Notifiable Immunization Register Proposal: Fill & Download for Free

This is one thing where I honestly wish I am proven completely wrong in the coming days. Because, to say the least – it is shocking. It is sad that such a crap has been passed by the Parliament in order to drastically amend the Prevention of Corruption Act.Yes, you are reading it right. I am really shocked that the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill has finally been passed by the Parliament.Before I write further, let me state with all humility at my command that I have some basic credentials to write on this topic. It is necessary to clarify it, given the type of opinion I am writing. I am the author of a 2200+ pages book on Prevention of Corruption Act (you can see the image of the book in my profile), published by the best Indian law publishers. Its last edition was in 2009 (next edition taking time). I have worked in CBI and also worked twice in Maharashtra ACB (Anti-Corruption Bureau). In these postings, I have handled thousands of corruption cases. Thereafter, as an advocate, I have handled about 200+ cases on behalf of CBI in the Supreme Court as a Special Counsel of the Government of India – some of them high profile cases too. Of course, as an advocate, I have handled many cases on behalf of accused persons as well. For last few years, I have been delivering lectures at CBI training programmes and also in CVC-sponsored CVO conferences.Well, after this background note, let me emphatically state that the amendments being made in the Prevention of Corruption Act will completely change the existing law on corruption. It is not amendment, but a complete rewriting of the law; and, unfortunately, not in the positive direction.The legal principles and legal terminology relating to corruption that were well-established for last about 158 years (since the IPC inception days in 1860), will be completely unsettled, since these amendments use completely new, vague and untested provisions. Almost all important ingredients are being changed with new and unestablished terms. Some existing important provisions in the law are being dropped. These new terms will take decades for getting their interpretations from the Supreme Court. All this has been done, when it was not needed, being completely unnecessary.These amendments to PC Act were initially proposed during the Congress rule in 2013, but Congress lost power before they could be passed. The BJP Government proposed some changes in 2015 in these (2013) amendments. There was a Rajya Sabha Select Committee report on these amendments. There is also a Law Commission report on these amendments. Surprisingly and shockingly, all these 4 proposals were defective (even in basic legal language, forget the objective and logic of proposed changes) and yet pursued with vigour.I see lobbies with vested interests behind such moves. Both BJP and Congress are culprits here. And, so is higher level bureaucracy.Let me tell you emphatically that all these institutions have completely failed to understand that what is being done in the name of amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act is a disastrous exercise, completely unsettling the existing laws, blindly borrowing unproved provisions from a foreign land. The name of a UN Convention is being used to camouflage the changes. This amendment will not help eradicate corruption, rather it may perhaps weaken the fight against corruption.It is not that I am writing all this today, i.e., after the Parliament has passed the amendments. I have been opposing these amendments since they were first proposed way back in 2013 by the Congress-led UPA Government.Sometime in 2014-15, when these amendments were referred to the Rajya Sabha Select Committee, an NGO had approached me for appearing before this Committee. I was given to understand that the Hon’ble Chairperson of this Rajya Sabha Committee (at that time, Shri Bhupendra Yadav, BJP Rajya Sabha MP) had agreed to give us time. However, later I came to be told that the said Rajya Sabha Committee closed its proceedings and submitted its report without giving time to us. Even Dr. Subramanian Swamy, who also opposed these recommendations, was not taken seriously in this report. It was a faulty report with defective provisions getting recommended.The Law Commission chaired by Justice A.P. Shah also completely erred in giving defective recommendations about these amendments in its report. Some of their recommendations about the provisions did not meet even the basic legal test of a coherent drafting. It was a rare thing from a professional body such as the Law Commission of India.Sometime in September 2016, I had been invited to participate in a seminar on these proposed amendments in the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore. I had made my detailed submissions in this seminar as to how these amendments were not required. Other experts at the seminar were kind enough to agree with me. It was decided to submit a report to the Government / CBI; however, unfortunately, till date, I have never got any draft report from the NLSIU as had been agreed.I am a completely apolitical person. Yet, in public interest, I got associated with some persons to persuade the Chief Minister of a BJP ruled state to write a letter to the Prime Minister on this issue. We gave detailed inputs for this letter. That Chief Minister was kind enough to write a detailed D.O. letter to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi as to why these PC Act amendments were not desired.Last year, in 2017, during my address at a training programme of the Hon’ble Special Judges for CBI in the Delhi Judicial Academy, I had expressed similar concerns about the PC Act amendments.I was hoping that the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill will