05-05-2008, 02:36 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Incorrect information </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
A prison visit can't be a state secret
On April 15, 2008, a newspaper broke the story of Ms Priyanka Vadra's meeting in a Vellore prison with Nalini Murugan, convicted for the murder of Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister and the father of Ms Vadra. Later in the day, Ms Vadra confirmed the meeting and requested - as did the Congress - that her privacy be respected, and that she had sought the meeting to bring an extremely painful and traumatic memory to closure. The sentiment is unexceptional and, largely, the media, politicians and people have abided by its spirit. Yet, there is a curious sub-text to the chapter that now requires urgent clarification. <b>On April 8, a lawyer in Chennai moved an application under the Right to Information Act, seeking details of those who met Nalini Murugan in her cell on March 19. On April 11, the superintendent of the Vellore Special Prison for Women, Ms B Rajasoundari, replied to the RTI application, denying that anybody had met Nalini Murugan. The laywer-RTI applicant formally received the denial on April 16. The reply in his hands had been contradicted by the previous day's news frenzy and by Ms Vadra's statement as well. This has led to one of two conclusions. First, Ms Rajasoundari lied, resorted to deliberate misinformation while fulfilling her duties as a public servant and dealing with an RTI application. In essence, she played foul with the transparency the Right to Information Act has sought to institutionalise, and thus severely damaged its credibility. She deserves exemplary punishment, as per the provisions of the law. Her case should be an example for all civil servants who seek to obfuscate the truth under political pressure or to protect the secrecy of well-connected individuals. However, a second conclusion can be arrived at as well. It is possible that Ms Rajasoundari is technically not lying. Perhaps Ms Vadra's visit was extra-legal and covert and, therefore, no official file records it. If that is so, it is a gross breach of the rules and of the principle of equality before the law, for which the Tamil Nadu Government and the Union Home Ministry are both answerable. </b>
It must be stressed that there is no evidence yet that Ms Vadra is guilty of initiating wrongdoing. She merely expressed her desire to meet Nalini Murugan - as, indeed, Devdas Gandhi, the son of the Mahatma, had sought permission to meet Nathuram Godse just before the latter's execution. That matter had gone up to the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who had turned down the request, seeing it as irregular and capable of setting a disquieting precedent. It is possible that the UPA Government has decided to take a more liberal view on the right of murder convicts and death-row prisoners to meet visitors, and has therefore upturned Nehru's wisdom. It would, however, help if the exact rules were made public and were applied equally to all classes of prisoners and visitors. As an economist, the Prime Minister surely knows that a system of exceptions and exemptions, which privileges some citizens over others, is designed to invite suspicion and is also profoundly anti-egalitarian and undemocratic. <b>In the current situation, the overzealousness of the Government, or at any rate of its officials, has led Ms Vadra to embarrassment and caused her to violate rules she may not even have known existed.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And PM is as usual sleeping. No law of land is applicable on Sonia' s family.
The Pioneer Edit Desk
A prison visit can't be a state secret
On April 15, 2008, a newspaper broke the story of Ms Priyanka Vadra's meeting in a Vellore prison with Nalini Murugan, convicted for the murder of Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister and the father of Ms Vadra. Later in the day, Ms Vadra confirmed the meeting and requested - as did the Congress - that her privacy be respected, and that she had sought the meeting to bring an extremely painful and traumatic memory to closure. The sentiment is unexceptional and, largely, the media, politicians and people have abided by its spirit. Yet, there is a curious sub-text to the chapter that now requires urgent clarification. <b>On April 8, a lawyer in Chennai moved an application under the Right to Information Act, seeking details of those who met Nalini Murugan in her cell on March 19. On April 11, the superintendent of the Vellore Special Prison for Women, Ms B Rajasoundari, replied to the RTI application, denying that anybody had met Nalini Murugan. The laywer-RTI applicant formally received the denial on April 16. The reply in his hands had been contradicted by the previous day's news frenzy and by Ms Vadra's statement as well. This has led to one of two conclusions. First, Ms Rajasoundari lied, resorted to deliberate misinformation while fulfilling her duties as a public servant and dealing with an RTI application. In essence, she played foul with the transparency the Right to Information Act has sought to institutionalise, and thus severely damaged its credibility. She deserves exemplary punishment, as per the provisions of the law. Her case should be an example for all civil servants who seek to obfuscate the truth under political pressure or to protect the secrecy of well-connected individuals. However, a second conclusion can be arrived at as well. It is possible that Ms Rajasoundari is technically not lying. Perhaps Ms Vadra's visit was extra-legal and covert and, therefore, no official file records it. If that is so, it is a gross breach of the rules and of the principle of equality before the law, for which the Tamil Nadu Government and the Union Home Ministry are both answerable. </b>
It must be stressed that there is no evidence yet that Ms Vadra is guilty of initiating wrongdoing. She merely expressed her desire to meet Nalini Murugan - as, indeed, Devdas Gandhi, the son of the Mahatma, had sought permission to meet Nathuram Godse just before the latter's execution. That matter had gone up to the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who had turned down the request, seeing it as irregular and capable of setting a disquieting precedent. It is possible that the UPA Government has decided to take a more liberal view on the right of murder convicts and death-row prisoners to meet visitors, and has therefore upturned Nehru's wisdom. It would, however, help if the exact rules were made public and were applied equally to all classes of prisoners and visitors. As an economist, the Prime Minister surely knows that a system of exceptions and exemptions, which privileges some citizens over others, is designed to invite suspicion and is also profoundly anti-egalitarian and undemocratic. <b>In the current situation, the overzealousness of the Government, or at any rate of its officials, has led Ms Vadra to embarrassment and caused her to violate rules she may not even have known existed.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And PM is as usual sleeping. No law of land is applicable on Sonia' s family.