Do mid-course correction if needed: Centre to States on MPF

Warning that improper utilisation of funds to lead to non-release of money in future, the Centre has asked states to do mid-course correction if necessary in the implementation of State Action Plans under the Modernisation of Police Forces (MPF) scheme.

The Union Home Ministry has written letters to Chief Secretaries of all states asking them to fully utilise the funds released under MPF scheme.

The Ministry reminded the states that the Finance Ministry has made it mandatory the “complete liquidation” on unspent balances for further release of funds to any entity, including state governments.

The states will have to provide utilisation certificates for the full amount of funds released earlier, a senior Home Ministry official said.

Against this backdrop, the Ministry has now asked states to “urgently review” the progressed achieved so far in utilization of funds under MPF during 2013-14 and earlier years and initiate “necessary mid-course correction” for speedy implementation of the scheme.

The states have been asked to submit utilisation certificates for 2013-14 on or before April 1 next year. In 2013-14, Rs 1,341.62 crore has been allocated with Uttar Pradesh cornering the highest of Rs 176.08 crore. Karnataka was allocated Rs 77.50 crore.

For a period between 2000-01 and 2012-13, the Centre has released Rs 12,411 crore to states of which Rs 392.76 crore has remained unspent, according to latest Home Ministry statistics shared with state governments.

Assam has topped this list with an unspent amount of Rs 76.31 crore out of released amount Rs 605.08 crore followed by Maharashtra which did not spend Rs 46.68 crore out of an allocation of Rs 934.68 crore. Karnataka had got Rs 860.50 crore in 12 years while it could not spent Rs 18.45 crore.

Earlier this month, the Home Ministry had finalised tentative additional allocation for states after Finance Minister Arun Jaitley announcing doubling the funds available under MPF scheme. The states were told in no uncertain terms that the enhanced allocation would be made available only if the states are able to provide utilisation certificate for previous release of money.

The official also said the Home Ministry is revamping the NATGRID, one of the biggest internal security projects of the previous UPA government, and will soon set up a committee for its complete overhaul.

The committee will suggest how to improve the functioning of the NATGRID, an intelligence gathering mechanism set up to track terror suspects and incidents and how to utilise its database by different government agencies.

(An edited  version appeared in Deccan Herald on Sep 26, 2014)

Will whistleblowing turn scary for govt officials?

Abhijit Ghosh, now retired, learnt it the hard way. He blew the whistle on corruption by the Chairman and Managing Director of Central Bank of India where he was General Manager. His cover was blown by none other than Central Vigilance Commission. His complaint to CVC was forwarded to his boss against whom he had complained. A long spell of harassment followed with Ghosh remaining in suspension. He was reinstated in service just two days before his retirement in March 2010. The bank spent Rs 69.2 lakh for lawyers to fight against Ghosh.  “…Why are the ones I raised a voice against sitting comfortably and it is me who is running from pillar to post?” he had then said.


Supreme Court had assembled in the morning on September 15 and there was speculation all over about the case involving CBI Director Ranjit Sinha’s meetings with controversial visitors at his official residence. What will happen? What is in the minds of the judges? Sinha had questioned lawyer Prashant Bhushan’s argument that he could not reveal his source as he is a whistleblower. The officer had also contested the legality of the petition seeking his recusal in 2G and coal scam cases, saying the submission of a “privileged” government communication (between Sinha and then Special Prosecutor U U Lalit, now a Supreme Court judge) without permission was not proper. An adverse remark while commenting on Sinha’s affidavit would have made the IPS officer’s case weak. Only the week before, the apex court had insisted on an affidavit after Sinha appeared keen on giving only oral submissions.

The case – filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) – was called and the bench headed by Chief Justice-designate H L Dattu started firing queries. While whole focus was on Sinha, the apex court was pondering on other facets of the case. It was not satisfied with Bhushan’s affidavit, as it was not in conformity with its needs. “Put name of the whistleblower in a sealed envelope. Once we realise that there is no hanky-panky then we would consider what type of probe is to be done,” the Bench told Bhushan.