be allowed to lapse and will not be pressed. But, 2-3 days back, I saw a last-line casual mention in a news report that Rajya Sabha had passed these amendments on 19 July, and now this information has come that Lok Sabha has also passed these amendments on 24 July.What are these negative provisions or what is the negative effect of these amendments? Well, for last two years, I was thinking of writing it in detail, about 100-200 pages’ booklet, but could not get sufficient time for such project. What is the purpose of writing this now?It is already a fait accompli now. The PC Act will now stand amended in next few days, once the President gives his assent and the Bill is notified in the gazette.However, let me just give one example. The provision of the PC Act that was used for dealing with corruption in high places (ministers, senior bureaucrats) where direct evidence of bribe would not be forthcoming, now stands deleted!!! Yes, I am talking about Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. It had 3 sub-clauses. The bureaucracy used to oppose the sub-clause (iii) of it. However, now even the non-controversial sub-clauses (i) and (ii) also stand deleted, since Section 13(1)(d) itself stands deleted in full!!! It is no solace that efforts have been made to introduce an alternative in Section 7, but that is vague and untested legal provision, which will take decades for being interpreted by Supreme Court, given the speed at which the wheels of justice move in India. So, CBI’s most used weapon has gone, at least for now. Without any reason.I feel sorry and helpless. But, what can I do? As an individual? I have no voice. Or, may be, my voice was lost in the huge noise of vested interests. Both Congress and BJP are equally responsible. So is the bureaucracy.And, the nation does not know that in the name of improvement in the corruption laws, or in the name of implementing a UN convention, undesirable provisions are being introduced and certain useful provisions are being deleted from the existing law on corruption. People and media are feeling as if the corruption laws are being strengthened. Alas!!!The irony is that during my interactions with officers in CBI and State ACB’s, I generally found that even senior officers are not aware of the extent and consequences of the proposed amendments. They are not prepared, is what I can say.I have given up my fight. Let the nation learn by experience. Of course, as I said at the outset itself, I’ll be happy if I am proven wrong in my analysis of the amendments being made. If I am proven wrong, the nation wins. But, the nation loses if I am proven right in my analysis of the amendments. So, I am only wishing that I should be proven wrong!!! It may perhaps be possible through purposive interpretation from courts. But, I am not sure.Till that time, I would call it a black day. I know it is my lone voice in the wilderness at this stage.Update (25 July 2018): Since some esteemed readers have raised questions, let me briefly add some of the issues (not exhaustive list):(1) The existing Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, can be seen online here. And, the Amendment Bill that was passed by Rajya Sabha can be seen online here.(2) Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the existing Act have been deleted and replaced by completely new provisions, with completely new definitions and words. This will completely unsettle the 158-year old well-established legal expressions relating to bribery and corruption. Even though it was not required since there was no confusion. It may now take decades before the new provisions are properly interpreted and settled by judiciary.(3) The most important provision under Section 13(1)(d) has been deleted. This is the provision which is used for involving senior bureaucrats and ministers in corruption cases, since direct acceptance of bribe by them was generally not possible. A part of this provision (not full) is supposed to be brought back in new Section 7, but through Explanation, which will complicate the things (offences are not supposed to be defined through Explanation but in the main body of the defining section). Further, the maximum punishment for this would now be only 7 years imprisonment as against the existing punishment for 10 years.(4) Prior permission of the Government or the competent authority will now be required for registering certain corruption offences. Previously, the provision for taking such permission was quashed and set aside by the Supreme Court in 2014 in a writ petition filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy. This permission will give immunity to corrupt Government officers. Moreover, now the requirement of this prior permission has been extended to all categories of public servants; while previously, it was limited only to Joint Secretary and above level officers. Please note that this is in addition to the existing provision of requiring sanction of prosecution of corrupt public servant.(5) In addition, even sanction for prosecution of corrupt public servants would now be needed even after their retirement, giving them one more level of immunity or protection. [At present, it was not needed after retirement.](6) The offence of disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(e) has been made much more difficult to prove and has been diluted. The ingredient of mens rea (“intentionally”) has been added to the definition of offence, which did not exist earlier. Moreover, the definition of “known sources of income” has been diluted, giving benefit to corrupt public servants.(7) It is being spread in the media that the bribe-giver would also be punished now after the amendment (or that bribe-giver would also get equal punishment). But, this provision was already there in the existing law (see, Section 12).

