At 7:41 PM +0100 5/8/05, umesh sharma wrote:
I think the person who signed for allowing the air-plane junket - his or head should roll.
*** Why Umesh? Based on what? Outlook or Tehelka reports? On the
UPA Defense minister's insinuations? Or because you or I may think
so?
*** Or should it be be so if after investigation, prosecution and
judging, if guilt could be assigned, then?
Now the question of past such scandals has to be considered. Were
there any conclusions ? Was anyone found guilty, and punished if so?
Who? When?
If not why?
Was it because there were no good leaders as Rajen might argue,
or was it because :
If inadequate investigation, why? Political influence?
Incompetence of police? Inadequate resources ?
If incompetent prosecution, why? Inadequacy of prosecutor's
training or qualifications? Corruption? Poor presentation of
evidence? Too high a standard of proof for which India is
unprepared?
If corrupt judge, how come? What is the procedure for appointment
of judges? Is it politically contrived ( as in the Katakey instance ,
if the Outlook report is true?), is judging influenced by attorney's
on grounds other than the laws and the evidence?
If unjust judging, how? Corrupt judge? Incompetence?
The above will be systemic problems. It will have to be studied
by competent people, faults pinpointed and remedies instituted. That
would reforming the system to improve accountability.
Umesh
Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh my gosh!
But would it change anything? Should it?
Would anyone be held accountable? Would guilt be
established, and by whom or how? Or it will die
down just like other sordid events of the near
and long gone past?
At 12:59 PM -0500 5/8/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>More details on the jet-setting, fun-loving judge
>
>Magazine| May 16, 2005
>Exclusive defence
>Magazine| May 16, 2005
>Exclusive defence
>The Rs 18 Lakh/Hr Trip
>Outlook digs out more details of Justice
>Phukan's junket which clearlyshow it was pure
>pleasure at government expense Updates
>SAIKAT DATTA Were Justice S.N. Phukan and his
>wife denied the traditionalhospitality that the
>army, air force and navy are so reputed for?
>Thejudge who headed the Tehelka C! ommission and
>was taken on a five-dayjunket on a special VVIP
>air force plane, courtesy the Ministry
>ofDefence, insists that he did not have such a
>good time. But Outlookhas learnt that not only
>was the red carpet rolled out for the judgeand
>his entourage, but free trips by road were
>organised for him andhis wife to see the Ajanta
>and Ellora caves as well as a visit to theshrine
>of Sai Baba at Shirdi. On both occasions, the
>judge, his wifeand members of the commission
>were provided taxis which they did notpay for.
>It is understood that the costs incurred during
>the two tripswere shown as 'book adjustments' by
>the defence ministry. It isanother matter that
>no weapon systems were studied either at
>Shirdi,Ajanta or Ellora.
>Justice Phukan has also complained to the media
>that the VVIP planegiven to him was 'useless'
>and did not have proper! toilet
>facilities.Enquiries with the IAF reveal that
>the IL-76 aircraft in whichJustice Phukan flew
>back to Delhi from Mumbai costs Rs 18 lakh
>forevery hour in the air. Which means for every
>four minutes that thejudge and his entourage
>flew in the plane, it cost the taxpayer a neatRs
>1.5 lakh (see box). Had the judge, his wife and
>his eight-memberteam all flown executive class
>in a commercial airline, theMumbai-Delhi fare
>for them would have been only Rs 1.20 lakh.
>Instead,it cost the defence ministry Rs 72 lakh
>to transport them on a specialIAF plane.
>Ostensibly, the entire trip was to inspect
>weapon systems. But withtwo days devoted to
>sight-seeing and the time spent in flying>fromDelhi to Pune and Mumbai to Delhi, the
>members of the commission hadeffectively just
>two days to 'inspect and familiarise' themselves
>withthe 14 weapon ! systems they were
>investigating into. In the end, thejunket cost
>the taxpayer nearly Rs 1 crore.
>While Justice Phukan maintains that he had 'all
>his meals in theroom', those travelling with him
>differ. A commission member who wason the trip
>told Outlook that "there was a cocktail and a
>dinner atAhmednagar and another one at the
>western naval command, Mumbai".Interestingly,
>Justice Phukan, who had been insisting all along
>that"all our meals were in our room", later
>stated that "it could havealso been in the
>dining room". The feedback Outlook has is that
>thetrip had more to do with holidaying than
>anything else.
>Official confirmation of the judge's trip came
>in a suo motu statementmade by Union defence
>minister Pranab Mukherjee in
>Parliament.Following Outlook's expos� of the
>Justice Phukan junket, Pranab toldthe Rajya
>Sabha on W! ednesday: "Normally for visits of a
>commission,IAF aircraft are not provided."
>Later, the defence minister also toldthe House
>that "he would not think of using an IAF plane
>to fly to aplace where commercial flights were
>available." He also pointed out inhis statement
>that even for "entitled personages, when the
>journey isnot for defence purposes, the cost
>will be recovered according toscales prescribed
>from time to time". Phukan and his team were
>noteven in the entitled category, as Pranab
>clarified.
>Justice Phukan in his statements to the press
>after the Outlook expos�said that the secretary
>to the commission, S.K. Dasgupta, had made
>allthe arrangements. The subtext was that the
>judge was not aware of thetrip's details.But
>when Dasgupta sought permission to fly by
>serviceaircraft on December 19, 2003, this is
>what he wrote in his note! tothe defence
>ministry: "Pursuant to the submission made by
>the learnedcounsel for the Union of India,
>Honorable Chairman (Justice Phukan)has directed
>that equipment relating to the past defence
>transactionslocated at various places may be
>inspected. Accordingly, HonorableChairman along
>with team of counsel for the commission and
>officers ofthe commission shall visit Pune,
>Ahmednagar, Bangalore and Mumbaistarting 22nd
>December 2003 to 27th December 2003." Clearly,
>the judgewas not ignorant of the arrangements
>being made.
>Interestingly, in the detailed itinerary drawn
>up by the commissionthere was no mention of the
>trips to Shirdi, Ajanta and Ellora.Meanwhile,
>arrangements for Justice Phukan's trip had
>already begunwith air headquarters sending the
>file to then joint secretary (air),Arvind Joshi.
>It is learnt that Joshi processed th! e file and
>soughtthe clearance of the then defence
>minister, George Fernandes.
>Between December 22 and December 27 (when they
>returned to Delhi), thecommission had only two
>days to actually see seven weapon systems ofthe
>14 they were investigating. On December 22, they
>landed in Pune,and on December 23 left for
>Ahmednagar by an Mi-17 helicopter. OnDecember
>24, the commission cancelled scheduled
>presentations totravel to Shirdi in a five-car
>convoy. The commission also spent thenext day,
>December 25, visiting Ajanta and Ellora. On
>December 26,they flew by an Mi-17 helicopter to
>Mumbai where they were put up atthe swank
>western naval command officer's mess.
>Eyebrows were also raised about trips made by
>another member of thecommission. Brojendra
>Prasad Katakey, then one of the senior
>counselwith the commission, travelled to London
&! gt;twice on government expense.First, he was sent
>to deliver the Tehelka tapes to London
>forverification. This was after Phukan reversed
>the ruling of hispredecessor, Justice G.
>Venkataswamy, that the tapes were
>genuine.Katakey travelled to London again, this
>time carrying the equipmentthe Tehelka portal
>had used for recording the events that led to
>theinquiry. Katakey, who was later appointed an
>additional judge of theGauhati High Court, was
>unavailable for comment.>Through all this, the role of former defence
>minister George Fernandeshas also come up for
>scrutiny. It was he who cleared the
>tripsundertaken by the judge and members of the
>commission. While Fernandesremained unavailable
>for comment despite repeated efforts,
>JusticePhukan maintains that his wife had to
>travel with him, as she was notkeeping well. A
>stand that is at best surprising: if she was
>unwell,did it make sense to take her on a hectic
>trip that covered Pune,Ahmednagar, Shirdi,
>Ajanta and Ellora and finally Mumbai in five
>days?Only George Fernandes and Justice Phukan
>can answer that.
>With the credibility of the report-clearing
>Fernandes of any misdeedsduring Kargil-the
>commission had submitted to the NDA
>governmentunder question, there is a growing
>demand from Congress and Left MPsthat it be
>ignored. As for the NDA, it has decided to stay
>away fromParliament and maintain a stoic silence
>on the junket issue.
>
_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
Yahoo! Messenger - want a free & easy way to contact your friends online?
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