A stunned Bhushan opposed it saying, “I can put my life at stake on the issue that register is genuine. It is impossible to fabricate it. I can guarantee that it is genuine register which was maintained at gate.” Bhushan had been steadfastly refusing to name the source, arguing that his source was a whistleblower and his identity needed to be protected. Sinha but argued that the case did not come under the ambit of the Whistleblower’s Act as there was no threat to the life of the source who provided Bhushan the controversial visitor’s register. The court order brought glee in Sinha’s camp. The CBI Director has been asking the court from day one to get the name of the source. Bhushan had told Deccan Herald last week that Sinha would “naturally be interested” to know who is the source of the diary. Sinha, reports claimed, had stepped up efforts to know whether his colleagues in CBI had leaked the diary.

However, Bhushan on September 18 told the court through an affidavit that he would not identify the whistleblower, who may in trouble after the disclosure. In the affidavit filed on behalf of lawyer Kamini Jaiswal, General Secretary of Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), Bhushan cited several instances where the Supreme Court went ahead with petitions like those in Jain hawala diary, Niira Radia tapes and some in 2G without asking for the source of the information available with petitioners.

Activists fear that the whistleblower in this case would end up as another Ghosh. They also cited the instance of Satyendra Dubey, who was murdered after his complaint to Prime Minister’s Office on irregularities in highway projects in 2003. S Manjunath lost his life in 2010 for fighting petroleum adulteration, Amit Jethwa for fighting against illegal mining in Gir forests and Shashidhar Mishra for filing RTI on corruption in Panchayat were other whistleblowers who lost lives among others. A section felt that the Supreme Court order would create a bad precedent. What is important is the information and not the informant, they argued.

Eminent persons like activist Aruna Roy and former Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi shot off an open letter to Chief Justice of India R M Lodha expressing their concern over the order. Among other things, they wanted the court to order Special Investigation Team to go through the records of the CBI to see if any link can be established between the supposed visits and the CBI’s investigations subsequently.

The Supreme Court may be well in its right to ask for the source. The court would also keep its confidentiality if it chooses to. But it will set a wrong precedent when the same court had earlier chose to not to bother about the source in high-profile corruption cases. The general fear is that the order may result in creating fear among whistleblowers in the officialdom. An officer would prefer to remain anonymous when complaining about a colleague or his superior for lawless acts. Once the confidence on confidentiality is eroded, a number of upright officials may desist from taking the risk. That may corrode the fight against corruption as nobody would become a whistleblower. Like any other body – be it the Supreme Court, Chief Vigilance Commission or a strong Lokpal – a whistleblower play an integral part in the fight against corruption. They should be protected at any cost.

(An edited version appeared in ‘Spotlight’ of Deccan Herald on Sep 21, 2014)

Visits That Put CBI Chief in the Spot

On a humid afternoon earlier this month, Prashant Bhushan rose to his feet in Court No 2 of Supreme Court to argue why CBI Director Ranjit Sinha should be asked to keep his hands off the investigations and trial of 2G scam. A website had by then dropped the bombshell about controversial visitors to the CBI chief’s residence and Sinha’s office was working phones to find out from how the register had reached media and lawyer Bhushan. Very few details were known when Bhushan, who tasted success in ensuring court monitoring of 2G and coal scam probes, brought the contents of the diary before the court. But the bench led by Chief Justice-designate H L Dattu restrained him from naming people in the 310-page diary on September 2 and asked him to file an affidavit soon.

The first names to come out were of Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) officials Tony Jesudasan and A N Sethuraman, who were said to have met Sinha around 50 times in a span of 15 months from May 2013. ADAG was facing charges in 2G and the frequency of their visits, according to the diary whose veracity was questioned by Sinha, increased after a decision to re-investigate charges against Ambanis. As days passed, there was a flood of details. Meat exporter Moin Qureshi, who is under Income Tax scanner, visited Sinha some 90 times. Mahendra Nahata, a 2G scam suspect, met Sinha 71 times while consultant Deepak Talwar, who figured in Niira Radia tapes and probed in 2G, called on him 50 times. Congress MP Vijay Darda (coal scam accused), Sunil Bajaj, head of corporate affairs in Essar that was probed in the 2G case, and former Medical Council of India chief Ketan Desai (arrested on corruption charges) were among other visitors. Besides mysterious names like Shiv Baba, the guest list also included politicians like Union Minister Ramvilas Paswan, who was probed for a recruitment scam, Salman Khurshid and Shanawaz Hussain.

