A good school can make all the difference- By Abhinav Malhotra

KANPUR: The various Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas in the state have helped poor students fulfil their dreams of graduating from premier institutions.

This fact emerged after 24 students of Bhabha Super-35 (which functions on the lines of Bihar's Super 30) cracked the prestigious Joint Entrance Exam (JEE) out of a batch of 35, most of whom had studied at a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya.

The Novadaya Vidyalayas are government schools providing free education to the students who come from poor-socio economic backgrounds.

Those with a zeal to scale new heights are selected by these schools after a round of entrance test.

After this, according to a set schedule, the students are taught the basics of maths, science and chemistry. This platform helps students crack the JEE. Some students of Bhabha Super-35 shared their strategy for cracking the prestigious entrance exam with TOI.

These students were - Sunil Kumar, Rohit Kumar, Shashank Kumar Maurya and Jetendra Kumar Prabhakar. Besides cracking JEE, these students also had another thing common in them.

They are the alumni of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas.

These students attributed their success to the teachers of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas and Mahesh Singh Chauhan who selected them in the Super-35 batch from across the state and taught them.

Sunil, who hails from a small village in Balia district, said he has seen days of extreme struggle as the only earning member of his family - Kailash Ram, his father, is a daily wage labourer earning Rs 240 a day.

At a time when it was difficult for Kailash to manage two square meals a day, teaching his son was a pointless issue. But Sunil's inclination towards study and on knowing that Jawahar Novadaya Vidyalaya does not charge any fee, Kailash agreed to send his son. Today, Sunil has got the all-India rank 870 in the JEE.

Kailash now understands what his son has achieved. He thinks that his days of misfortune will end now.

"All thanks to Navodaya teachers and Mahesh sir of Bhabha Super-35. I could reach here only because of them," said Sunil.

Similar has been the story of Rohit Kumar and Shashank, natives of Jalaun and Varanasi districts respectively.

Shashank has secured 1,139th in the very first attempt at JEE. He had also secured 89% in Class XII exams this year.

Shashank's father is a salesman and has a meagre income but he taught his son to the best of his capabilities.

Now, Shashank, having done his parents and city Varanasi proud, wishes to opt for aerospace engineering from IIT-Kanpur.

Jetendra Kumar Prabhkar, a native of a nondescript village of Jalaun, has also been a student of Navodaya Vidyalaya (in Jalaun) and is a lad of a farmer who died when Jetendra was a child.

Jetendra was raised up by his mother and elder brother. He credits his success to the teachers of Navodaya Vidyalaya and Mahesh Singh Chauhan who selected him in the batch of Super 35 and helped him secure 606th rank in the JEE.

Jetendra said that he wants to pursue graduation in mechanical engineering from IIT-KANPUR

PH Parekh rejects Jethmalani challenging ‘inadequate’, ‘corrupt’ SCBA elections

|

The SC yesterday: Supremely politicalBreaking: Senior advocate and outgoing Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Ram Jethmalani has lodged a written complaint about yesterday’s election alleging it was carried out improperly and marred by “corruption”.

The now five-time winner of the SCBA presidency PH Parekh has rejected Jethmalani’s arguments as motivated by his election loss.

Legally India first reported yesterday that Parekh won the SCBA presidential election by two votes over Adish Aggarwal, and by 22 votes over the incumbent, Jethmalani.

In a letter also dated yesterday (12 May) and addressed to the members of the SCBA election committee, Jethmalani wrote that there had been “corruption” in the run-up to the election and that the “logistic arrangements for conducting the poll on the next day were to say the least extremely inadequate”. (download full letter below story)

In particular he said that the 10 May “announcement of the corruption that had vitiated the election campaign came as a pleasant surprise”. He did not elaborate on the nature of the alleged corruption but added that while he was initially not in favour of the election committee’s resignation and postponement of the election, because the “corruption” had not been disclosed to all voters in “frank disclosure… it would have been better if the elections would have been postponed to some propitious occasion”.

On the logistics he wrote that there were so many voters and inadequate facilities, which required “non-human patience to stand in that furnace of an atmosphere in a suffocating queue”.

