Court discharges Maran brothers in Aircel-Maxis cases

February 2, 2017

New Delhi, Feb 2: A special court here today discharged former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran, his brother Kalanithi Maran and others in the Aircel-Maxis deal cases lodged by CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

maran-bros hindu

However, today's order would not have any effect on the two accused Malaysian nationals -- Ralph Marshall and T Ananda Krishnan -- as the court has already segregated the trial against them from that of Maran brothers and others.

The order was passed by Special Judge O P Saini who is exclusively dealing with the 2G spectrum allocation scam cases and those cases arising out of the investigation into it.

CBI had filed a charge sheet against the Maran brothers, Ralph Marshall, T Ananda Krishnan, M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd, M/s Astro All Asia Networks Plc, UK, M/s Maxis Communications Berhad, Malaysia, M/s South Asia Entertainment Holdings Ltd, Malaysia and then Additional Secretary (Telecom) J S Sarma who died during the course of the probe.

They were chargesheeted for alleged offences punishable under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC and under relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

In the money laundering case, ED has chargesheeted the Maran brothers, Kalanithi's wife Kavery, Managing Director of South Asia FM Ltd (SAFL) K Shanmugam, SAFL and Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd (SDTPL) under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Besides Maran brothers, the court discharged two companies - M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd (SDTPL) and M/s South Asia Entertainment Holdings Ltd.

During arguments on framing of charges, Special Public Prosecutor Anand Grover had claimed that Dayanidhi had "pressurised" Chennai-based telecom promoter C Sivasankaran to sell his stakes in Aircel and two subsidiary firms to Malaysian firm Maxis Group in 2006.

The charge was strongly refuted by Dayanidhi. All the accused had denied the allegations against them made by the investigating agencies and had moved bail pleas.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 21,2024

billionairs.jpg

New Delhi: India has now become more unequal in terms of wealth concentration than the British colonial period as income and wealth of the top 1% of the country’s population have hit historical highs, according to a paper released by World Inequality Lab.

By 2022-23, the top 1 per cent income share in India was 22.6 per cent and the top 1 per cent wealth share rose to 40.1 per cent, with India’s top 1 per cent income share among the very highest in the world, higher than even South Africa, Brazil and the US.

Co-authored by economists Nitin Kumar Bharti, Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty, and Anmol Somanchi, the paper stated that the “Billionaire Raj” headed by “India’s modern bourgeoisie” is now more unequal than the British Raj headed by the colonialist forces. 

The paper said there is evidence to suggest the Indian tax system might be “regressive when viewed from the lens of net wealth”. A restructuring of the tax code is needed, the paper said, adding that a levy of a “super tax” of 2 per cent on the net wealth of 167 wealthiest families would yield 0.5 per cent of national income in revenues and create space for investments.

“A restructuring of the tax code to account for both income and wealth, and broad-based public investments in health, education and nutrition are needed to enable the average Indian, and not just the elites, to meaningfully benefit from the ongoing wave of globalisation. Besides serving as a tool to fight inequality, a “super tax” of 2% on the net wealth of the 167 wealthiest families in 2022-23 would yield 0.5% of national income in revenues and create valuable fiscal space to facilitate such investments,” the paper said. 

The paper has analysed data based on the annual tax tabulations published by the Indian income tax authorities to extract the distribution of top income earners between 1922-2020.

The share of national income going to the top 10 per cent fell from 37 per cent in 1951 to 30 per cent by 1982 after which it began steadily rising. From the early 1990s onwards, the top 10 per cent share increased substantially over the next three decades, nearly touching 60 per cent in the most recent years, the paper said. This compares with the bottom 50 per cent getting only 15 per cent of India’s national income in 2022-23.

 The top 1 per cent earn on average Rs 5.3 million, 23 times the average Indian (Rs 0.23 million). Average incomes for the bottom 50 per cent and the middle 40 per cent stood at Rs 71,000 (0.3 times national average) and Rs 1,65,000 (0.7 times national average), respectively.
The richest, nearly 10,000 individuals (of 92 million Indian adults) earn on average Rs 480 million (2,069 times the average Indian). “To get a sense of just how skewed the distribution is, one would have to be at nearly the 90th percentile to earn the average income in India,” the paper said.

In 2022, just the top 0.1 per cent in India earned nearly 10 per cent of the national income, while the top 0.01 per cent earned 4.3 per cent share of the national income and top 0.001 per cent earned 2.1 per cent of the national income.

Enlisting the probable reasons for sharp rise in top 1 per cent income shares, the paper said public and private sector wage growth could have played a part till the late 1990s, adding that there are good reasons to believe capital incomes likely played a role in subsequent years. For the shares of the bottom 50 per cent and middle 40 per cent remaining depressed, the paper said, the primary reason has been the lack of quality broad-based education, focused on the masses and not just the elites.

“One reason to be concerned with such high levels of inequality is that extreme concentration of incomes and wealth is likely to facilitate disproportionate influence on society and government. This is even more so in contexts with weak democratic institutions. After largely being a role model among post-colonial nations in this regard, the integrity of various key institutions in India appears to have been compromised in recent years. This makes the possibility of India’s slide towards plutocracy even more real. If only for this reason, income and wealth inequality in India must be closely tracked and challenged,” it said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 15,2024

SCSBI.jpg

New Delhi, Mar 13: The Supreme Court on Friday took exception to the State Bank of India (SBI) for not disclosing complete details of Electoral Bonds, including unique alfa numeric numbers, furnished to the Election Commission for uploading on the website.