The diary shows that visitors with questionable credentials, who were under scanner, flocked to his house almost every day. It appeared the gates of 2-Janpath, Sinha’s official residence, remained unlocked late into the evening.


(CBI Director Ranjit Sinha)

Authentic or not, the diary opens a ‘Pandora’s Box’ as Sinha will be required to answer several queries. Why there are so many meetings at home? Can the CBI chief’s residence be an ‘Open House’ for suspects to walk in freely? Whether investigating officers were present during meetings or was Sinha alone? Have these meetings found its place in official records?  If meetings were merely to hear out the other side of the story, why were decisions that could change the course of probe in 2G taken? Is it not true that the image of CBI had taken a beating due to controversies like this? Has not the Director’s actions undermined the agency, which boasts of its motto ‘Industry, Impartiality, Integrity’? Is it not the responsibility of the Director to ensure that the agency remain above suspicion?

Like his predecessors, Sinha too was battered by all – executive and judiciary. But it was his own making. He earned the executive’s wrath not for being upright but for not doing enough the way they wanted. Aided by whistleblowers, judiciary on the other hand put him on the mat for not playing by the book. CBI earned notoriety for being a “caged parrot”, its affidavit were changed by Law Minister, registered unbaked cases against corporate honchos and former bureaucrats but had to close it down – it found itself in headlines for wrong reasons day after day.

The visits of accused and those linked with accused raise doubts about Sinha’s role. In an affidavit filed in Supreme Court, Bhushan claimed that Sinha made “serious attempts” to derail investigation and prosecution in CBI cases. The change in stand on 2G case that would help Reliance and other accused, removal of an investigating officer without court’s permission and delay in filing chargesheet in Aircel-Maxis case were cited to point fingers at Sinha.

In his defence, Sinha said he wanted to know their side of the story. He even goes on to say that when MPs seek appointments, how he could say no. To buttress the point that he showed no leniency, he goes on to say that he did not hesitate to file chargesheets against certain visitors. Filing of chargesheet will not form a strong defence because the follow-up action in court will only determine the fate of the case. A weak chargesheet also can jeopardise the case. If one goes by the notings of the then Special Public Prosecutor U U Lalit, who recently became a judge in Supreme Court, in the issue of filing separate responses to accused in 2G scam, all is not well in CBI. Sinha’s intention may be good but it has to match action and this is where it appears he has failed.

The bad press earned during his tumultuous tenure in CBI, which ends this December, left him with no solace, as he could not expect a sympathetic coverage on the controversy over the visitor’s register. The list of visitors, first flatly denied and later partially accepted by Sinha, did not surprise many as if they were not unexpected. But it actually put a question mark on the credibility of the agency once again. It raised doubts about the impartiality of the agency in ensuring justice and questioned not only the reputation of the officer but also the integrity of the agency. The chosen one to uphold the values of the institution stood with ink smeared on his face.

Sinha himself has admitted that he met controversial figures mentioned in the register. Some of the controversial figures are described as Sinha’s “friends”. It is also said that some others have “close family links”. If people under scanner for wrongdoings or with a controversial bio-data can remain friends with the most powerful investigator of the country, then it is natural that one develops suspicion. One is known by the company one keeps, the CBI Director might be knowing this. The CBI Director cannot hide under right to privacy and stall queries. It does not augur well for him or CBI.

Caesar and Caesar’s wife should be, at any cost, be above suspicion.

(An edited version appeared in ‘Spotlight’ of Deccan Herald on Sep 21, 2014)

Vinod Rai Speaking

Vinod Rai, former Comptroller and Auditor General, is in news again. Predictably, his book ‘The Diary of the Nation’s Conscience Keeper: Not Just an Accountant’ has ruffled many feathers. I spoke to Rai for Deccan Herald on Manmohan Singh, CAG and other topics. Excerpts:

Responding to your book, Manmohan Singh has said he did his duty.

A Raja was writing letters to him and it clearly indicated the trend of decisions that are going to be taken. Singh chose to respond in a way he wanted to. It is his discretion to determine for himself which way he will take decision.

In 2G or coal scam, do you think Manmohan Singh should also be investigated?