There are four main players in this scam:-Chanda Kocchar - Award Winning, Former ICICI Bank CEODeepak Kocchar - Husband of Chanda Kocchar and Biggest Shareholder for NuPower RenewablesVenugopal Dhoot - Chairman of Videocon India Pvt LtdThe Clown Car of CBI, ED and the usual keystone brigadeThe Key point for the entire ‘Scam’ is just one thing:-Disclosure and Conflict of Interest by a key credit sanctioning authority prior to examining a credit release / request application by a party. Is this is an irregularity or a crime?It started off when Venugopal Dhoot - of Videocon applied for a Rs. 3250 Crore credit request from ICICI Bank in 2011. The proposal was examined by ICICIs Credit Committee comprising 8 individuals - out of which 4 were qualified at the highest level (MBAS earning several lacs a month)- who used business models, computations and finally in 2012 January - proposed sanctioning of the credit facility to videocon.This proposal was then sent to the Board of ICICI bank where 12 more individuals including Chanda Kocchar examined the proposal for final validation.At this stage the right thing for Ms Kocchar to do was to make a simple suggestion - all she had to say was ‘Gentleman of the Board - My Husband has some business with Mr Dhoot of Videocon - so it would be right for me to step out of this meeting so that you can decide among yourself if this proposal makes sense. Please make your own judgment. Board Secretary to note that I am stepping out and not participating in this decision making’This would have been it. Chanda would have been immune from any further trouble as she was not part of the credit release/sanction proposal.MS KOCCHAR DID NOT DO THISInstead she participated fully in the meeting and the Proposal was floated through 12:0 in favor of the sanction. The eleven others also supported the proposal but Chandas inclusion in the meeting was viewed as a Irregularity and in todays India - an irregularity must always be a crime.Four years passed and the Loan became a NPA for ICICI Bank. Videocon slipped into more and more trouble due to the constant competition by Whirlpool in Consumer Electronics, Samsung and LG in Video Electronics and Refrigeration and without the original support offered by the old congress governments - they began to lose a lot of business.In 2016 - a whistleblower began asking questions into the history of transactions between Videocon, ICICI Bank and Chanda Kocchar. This inquiry first came to the Compliance Department of ICICI bank and the Compliance Chief immediately contacted Ms Kocchar. Ms Kocchar promptly notified the board in a board meeting held around 2016–17 about the whole issue. She made some partial disclosures including:-(a) NuPower was founded by her husband Deepak Kocchar in 2009. In 2010 (2 Years before the loan was sanctioned) - Venugopal Dhoot invested a sum of Rs. 64 Crores into the company in exachange for a certain percentage of shares. This was entirely legal as he was nothing but an investor.(b) That in the year 2013 - Dhoot had transfered his share of Nupower to a trust controlled by Deepak Kocchar for an additonal sum of Rs. 9 Lakhs. Again this was perfectly legal. Dhoot did not transfer his shares to Deepak Kocchar - however to ensure that Kocchar could control day to day operations and important decisions - Dhoot transfered his shares to the trust so that Kocchar could vote in a single Block. Dhoot still owns the shares of nupower.(c) That she did not bring up this before the board because the incident was two years old at the time of the credit sanction and Deepak Kocchar did not gain any financial advantage due to the loan (He did not acquire any shares at all).The ICICI Board who listened to this entire explanation were satisfied and believed two things (a) While Chanda Kocchar may have been ethically wrong in not disclosing the relationship between her husband and videocon - the credit proposal was vetted by a panel of 8 experts including 2 outsiders without any influence from Chanda and (b) 11 other board directors agreed without a single question to the proposal and (c) The NPAhappened due to economic reasons by Mr. Venugopal Dhoot.Subsequently they cleared her which was the absolutely right thing to do.ENTER THE JOKERS:-Of course - the biggest decision makers of our Country with zero knowledge of ground facts - the moron media still had to make an entry and they did. Half baked reporters with zero qualifications ran around waving mikes and cameras and posting quarter baked videos in youtube and suddenly ‘questions were being asked’.Enter the Modi Govt - a pretty efficient government with one bad habit of pandering to the media all the time.So the ICICI Bank Audit Committee decided to bring in a new Joker to the issue. A Retired Judge Mr. Shrikrishna who had an infinitesmal knowledge of the law and absolutely zero knowledge of banking and finance and a group of others who had the same qualifications. They could have employed forensic auditors like almost every professional bank in the western world does but no - they decided on a retired judge.The Srikrishna Committee decided to forget the fact that (a) 19 other persons had supported the loan request and approved without question (b) The Brains - had actually used business models to believe that the loan was perfectly credit worthy (c) The Dhoot - Kocchar affair had happened almost 4 years before the loan was sanctioned (d) The NPA / Default was due to economic downturns and that (e) Videocon owed almost 21000 Crores to Public Banks across the globe - instead they focussed on Chanda Kocchars failure to disclose the relationship to the board in 