The deadline for voting was therefore extended from 4pm to 7pm, which Jethmalani argued was not communicated to all the voters. It appeared that one tenth of voters who had taken the registration slip did not turn out to vote, he claimed, adding that especially senior advocates would have been absent whose vote “could have made a material difference”.

He concluded his two-page letter stating “I suggest that in spite of all your good intention and spirit of accommodation the validity of the election is open to serious challenge.

“I am not sure whether it is within your jurisdiction to do anything now. Do kindly inform me whether you propose to do anything. If not you would kindly indicate that you have no quarrel with the validity of the above objections.”

Counter-point

Parekh, who won with 757 votes told Legally India that Jethmalani himself was present and agreed to the election time being extended beyond 4pm. “If he had any objection, he should have declared any objection then. If he had won he would have been very happy [and] he would have said ‘wonderfully conducted election’.”

“After all, the people who conducted elections are the senior lawyers, one of them is a former judge and [one] an additional solicitor general. To make these allegations now – because of what he’s written in the letter - he should have said before the result was declared,” noted Parekh.

In respect of the Jethmalani’s charges of corruption, Parekh noted that the committee itself was not accused of corruption but that one of the SCBA vice-presidential candidates had complained against another candidate for the same post and the committee said it did not want to get into the issue and would resign.

However both Jethmalani and Parekh argued against this and said that complaints should be considered by the next executive committee. “If they don’t resign, carry on,” said Parekh, “and everyone told them to continue.”

Parekh added that Jethmalani should accept the loss of the presidency gracefully and contest again in next year’s elections.

The referees

Senior advocate Jawahar Lal Gupta, who sat as chairman of the SCBA election committee, told Legally India that the election committee would meet tomorrow morning and would send a reply to Jethmalani.

Written by Kian Ganz | Friday, 13 May 2011 15:56 | Bar, Bench & Litigation

Source Legally India

Fees charged by arbitrators ‘very high and limitless’,

Express News ServiceTags : Chandigarh Housing Board, Project Prideasia, Punjab and Haryana High CourtPosted: Thu May 19 2011, 00:15 hrsChandigarh:

Terming the fees being charged by arbitrators for resolving disputes between Parsvnath and Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) in regard to the multi-crore mega project Prideasia as “very high and limitless”, the CHB on Wednesday moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Taking stock of its contentions, a division bench headed by Justice Hemant Gupta stayed the proceedings pending before the tribunal comprising three arbitrators — Chief Justice of India (Retd) G B Patnaik, retired Supreme Court Justice D P Wadhwa and retired Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Amar Dutt.

Staying further proceedings pending before the tribunal till July 6, the high court issued notices to Parsvnath and the three arbitrators asking them to respond to the contentions raised by CHB in its petition.

Appearing on behalf of CHB, Advocate Sanjay Kaushal contended that till now, the CHB has paid over Rs 80 lakh to the three arbitrators. Each have been paid Rs 26 lakh, he added.

According to CHB, it had requested the tribunal to reduce the fees of the three arbitrators from Rs 1.50 lakh each to Rs 25,000. But the tribunal had declined the request on May 2. Aggrieved, the CHB moved the high court. It also demanded that the order of the tribunal, demanding remaining payment as well as advance amount, be stayed.

Kaushal challenged orders dated December 18, 2009, April 9, 2010 and February 28, 2011, in which, arbitrators had decided their fees and also rejected the CHB’s request to reduce their fees. The CHB petition added that for 20 sittings, Rs 39 lakh has been paid on account of arbitrators’ fees. Also, former arbitrator of the tribunal, Justice S C Agrawal, was paid Rs 12.60 lakh.

“Apart from the fees, parties before the tribunal have also been burdened with the expense of providing for travel, boarding and lodging arrangements for the arbitrators. Owing to the stature of arbitrators, the same has necessarily had to be in the premium classes,” the petition read.

The CHB has also objected to the tribunal’s decision that sessions from 10.30 am to 4.30 pm would be counted as two sittings. The petitioner has submitted that “the order does not record any consent by the parties”.

Source: http://www.indianexpress.com

NGO gets SC nod to assist in Dinakaran probe

Prabhakar Rao Voruganti

Express News Service

First Published : 19 May 2011 03:18:37 AM IST

Last Updated : 19 May 2011 08:23:14 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Senior counsel U Lalith, appearing for eminent jurist P P Rao, made a spirited defence of the latter by saying that Rao had never handed over a complaint to the then Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan against Sikkim High Court Chief Justice P D Dinakaran.