Certainly not. He (Singh) was sitting somewhere, some files came, some letters were written to him. There is no way, in which you can establish or even bring to his door or he was complicit with that it. He was not the one who decided that this is what I am going to do. Whereas I have written that in 2006 itself, Dayanidhi Maran had decided that pricing of spectrum has to be kept out of the GoM.

Is it that only Raja was responsible for the fiasco?

Basic culpability will have to be that of Raja because he took on to himself the onus of a decision, which normally should have gone to a GoM. It also cannot be denied that the rules and regulations, which were laid down to be followed, he did not follow it.

Then Union Minister Kamal Nath had warned Singh

This is one thing that we speculated at length even at the time when we were writing the report in 2010. Law Ministry, Finance Ministry and PMO all were advising. Kamal Nath wrote to him. Why he (Singh) did not do it? Singh has not come up with an answer. I do not think, with any certainty, we can say why he did not follow recommendations he was given.


Manmohan Singh has been singled out for criticism in the last three-four months. Is it fair?

I find that most unfortunate. A Prime Minister has 100 departments under him. He has 40 ministers under him. Each of these ministers must play their role properly. The fact is that the systems under him, those people were not playing their role correctly. That nobody seems to have been pointing out. Unfortunately, he is taking the hit for mistakes committed by others. I guess that is the misfortune of a leader.

How do you rate him?

I rate Manmohan Singh very highly. He was one of the main architects of the reforms that unfolded in 1991. In fact, it was application of his mind and knowledge because of which we are benefiting today. You and I will never be able to guess what were the compulsions operating on the leader at that point of time because of which he took the decision that he did take. It is very difficult for any one of us to pass judgements on anyone’s legacy because a leader goes through very testing times, very difficult times. But in 2004 or 2006, may be as a Prime Minister he could not prevail upon his other colleagues, in terms of implementing his policies or his experience or his recommendation. Large number of things may have gone wrong.

CAG report on Air India was damning for many.

Air India was not allowed to run professionally. Decisions that were taken were thrust upon Air India. How can a Board note say that a decision to refurbish aircraft was taken at the behest of the Minister? How can a Minister say that you refurbish the aircraft? It is a technical decision to be taken by the technically competent people.

Former Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel has threatened to sue you.

If he decides to sue me, I will have to face it because I have written what I have written.

CAG is accused of forcing a policy paralysis. Bureaucrats are afraid of CAG.

In April 2008, Manmohan Singh asked me to address civil servants on Civil Services Day and tell officers not to be afraid of CAG, CVC or CBI. There was fear. I did not create that fear. So it is a futile, defeatist argument to say that CAG created policy paralysis. It is an affront to the robustness of the Indian economy to say that three CAG reports or two SC judgements have created a situation where bureaucrats are unwilling to take decisions. It is trying to find a very lame excuse.

You also talk about CBI preliminary enquiry registered against you when you were CAG. Bureaucrats were also targeted.

I think anybody who is trying to target incumbent CAG through this methodology is absolutely puerile. Because you think, a sitting CAG will get cowed down by a PE. I mean, I have dealt with law, administration, courts, I know what can be the culpability that can be established against me for early release of an official. I knew it, went to then CBI Director, and said, let me see you proceed on this, I will fix you. I actually told him that. They (CBI) made a fool of themselves by targeting P C Parakh in coal scam case.

CBI Director Ranjit Sinha is in news for wrong reasons.

This is obviously the result of some intrigues. We do not know what the truth is. Sinha says the number of visits was exaggerated. I believe all the bureaucrats live in glasshouses. Every act of ours is under public scrutiny. We need to conduct ourselves so that we can withstand all scrutiny. So I think somewhere, even if he says the visits are exaggerated, something is amiss. (The meetings were) certainly not (proper). It is like I meeting a judge in whose court my case is being heard.

You are accused of taking undue credit for the work done by others.

They have not read the book. In the preface, I have said there can be no other professionally competent department than the Indian Audit and Accounts Departments. I have said these entire audit reports of which I am drawing is the product of their untiring efforts. I have even said, in any other dispensation, they would be applauded for their work. In this country, they are being called untrained. Probably because they were unfortunate to have me as their leader.

You also spoke about reforms in CAG.

