched/spliced together.

    4. On 18th April 2011, the Delhi police finally collected the copy of the CD from Mr. Shanti Bhushan and were given a copy of another CD containing a conversation between Mr. Mulayam Singh and Mr. Amar Singh, which was filed (along with transcript) in the Supreme Court by Mr. Prashant Bhushan in Amar Singh’s tape case in 2006 itself. The police were told that several parts of Mr. Mulayam Singh’s speech in the fabricated CD were directly copied from the 2006 conversation between Mr. Amar Singh and Mr. Mulayam Singh; and pasted onto the fabricated CD.

    5. On 21st April 2011, the Economic Times carried a report that the CFSL-CBI, Delhi has given a report to Delhi police that the CD was genuine and did not have any breaks. The same day, select media channels started running the story that the CFSL-CBI had concluded that the CD was continuous and showed no signs of editing. Nobody however, had a copy of this purported CFSL-CBI report. The Delhi Police did not officially confirm or deny it.

    6. Despite this, the media has been raising doubts about whether the CD is fabricated, primarily on the basis of the alleged CFSL-CBI report and the anonymous report of a Govt Lab cited by Hindustan Times.

    Q3. Why should we not rely on the report of the CFSL government lab?

    1. Based on past experience there are questions on the credibility of reports released by Government labs. Also, Prashant Bhushan has gone on record much before the CD was supposed to have been sent to CFSL apprehending that there is an orchestrated campaign to malign the Bhushans and it appears that the Government is behind it. Under the circumstances a government controlled lab such as the CFSL cannot be relied upon. such as the CFSL cannot be relied upon.

    2. How can CFSL not even be able to detect the copying of Mulayam Singh’s speech in this fabricated speech from 2006 conversation with Mr. Amar Singh (which has been filed in the Supreme Court in 2006) and pasting it onto the fabricated CD?.. They already have the report of Truth Labs and Sound Evidence, showing exact positions of editing signatures and some of the gaps in Mr. Shanti Bhushan’s speech.

    3. The Bhushans have in any case petitioned the Supreme Court to order an impartial investigation regarding the CD.

    Q4. How can one trust two private labs commissioned by the Bhushans ?

    1. Both labs are not only highly renowned for their professionalism as expert witnesses in various cases but also have provided clear spectrographic evidence of the exact positions of editing signatures and gaps.

    2. One report has been given by one of the world’s leading experts on Acoustic Analysis, George Papcun, His CV can be accessed from here. http://www.soundevidence.com/

    3. The second report is of Truth Labs whose Chairman of the Advisory Board is Retd. Chief Justice of India, M N Venkatachalliah. Their website can be accessed from here. http://www.truthlabs.org/index.php

    4. On the other hand, the so called CFSL-CBI report, has not been shown by any media organization , which relied on that report. Hindustan Times has not even named the lab or author, of the so called report or quoted even a sentence from it.

    5. In any case, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever, about Mr. Mulayam Singh’s speech, having been copied from 2006 conversations with Amar Singh and pasted onto this fabricated CD.

    Q5. Why weren’t Mr. Shanti Bhushan’s voice samples been taken, to examine their authenticity in the said CD?

    The voice does appear to be of Mr. Shanti Bhushan, but the forensic reports show that bits and pieces from different conversation appear to have been spliced together to create his speech in the purported conversation.

    Q6. So who could have fabricated this CD and circulated it in the media?

    1. Amar Singh’s voice in the initial part of the CD is clear and appears continuous, since he says that Mr. Shanti Bhushan is sitting with him (which is factually incorrect). If that is true, it appears clearly that he has participated in fabrication of this CD.

    2. Moreover, he mentions the name of the judge who is dealing with the 2G spectrum and Amar Singh’s own tape case in Supreme Court. His objective of fabricating this CD would be to:

    a. Smear the Bhushans (Mr. Prashant Bhushan was seeking the public disclosure of Amar Singh’s tapes in that case and got             two chief secretaries of UP appointed by Amar Singh, removed through Supreme Court).

    b. Get the concerned judge to recuse himself from the 2G case and Amar Singh’s tape case.

    3. That is why, Mr Shanti Bhushan has filed a criminal contempt petition at Supreme Court and has sought an independent investigation into the conspiracy behind the fabrication of the CD. The fact that the CFSL-CBI has been made to give what appears from media reports to be a dishonest report and the Delhi police, which didn’t collect the copy of the CD for four days after the FIR, has participated in disseminating the CFSL-CBI report without showing copy to anyone, shows the involvement of the Central Govt in this smear campaign.

    Also Read:‘Facts’ Regarding NOIDA Plot Allotments to Shanti And Jayant Bhushan

    ‘Facts’ Regarding Allahabad Property of Bhushans

  • Shanti Bhushan Trapped in Noida Land Controversy

    Shanti Bhushan Trapped in Noida Land Controversy

    Tarique Anwar, BeyondHeadlines

    New Delhi: Former Union Law Minister Shanti Bhushan, who has been already facing a CD controversy, has once again come under scanner over a new controversy. Bhushan and his son, Jayant Bhushan, were allegedly given two plots in Noida by the Uttar Pradesh Government for Rs 3.5 crores, which, according to an estimate, is just one-fourth the market price.
    The land was allotted to the Bhushans in 2009 as part of a scheme offered by the government “for development of farmhouses on agricultural land.”  Close to 100 people  reportedly qualified. The process followed by the government has been challenged in court by Vikas Singh, who has in the past served as former additional solicitor general of the UP Government. Singh alleges that the government’s allotment lacked transparency.

    The fact that the Bhushans accepted the land is being questioned by some who point out that Jayant Bhushan took on Mayawati in a court case that challenged her decision to spend crores of taxpayers’ money on setting up statues of Dalit leaders, including herself in a memorial park in Noida. The environmental impact of the park had also been reviewed in court because it is located in an ecologically sensitive area. Jayant Bhushan denied that given his legal battle with Mayawati, there could be a  conflict of interest in her government’s decision to offer his family two 10,000 square metre plots at massively discounted rates.

    Shanti Bhushan was selected by civil society activists led by Anna Hazare to serve as the co-chairman of the Lokpal Bill Drafting Committee  After a four-day hunger strike by Hazare last month, supported by lakhs of Indians, forced the government to agree that the committee that would work on the Lokpal Bill would include five activists and that one of them would head the panel along with Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee.

    However, Shanti Bhushan has rubbished these allegations saying there is no conflict of interest in the matter as Jayant had appeared against Mayawati in the matter. He, however, agreed that he did not know about the method employed to allot them the land. He also felt that if there were more number of applicants a draw or appropriate method should have been applied.

    Barely 48 hours after Bhushan was named the co-chair, a CD was delivered anonymously to media houses. The CD has a conversation between three men purported to be Amar singh, Mulayam Singh Yadav, and Shanti Bhushan.

    The man purported to be Bhushan says that a judge can be bribed and that his son, Prashant, can handle this. Prashant Bhushan is also a member of the Lokpal Bill Committee

    The Bhushans have said that while the voice on the CD does seem to be Shanti Bhushan’s, the CD holds spliced conversations which have been stitched together to form a dishonest narrative.