2012.The report should have ended at that but Justice Shrikrishna affected with the same disease that has affected SC judges since 2014 in his ‘wisidom’ acted like the king and ruled that - Chanda Kocchar was literally called out as taking a bribe through her husband in payment for the loan.Subsequently ICICI Bank forgot about (a) Her Exemplary service for more than a decare (b) Her overseas growth rate (c) her handling of the 2008 economic crisis and sacked her without supporting her.ENTER THE KEYSTONE COPS :-Of course - once there is blood in the water- enter the keystone cops of India - the famous CBI.They registered a case and soon ED followed. Anything these days is a criminal conspiracy and so Chanda and her husband were accused of Criminal conspiracy and so was Venugopal Dhoot who was in the dock for 21000 Crore with no hope of paying even 20% of that.CONCLUSION IN MY OPINION PURELY:-Puraly in my opinion :-(a) Chanda Kocchar was wrong in failing to disclose the relationship with Dhoot of her husband to the Board in 2012.(b) The Shares of nupower are still owned by Dhoot who invested with the company as early as 2008.(c) The ICICI Board were wrong to Chanda Kocchar acting like headless chickens.(d) Chanda Kocchar is not criminally complicit.(e) Courts should acquit Chanda should the matter ever reach court but this could take as late as 2026–2028.

The draft Indian Forest Act, 2019 was recently released by the Union government, proposing an overhaul of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.What are the key features?Powers - The draft law proposes to restore higher management powers and a degree of veto power with the forest bureaucracy over the Forest Rights Act, 2006.Forest officials would be able to -deny or extinguish rights over traditional forests of tribals, even those already recognised under the FRAreduce or restrict tribals and forest dwellers' access to forest produce (which they own under the FRA)diminish the role of gram sabhas (village assemblies) by running a parallel system of "village forests” wherein officials would have the last sayAlso, the powers to investigate, search and seize property, hold inquiries by forcing attendance of witnesses and evidence have been retained and in parts enhanced.Moreover, the Centre will be able to intervene in the states on matters of management of forestlands.It can overrule the states on several counts when it deems fit.Commercial use - The government had earlier proposed as a policy, to open forests to private commercial plantations.Facilitating this, the draft law proposes to open any patch of forests it deems fit for commercial plantations.The law allows the government to assign forests to non-state entities but not lease it or use it as collateral to raise funds.‘Production forests’ - Introducing legal provisions for commercial forestry, the government proposes to create a new class of forests called ‘production forests’.It can as well declare any forests as conservation area for the purpose of enhanced carbon sequestration.The conservation areas will also be opened to active forest management for enhancing vegetational growth by reforestation and afforestation.Infrastructure - The State Government/UT Administration shall -develop the infra-structure for standardized lock-up rooms for housing the accusedprovide for transportation of accusedprovide necessary articles for restraining the accused(s), armouries, safe custody of arms, ammunitions, etcThe State/UT should provide these to the Forest-officers for implementing the provisions of the Act in each forest division of the country within 2 years.Offence - Certain offences that were bailable earlier have been proposed to be made non-bailable.The onus of proving innocence in several cases has been left on the accused who are to be presumed guilty till proven otherwise.The accused has to prove that s/he is in lawful possession of forest land, forest produce, and has not committed any offence against the Act.Protection - The draft law also proposes to provide indemnity to Forest-officer using arms, etc to prevent the forest offence.This is in addition to the immunity provided under section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for certain categories of Public Servant.The immunity under the draft forest law is higher than what other government officers are usually provided.It is similar to the one provided under laws imposed in conflict zones, such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers Act).But proceedings against the officers can begin if an inquiry by an authority to be notified by the State Government for the purpose is taken up.Even state governments would not be permitted to grant sanction for prosecution without first constituting an inquiry.Case - Any person, forest officer, any officer of the State Government cannot withdraw forest offence cases registered under the Act.This is to dissuade political executives to incite masses against the provisions of the Act.E.g. many State Governments have withdrawn cases registered under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 to draw political benefitsCollective punishment - The colonial provision of collective punishment of communities for crimes committed by individuals under the forest law has been retained.This applies when fire is caused wilfully or by negligence in a reserved forest, or when theft of forest produce or grazing by cattle occurs.The State Government may then suspend the exercise of all rights of pasture or to forest-produce to all dwellers in the region, for a specified period.Source: The Hindu, Business StandardThank you & Keep Upvoting📤