If I ask Finance Secretary, a query how many times you have travelled abroad in 2013. He may chose to reply immediately, he may be a day or a month or not reply at all. All I can do is keep writing. Whereas if you attach Rs 10 and ask the same question under RTI, he has to give a reply in 30 days. Why not make that applicable to CAG also? Audit queries go unanswered for years. I had said do not wait for more than three months. If it does not come, then go ahead with the report. Let them face the brunt in the report where their input is not there.

(An edited version appeared in Panorama section of Deccan Herald on Sep 17, 2014)

Something is amiss: Vinod Rai

Former Comptroller and Auditor General Vinod Rai on Monday found it improper the controversial meetings CBI Director Ranjit Sinha had with people linked with cases investigated by the agency, saying, “Somewhere, something is amiss”.

Rai, whose recently released book ‘The Diary of the Nation’s Conscience Keeper: Not Just an Accountant’ triggered a controversy, also minced no words in rebuking the agency for targeting officers and making a fool of itself in cases like that of former Coal Secretary P C Parakh.


Asked about the controversy surrounding Sinha and his visitors, Rai said it is “obviously the result of some intrigues”.

“We do not know what the truth is. Sinha says the number of visits was exaggerated. I believe all the bureaucrats live in glasshouses. Every act of ours is under public scrutiny. We need to conduct ourselves so that we can withstand all scrutiny. So I think somewhere, even if he says the visits are exaggerated, something is amiss,” Rai told Deccan Herald in an interview.

He said the meetings were “certainly not” proper and it was like someone meeting a judge in whose court his case was being heard.

Sinha is under cloud after a visitor’s register of his official residence came in public domain. The purported diary had details of frequent visits by scam accused or those linked with them. The visitors included Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) top officials Tony Jesudasan and A N Sethuraman, meat exporter Moin Qureshi, who is under Income Tax scanner, and coal scam accused Vijay Darda, a Congress MP, among others.

The former CAG himself was the target of a CBI inquiry when he was holding the Constitutional post, which was narrated in the book. When Rai was in Finance Ministry, he had cleared the VRS of an official speedily.

“I think anybody who is trying to target incumbent CAG through this methodology is absolutely puerile. Because you think, a sitting CAG will get cowed down by a PE. I mean, I have dealt with law, administration, courts, I know what can be the culpability that can be established against me for early release of an official. I knew it, went to then CBI Director, and said, let me see you proceed on this, I will fix you. I actually told him that,” he said.

He also said the CBI “made a fool of themselves” by targeting former Coal Secretary P C Parakh in a coal scam case. Along with Parakh, business tycoon Kumaramangalam Birla was also named but after investigations, they decided to close the case for want of evidence.

(An edited version appeared in Deccan Herald on Sep 16, 2014)

You may not may be able to do skydiving at your will

You may not may be able to do skydiving at your will. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) now planning to regulate skydiving as it is gaining popularity though there are “inherent risks” in the exercise.

Any individual or entity intending to carry out parachuting activities will need mandatory affiliation with DGCA approved organization and follow the safety requirements, according to the planned regulations.

Parachuting or skydiving activities have predominantly been carried out under the aegis of Indian Army and Air Force but such activities using civil aircraft are permitted under Indian Aircraft Rules, 1937.

The activities are gaining popularity in the civil aviation sector though parachuting has certain inherent risks for all participants.

The regulator has decided to come up with regulations in order to ensure safety of parachuting Operations, the regulation on training and licensing of personnel and equipment engaged in such operations, a senior official said.

Aero Club of India (ACI) or another competent organisation is likely to be authorised by the DGCA to check training and licensing of personnel and equipment. The ACI or another organisation will develop basic safety requirements and information for skydiving activities considered as industry best practices and acceptable to DGCA.

The DGCA has given time till October 12 for stakeholders to give comments on the draft.

As per the draft Civil Aviation Rules, no person will be allowed to conduct a parachute operation over or into a congested area without permission.

“However, a parachutist may drift over a congested area or an open-air assembly of persons with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if that parachutist is at a sufficient altitude to avoid creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface,” the draft regulations said.

Alcohol and drugs are also a strict no for a skydiver with the draft saying no pilot in command of an aircraft should allow a person to do skydiving if that “person is or appears to be” under the influence of intoxicating and psychoactive substances.

Taking more precaution, an expert approved by authorised agency should personally observe those packing main parachutes to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly, and takes responsibility for that packing.