And he did not lead the delegation that had handed over the complaint. It is a fact that he had participated in a seminar, Lalith told a Vacation Bench comprising Justice G S Singhvi and Justice Chandrasmauli Kumar Prasad.

The Bench was hearing a writ petition filed by Dinakaran challenging the order of the 3-member committee constituted by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha declining the withdrawal of P P Rao from the panel.

Meanwhile, the Bench permitted an NGO to assist panel in its ongoing inquiry against Dinakaran. The Bench allowed civil society Forum for Judicial Accountability’s plea after it contended that earlier it had been allowed to assist the inquiry committee during the impeachment process of Justice V Ramaswamy of the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court judge Justice Aftab Alam, senior advocate P P Rao and the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court Justice J S Khehar are the members of the panel.

Justice Dinakaran moved the apex court challenging the ongoing probe against him by the panel alleging that it had exceeded its jurisdiction in probing charges of judicial misconduct and corruption against him. On this, the apex court issued notice and stayed the inquiry by the panel.

“I drafted the memorandum. It was touched upon by other senior counsel. When Dinakaran met me at my residence in December, I told him that there should be a public inquiry in which he should be exonerated.”

http://expressbuzz.com/nation/ngo-gets-sc-nod-to-assist-in-dinakaran-probe/275771.html

Towards an effective Lokpal Bill

All eyes are on the outcome of the meetings of the joint drafting committee on the Lokpal Bill, one scheduled next week. The overall aim is to finalise the legislation so that an effective institution can be put in place to deal with corruption in high places.

Where the Lokpal's 'jurisdiction' is concerned, the government Bill, 2010, is unacceptable for two crucial reasons. First, though it brings the prime minister under the Lokpal's ambit, the Bill confines its jurisdiction only to complaints referred to it by the presiding officers of both houses of Parliament. Second, the Lokpal's recommendations would be merely advisory, making the body toothless. Once the Lokpal enquires into an allegation, its recommendations should be binding.

In a disturbing development, a round table deliberation organised on April 24 saw two distinguished former chief justices of India express the view that the judiciary and the prime minister be kept out of the Lokpal's ambit. While the former may be debatable, keeping the latter out would be a retrograde step.

Under the Jan Lokpal Bill, the Lokpal will have a vast jurisdiction covering - besides the prime minister, ministers and MPs - the higher judiciary and the entire administration and bureaucracy, including local bodies, corporations, etc. The point here is whether a Lokpal alone would be able to effectively deal with corruption over such a vast area comprising politicians, judiciary, bureaucracy, corporations, etc. Or will it turn out to be a case of missing the trees (corruption in high places) for the wood (the entire vast administration)?

Again, the Jan Lokpal Bill proposes to dismantle the Central Vigilance Commission, now a three-member body. All its posts would stand abolished and transferred to the Lokpal. The CVC Act - passed by Parliament only in 2003 to give effect to well-deliberated Supreme Court directions of December 18, 1997 in the Vineet Narain case - would stand repealed. The CVC was created in 1964 by Lal Bahadur Shastri on the basis of the recommendations of the K Santhanam-headed Committee on Prevention of Corruption. It was to deal with corruption among central government employees. Like many other institutions, it has not succeeded in doing so effectively and does need further reform and empowerment.

But the CVC has a history of 47 years. So, why not let the Lokpal deal with corruption in high places - higher judiciary, top political functionaries and top bureaucracy such as, say, secretaries to the government and heads of departments? The rest could be left to a further empowered CVC, with a network of vigilance officers in the ministries.

And what kind of monster body is the Jan Lokpal Bill proposing to create? Under it, the Lokpal would be unwieldy with 11 members and have powers to cancel licences, blacklist firms, order search, seizure and confiscation, etc, take suo motu notice of cases, investigate them and launch prosecutions. Besides having quasi-judicial powers, which it ought to possess, it would be vested with police powers and authority to award punishment, etc. This wide ambit has led to dissensions, with one panel member rightly calling the proposed body a 'supercop'. There is now also a proposal to give the Lokpal phone-tapping authority.



Unfortunately, the civil society Bill seems based on distrust of our constitutional system, parliamentary and democratic processes and the political class as a whole. It is true that people are fed up with corruption. As during the fast undertaken by Anna Hazare, they are ready to take to the streets. We must wake up to these alarm bells. But all reforms, including the creation of the Lokpal, must aim at strengthening rather than weakening the democratic system.

The Jan Lokpal Bill also proposes transferring the Special Police Establishment division of the CBI to the Lokpal, effectively making the rest of the investigative agency a defunct organisation. We all want an apolitical CBI and no political interference in its investigation of cases. The law of the land lays down as much. But the CBI is an investigative agency after all, and should not be completely separated from mainstream governance. In its work, it needs the cooperation of state governments, income tax authorities and, very often, foreign authorities. The round table attended by former chief justices M N Venkatachaliah and J S Verma was clearly of the view that the identity of the CVC and the CBI as separate organisations must be maintained.

Powers to be bestowed to the Lokpal need to be rationalised, to achieve the right proportion. The legislation may provide that cases taken up by the CBI, on the basis of the findings of the Lokpal, will be monitored and controlled by it, in the manner the Supreme Court has been doing in select cases including the 2G spectrum matter. As also that the government will have nothing to do with the investigation of such cases. The CBI will perhaps need further safeguards against political interference in its investigations. The proposal in the Jan Lokpal Bill to do away with the single directive in the CVC Act, and to entrust the power to the Lokpal of sanction for prosecution, must be accepted.

In view of its enlarged jurisdiction, covering politicians, the judiciary as well as the top bureaucracy, the Lokpal ought to be a body of five instead of three members (as proposed in the government Bill), one of whom should be from outside the judiciary.

The writer is a former joint director, CBI.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Purulia: CBI in Copenhagen with expired warrant

New Delhi: A day after Union Home Minister P Chidambaram took the responsibility for the mistake in the most-wanted terror list given to Pakistan, reports on Thursday claimed another major goof-up by investigating agencies in Purulia arms drop case.

According to reports published by a leading daily, the CBI team went to Copenhagen seeking extradition of main accused in the Purulia arms drop case Kim Davy's with an expired warrant.

The CBI team was unaware that the warrant, which had been issued by the Kolkata court in October 2010, had expired on the January 3. It was pointed to them by Davy's lawyer.

An embarrassed CBI then claimed, “it was an oversight.” The CBI has now filed a petition in the court to get the warrant's validity extended till the August 20.

Amidst accusations of playing a role in Purulia arms drop case, the government had earlier decided to send a two-member team comprising a CBI officer and a lawyer to Denmark seeking expedition of Kim Davy.

The CBI team comprising a CBI officer and a lawyer left for Denmark on May 16.

Davy, a prime accused in the Purulia arms drop case, had claimed to a private TV channel that the then PV Narasimha Rao government had plotted the operation to destabilise the West Bengal government by arming locals in the state.

He had also claimed that India's external intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) planned the operation with the help of its British counterpart MI-5 on the Centre's directions.

The Center had vehemently denied Davy's claim, calling it "far-fetched" and a "tactic to complicate" the process of his extradition from Denmark.

The Denmark government wants India to ensure that Davy would not be given death sentence if he is extradited, which was agreed to.

The CBI had also claimed that it has "clinching" evidence against mastermind Kim Davy's alleged "act of terror" and is making all efforts to bring him to India to face trial in the case.

Source: Zee News

http://www.zeenews.com/news707343.html

My Fortune

"This is 'My Misfortune' it always happens with me";

I always keep wondering , why so is he (GOD);

Why He made human, good and bad,

Why he made them High and low;

Answers to all these questions,

HOnestly I do not know;

But one thing is for Sure

His intentions are are wise and pure

Despites others being strong

and us being weak

there are many traits

in some sense I am Unique

Self realisation

is like a new birth

someways I may be poor

but still there is no dirth

I have realised Unique in me is my fortune....

One thing which is mine,

till the time I die

No one can rob me of it,

even if they try;

And till the time I have it,

I shall not cry and smile again; :)

After self realisation...

My fortune is,

no more my misfortune

I feel like

I am the king of the kings

And shall live like One

Till my soul flies away w/o any wings.

Composed by: Puneet Singh Bindra