A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the SBI seeking its response on Monday after the court was informed that the issuing bank for the Electoral Bonds has not disclosed unique alfa numeric number of each bond.

"They have not disclosed the bond numbers. It has to be disclosed by the State Bank of India. All details have to be provided by the SBI," the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, noted.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said as per the Constitution bench judgment of February 15, 2024, all details were to be disclosed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted since the SBI was a party to the judgment, notice may be issued to it.

The court said the counsel for SBI should have been here.

"If you see the judgment, we have specified that bond numbers have to be provided," the bench said.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the main petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).

On an application by the EC, the bench said the details of Electoral Bonds furnished by the poll panel before the top court should be scanned and returned to it for the purpose of uploading on the website.

The Election Commission through advocate Amit Sharma filed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to release data on electoral bonds furnished to the top court in terms of previous orders of April 12, 2019 and November 2, 2023.

As per March 11, 2024 order, the Election Commission on Thursday uploaded the data on electoral bonds furnished to it by the SBI.

However, in an application, the poll panel said it had furnished to the Supreme Court a number of sealed envelopes, containing details on EBs encashed by the political parties, during the course of hearing in the matter.

It sought a direction for the return of those sealed envelopes to comply with the directions to upload it on the website as per order of March 11.

On Monday, the Supreme Court had told the SBI to furnish details of purchasers of Electoral Bonds and names of political parties redeemed those instruments by March 12 to the Election Commission, rejecting its plea for extension of time until June 30 for the purpose.

It had then directed the Election Commission to publish the information provided by the SBI on its website on March 15.

In its February 15, 2024 judgment, the SC had declared the Electoral Bonds scheme, introduced in 2018 for donation to political parties, as "unconstitutional" for being violative of the right to information.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 22,2024

kejriatishi.jpg

New Delhi, Mar 22: The Aam Aadmi Party has made it clear that Arvind Kejriwal will remain the Delhi Chief Minister despite his arrest in the liquor policy case. While no law would stop the AAP leader from running the state from prison, the jail guidelines would make it extremely difficult.

Kejriwal was arrested yesterday by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), following his avoidance of nine summons issued by the investigative agency in relation to the Delhi liquor policy case. 

The decision to apprehend Kejriwal transpired shortly after the High Court's denial of protection from arrest. With this development, Kejriwal becomes the second opposition Chief Minister to face arrest by the ED within a span of fewer than two months, following Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren's similar fate in January 2024 due to allegations in a graft case. Subsequently, Hemant Soren was replaced by his party colleague, Champai Soren.

Delhi government minister Atishi declared shortly after Kejriwal's arrest that he would not step down from his position. However, the legality and feasibility of a detained Chief Minister continuing to fulfill official duties warrant examination.

A former law officer of Delhi's Tihar Jail says that an inmate can only hold two meetings in a week, which would make it difficult for Mr Kejriwal to carry out his responsibilities as Chief Minister.

Can he run government from prison?

While theoretically plausible, governing from detention presents logistical challenges. However, there exists no explicit prohibition against a Chief Minister conducting official responsibilities while under arrest. Disqualification only occurs upon conviction.

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 outlines disqualification provisions for specific offenses, necessitating a conviction for those holding office.

Will centre impose president’s rule?

Constitution expert SK Sharma told TOI that there exists no specific legal provision mandating the automatic resignation of a state's Chief Minister upon arrest. He cited the example of former Bihar CM Lalu Prasad Yadav, who appointed his wife Rabri Devi as CM during his arrest. "Former Bihar CM Lalu Prasad Yadav made his wife Rabri Devi the CM of the state when he was arrested. More recently, Hemant Soren in Jharkhand also resigned. Calling cabinet meetings in the jail or review meetings with officials in his cell does not seem practical," said Sharma.

Sharma further indicated that if AAP persisted in retaining Kejriwal as CM, it could lead to a deadlock, potentially prompting the Centre to impose President's rule in Delhi.

What may happen next?

Despite AAP's unwavering stance on Kejriwal's continuation in office, internal sources say that potential successors, including Atishi and health minister Saurabh Bharadwaj. Atishi, known for her extensive portfolio and close ties to Kejriwal, alongside Bharadwaj, a prominent minister with significant responsibilities, emerged as likely contenders. Additionally, sources speculated about the surprise candidacy of Kejriwal's wife, Sunita, given her background as a revenue services officer and active involvement in party affairs.

However, finding a successor of comparable stature to Kejriwal, a national convener of the party and three-time Delhi CM, presents a formidable challenge for AAP.

Role of Delhi's Lieutenant Governor

Delhi's unique power structure, featuring an elected Chief Minister and a Lieutenant Governor appointed by the Centre, presents a complex scenario. Kejriwal's ability to continue as CM hinges on legal relief, failing which the Lieutenant Governor can seek Presidential intervention, potentially leading to the imposition of President's rule.

Recent cases demonstrate how denial of bail can compel resignation, highlighting the precarious position of arrested officials.

In light of these developments, the Lieutenant Governor could invoke 'failure of constitutional machinery' to justify President's rule, thereby bringing the national capital under direct Union government control until the end of the current Assembly's tenure in February 2025.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.