(An edited version appeared in Deccan Herald on Sep 14, 2014)

Bhushan and Sinha: The battle over diaries

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan is a relentless fighter against corruption. He was instrumental in securing court monitoring of high-profile cases like the 2G scam and coal scam. This time, his sensational claim based on a visitor’s register at CBI Director Ranjit Sinha’s official residence has ruffled many feathers. I spoke to Bhushan on the frequent meetings Sinha had with those linked with controversial cases.


The CBI Director argues that he has to meet certain people to understand the other side of the story. How is it improper for a CBI chief to meet accused on a regular basis?

I can understand if somebody makes a complaint against an Investigating Officer (IO). You can hear that complaint. But for that, they have to give you something in writing. That meeting should not be in unofficial, clandestine manner. Such meetings can be once, twice but not 50 times. If he is meeting those people to hear their side of the story, normally he should call the IO. If they are complaining against IO, then he need not call the officer but he should meet accused at his office after officially recording it.

His argument is that he had met people but did not shower any favour.

Take the case of Reliance, he was trying to undo the chargesheet. He was trying to ensure that the petitions filed by accused would succeed. First, he prepared a counter affidavit conceding everything they were saying.

Sinha feels that there is somebody behind you.

Firstly, it is absurd. However, even assuming that there was somebody behind me, how does it reduce his own culpability? He has to explain why he was meeting all these accused persons. Whether there is somebody behind me or not is irrelevant. The Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and Common Cause, the petitioners in the cases, are multi-member bodies of very credible people. We get information from many people, from all kind of sources. If we feel the information is credible, reliable and it shows some serious wrongdoing, some serious corruption going on somewhere, then we use that information.

Questions have been raised on the veracity of the visitor’s register.

There may be two other diaries as claimed by Sinha. However, the point is the diary records the movement of guests or visitors to his house. It is recorded in so many details — names, car numbers, time in and time out. It is a very detailed document, handwritten by several people who were posted at the gates. It is impossible to fabricate this kind of a register.

Some entries are alleged to be fake.

If so, it should be investigated. It appears to be very unlikely because the diary is in sequence. The register is in 4-5 handwritings. The register is so detailed many of the car numbers have been verified. It is possible that in one or two cases, some car numbers have been mistakenly noted down. I find it exceedingly difficult t believe that they could be significant errors. If there mistakes, I do not think it will be significant.

CBI chief was very keen to know your source.

Naturally, he would be. He would like to know who the whistle blowers are but it is important that identity of such whistleblowers is protected.

What is the extent of damage done to the cases?

Great deal of damage has already been done by not charge sheeting several people. They delayed Aircel for very long time. They did not investigate some aspects. In the Coalgate they sought to close down many of the. A great deal of damage has been done. How much of it can be rectified, I cannot say.

Do you think CBI Director is still a caged parrot?

The Director is not a caged parrot. Government appoints a convenient person as Director. Such convenient Directors some times can also be corrupt. Director enjoys a security of tenure.  In that sense, government on its own cannot remove him. They have to consult CVC. So Director has been given considerable freedom. But the rest of the CBI, they are still under the administrative control of the government. The current problem is the Director. They appointed a convenient person whom they should have known is corrupt. Yet they appointed him, as he was convenient.

Has CBI lost its edge?

CBI has certainly lost a great deal of credibility over the years. Earlier, that was because of the politicisation of the agency or rather the willingness of the agency to bow down before its political masters. We have seen flip-flops by the CBI in cases of Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav. We have also seen CBI’s reluctant to seriously probe cases involving those in the then government like Bofors, Scorpene deal and even in the 2G case. What we are seeing now is an altogether different thing. It is outright corruption where the Director appears to be interfering in investigations. All this underline the need for bringing CBI under a strong Lokpal.

CBI needs to regain its credibility

Of course, they need to regain credibility. For that, you need to change the system of appointment. If you place it under a credible Lokpal, the one that we had proposed and not the government’s Lokpal, and you provide full transparency, then perhaps you can have proper CBI. The CBI has to be made accountable to Lokpal. Administrative control also should be with Lokpal and not with government.

(An edited version appeared in Panorama section of Deccan Herald on Sep 15, 2014)

Previous Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: