Fidgets: Manmohan Singh who called revolutionaries ‘left viruses’, calls CBI Court ‘mindless’

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is in fidgets, as situation has been created to judicially focus on his face.

Being summoned by the CBI Court in Coal Block allocation scam, instead of cooperating with the Court as an ideal citizen, he is trying to evade the Court, by preferring a litigation in the Supreme Court of India seeking quashing of the summon.

At the crux of his petition lies his perception that the CBI Court is mindless.

The summon issued to him is generated because of “non application of mind”, he has alleged.

He is a man who, in his nefarious design to render the Constitution of India purposeless by sabotaging its resolve for socialism, had hurled the wordy filth ‘left viruses’ at the revolutionaries that fight for socialism, to overcome whose impact his government was giving the people opiates like subsidized wheat and rice to keep them under slow-starvation while continuing to densify capitalism, which was the cause of starvation.

Now the same man Manmohan Singh, lest the CBI Court comes to the conclusion that he was working as a comprador in the coal block allocation matter, has called the Court mindless.

When in Office, Singh had tried to belittle the dignity of India’s Constitutional Authority of Audit – the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) – whose reports were exposing the black deeds of his administration.

Singh was terribly irritated when in March 2012 the CAG estimated that the country has suffered a financial loss to the tune of Rs.10.7 Lakh Crores because of scam in coal block allocation during the period from 2004 to 2009. In May 29, 2012, he asserted that he would give up his public life if found guilty of the scam.

When the CBI court is attempting to find out whether or not he is guilty of the scam, and the ready issue in hand is his role in allocation of Talbira -II coal block to a particular private company called Hindalco in 1996, the same Manmohan Singh is trying to quash the Court’s attempt to reach at the truth!

The people of India have punished the Congress as severely as possible only in order to avenge Manmohan Singh’s misrule and treason against the country. His administration was marked for unprecedented treachery against the people, subjugation of India to American hegemony, compromising with India’s future in order to ensure “bonanza” to Americam Nuke traders, and amongst may other offenses against the country, attempts to thwart the Supreme Court’s judgment through vested interest ordinances, disturbed over which, Rahul Gandhi, the only person in Congress marked for his eagerness to be one with the poorest of the poor Indians the victims of or threatened by big private industries, had called Manmohan’s ordinance-missile against the Court as ‘Nonsense’.

Let the Supreme Court decide his petition as it likes, because there is no avenue available to the people to intervene with what it will hold.

But the conscience of any citizen of this country holds that whether or not the former Prime Minister of India has acted a comprador in coal block allocation to Hindalco be determined through a competent Court of Law within a specific time.

Ramesh Pattnaik: Martyr in the battle against exploitation in Samaja

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

As has already been shown, the history of Samaja under Servants of the People Society (SoPS) is a history of treachery, forgery and scourgery.

This write-up will narrate how a low paid employee of Samaja namely Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik breathed his last in a long fight for justice on the battle field of Law that spanned from a labor office at Cuttack to the Supreme Court at New Delhi, as his mighty employer, after having illegally dismissed him, had misused media power to obstruct adjudication of his dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act and yet again had foiled the relief granted to him by the lowest Civil Court, Cuttack by using the forum of the High Court of Orissa.

If anything, he is a martyr amongst the workers in the battle for justice in the ramparts of Law.

Anti-worker I.D.Act

bijubabu watchig scpTwo and half decades ago, I had set fire to Industrial Disputes Act in front of the Orissa Legislative Assembly when it was in session, to shock-awake the State Government to the need of reference of a case of dismissal of a Journalist (Vevekanand Dash) to the Industrial Tribunal. His powerful employer being the son-in-law of the Chief Minister of that time, the Minister of Labor had blocked the reference taking advantage of a provision in this Act that no industrial dispute raised by a worker can be taken into cognizance by a labor Court or Industrial Tribunal, despite Conciliation Officer’s recommendation, unless the State Government refers the dispute for adjudication. The then Leader of Opposition Biju Patnaik had witnessed my action, but as he also belonged to the class of exploiters, kept mum in the Assembly over the anti-worker provision in the I.D.Act.

Ramesh Pattnaik was the first victim of this provision in Orissa.

Rath and the rule of terror

Radhanath Rath, whom an anti-people Government had decorated with Padma Bhusan, was running a rule of terror in the Samaja organization. He was a ruthless oppressor and to him, the Samaja employees were just like subjects in a fiefdom. He was hiring and firing them as he liked. He was deriving a sadistic pleasure by keeping the employees intimidated. He had promulgated a standing order not by signing the same with the employees, but with an outsider behind back of the employees. He had ruined the employees’ collective morale to such extent that their trade union was accepting his hegemony in its affairs without any objection. We see trade union activism has grown amongst employees of Samaja only after demise of Rath. This speaks volumes of how Rath had kept the employees intimidated constantly.

And to keep the employee constantly intimidated, he was subjecting them to unfair labor practices as he liked. An example of his whimsical action was Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik.

He was, all on a sudden, given the shock of suspension on 9 April 1969. Rath was expecting that he would go and fall at his feet praying for withdrawal of the suspension order. He could have derived a sadistic pleasure from that. But, instead of falling at his feet, Ramesh preferred a complaint before the Labor officer. He was dismissed from service on 4 July 1969 under prevention of a domestic enquiry having found him guilty of charges framed against him.

Denial of reference under I.D.Act

Pattnaik challenged the illegal order of dismissal before the Labor Officer. Due to non-cooperation of management the conciliation failed.The Conciliation officer sent the failure report to the higher authorities with his recommendation for adjudication. But Rath used his tremendous media power to get the recommendation of the labor law implementation authorities rejected on 5 March 1070.

Browbeating the Civil Court

Ramesh knew of the design and understood that unless the government refers his dispute for adjudication, the Labor Court/Tribunal shall take no cognizance of his case. Therefore he had, without any prejudice to his industrial dispute, invoked the Civil Court jurisdictions on 14 Nov 1969 for declaration that the termination of his service was null and void and that he continued to be in service despite the order of dismissal and was entitled to the emoluments for the period subsequent to the date of dismissal.

In order to browbeat the Civil Court, heavyweight advocates were engaged to oppose the civil case under the plea that Pattnaik being an industrial worker, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain his case. The Munsif (Presiding Officer of the lowest Civil Court) in his order dated 12 Dec 1974 rejected the management plea and ordered that the suit was maintainable in his Court. He further declared that natural justice was denied to Pattnaik before dismissing him. But, surprisingly he refused to give him the relief sought for, interpreting employment of Pattnaik in Samaja as a contract of personal service.

Law is a conundrum and judges are not punished for wrong interpretations of law.

Appeal and after

Severely disadvantaged by the Munsif’s order that dismissed his suit despite finding how natural justice was denied to the him, Pattnaik approached the First Appellate Court who by its order on 17 Oct 1974 remanded the case to the Munsif with instructions to record findings on the additional issues to be framed consequent upon the amendment of plaint.

Hearing the case afresh, the Munsif said that Pattnaik was entitled to a decree of Rs.852.70 as compensation for “wrongful dismissal” and he was also entitled to pendent lite and future compensation at the rate of Rs.165 per month until he attends the age of 60 years or until his death whichever is earlier. But shockingly. the said Munisif rejected Patnaik’s claim for incremental pay, gratuity and bonus.

Pattnaik moved the Appellate Court again against this later part of the Munsif’s order whereas the management filed cross objections to the Munsif’s finding that the dismissal was “wrongful”.

The First Appellate Court dismissed the management’s cross objections and confirmed that Pattnaik’s dismissal was wrongful.

Rejecting the Munsif’s earlier observation that Pattnaik’s employment in Samaja was a matter of a contract of personal service, the First Appellate Court held that, his service had already acquired “a statutory status” by virtue of his conditions of service being governed by the Standing Orders. The AC therefore ruled that the dismissal of Pattnaik was contrary to law and he was entitled to the emoluments of the service since his dismissal till reinstatement, as his service shall not be treated as broken.

Samaja dragged the matter to High Court

An ideal employer should have seen his own fault in the mirror of the concurrent findings of both the courts that Pattnaik’s dismissal was wrongful and could have amended its wrong steps. But Rath was too anti-worker to honor the judicial wisdom that went in favor of the workman. He took the case to the High Court of Orissa, by using the SoPS. Biswanth Das and Others Vs Ramesh Chandra Patnaik and Another commenced.

The illegal occupiers of Samaja did not challenge the concurrent finding of both the Civil Courts that the order of dismissal of Pattnaik was wrongful inasmuch as it was made in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the standing orders; but they challenged the Appellate Court’s orders that Pattnaik be treated as in continuous service with emoluments from the date of dismissal.

While thus admitting that their action against Pattnaik was “wrongful”, the wrong-doers told the High Court that once having invoked the conciliation power of the labor officer, the wrongly dismissed workman had no right to move the Civil Court. A single judge bench of the High Court relied upon another single judge verdict to say that, the wrongfully dismissed workman had no right to move the Civil Court, even though the State Government had blocked his right to be heard in the Industrial Tribunal. This judgment was delivered on August 9, 1978.

Ah! August 9 !

Ah! August 9, the day the poor exploited population of India had added their strength to Gandhi’s voice to give the ‘Quit India’ call to the British! What irony! A poor worker’s case was rejected by the State Government to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication and the High Court nullified the relief given to him in the Civil Court by saying that the industrial adjudication was the only avenue available to him for redress of the wrong done to him, in the circumstance of the case, even though the I.D.Act says, no Labor Court or Industrial Tribunal can take cognizance of any industrial dispute unless referred to by the Government. What irony! What a great irony on the day of an anniversary of ‘quit India movement’ that the working class had made a success!

Law is a conundrum

Law is a conundrum and judges are free to interpret the laws and deliver their verdicts as their wisdom dictates, even if that denied justice to the wronged worker.

Heroic death of a Martyr

But the wronged poor man was having an exemplary workman spirit too real to acquiesce into accepting the single judge of the High Court as the last word in Law. He went in appeal to the Supreme Court.

He was physically and financially ruined. He had disposed of ancestral landed properties to sustain his family of six members including two sons and two daughters – all school going – and to meet the litigation cost.

Enforced idleness had already put him in slow starvation. Before he got justice in the Supreme Court, he breathed his last.

The great fighter carrying in his body the sufferings and determinations of the working class to overcome the sufferings, and epitomizing the spirit of the working class to fight against exploitation, died a heroic death.

Baton of fight carried by the wife

After his death, his wife Smt. Prasannaa Pattnaik took up the baton of fight from her husband’s funeral pyre and made herself and her children the substitutes for the Appellant in the case before the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court disapproved the judgement of the single judge of the Orissa High Court and passed an order on allowing the appeal of Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik.

This order is very significant. I quote the relevant portion of the judgement below:

“We have heard learned counsels for the parties. During the pendency of this appeal, the workman died. His widow and four children have been brought on record as legal heirs. We are prima facie of the view that the High Court fell into error in reversing the judgment of the first appellate court. It is, however, not necessary for us to go into the merits of the controversy. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, specifically that the first appellate court granted relief to the workman as back as march 1976, we direct the respondent-management to pay a sum of Rs. two lacs as compensation to the widow of the workman within two months from today”.

It was a moral victory for Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik and his family. It had come to them on 23 January 1996.

January 23 revered in Orissa in matter of her two great sons – Veer Surendra Sai and Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, became a day of posthumous victory of the Martyr amongst her working children, Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik.

Fight not over

But the fight against the oppressive management of Samaja is not yet over. Devi Prasanna Nayak, Subash Chandra Singh and others have been fighting for justice to the exploited employees of this this paper even today, and the State Government is continuing to ignore the unfair labor practices and exploitation resorted to by the illegal occupiers of the paper.

Hansada hoodwinked the High Court, embarrassed Orissa by attending Lok Sabha as an accused in custody

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Should the High Court allow itself to be hoodwinked by an under-trial prisoner, who is a ruling party member of the Lok Sabha? This question needs cogitation, because judiciary is the last hope for the people when compradors and criminals rule the roost in politics and, hence, must not be the lost hope.

Orissa’s Ruling party has many such members, who, if cases were not limping in courts, would have been branded as criminals.

Ramchandra Hansada, ruling party member of Lok Sabha from Mayurbhanj Constituency is in Jail as an under-trial-prisoner in a case of chit fund scam. He was arrested on 04 November 2014 and the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) is prosecuting him in connection with R.C.No.50/S/2014-SCB/KOL.

In jail custody, he has failed to attend the sessions of the Lok Sabha. He has not taken permission of the Lok Sabha to remain absent. So his absence is unauthorized and voluminous enough to threaten him with disqualification under Article 101 (4) of the Constitution of India.

Article 101 (4)

The Article stipulates, “If for a period of sixty days a member of either House of Parliament is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant:
Provided that in computing the said period of sixty days no account shall be taken of any period during which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for more than four consecutive days”.

Using this Article as a ploy, he tried to hoodwink the Judiciary for bail, but failed.

Orders of the lower Courts

On 12.February 2-15, the Special CJM, CBI rejected his petition dated 6 February 2015 on the ground that, Article 101 (4) of the Constitution “shall not come to his rescue”, as “his detention in the judicial custody under criminal charges is lawful” when the offenses allegedly committed by him “are not within the due discharge of his lawful function as a sitting member of Parliament”.

The Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar also refused his petition for bail – B.A.No.183 of 2015 – on 21 Februaary 2015, relying upon a ruling of the Apex Court reported in 1966 SCR (2) 406 that rights of a member of Parliament to attend the session of Parliament to participate in the debate “are not constitutional rights in the strict sense of the term and quite clearly, they are not fundamental rights at all”. Refusing to be misled to accept a general Notice of Secretary-General of Parliament to a member for attending the Parliament session as a Summon from the President which Hansada was insisting to be, the Sessions Judge refused him bail, as to him, “nature of the offenses committed, particularly seriousness of economic offense” are too severe for enlarging him on bail; and when “further investigation is in progress” it would not be in consonance with “the larger interest of society and state”.

Writ Petition in the High Court

The High Court of Orissa was moved thereafter in W.P. ( C ) No. 3715 of 2015 seeking “release” of Hansada from jail to enable him to attend the Parliament, as otherwise his membership would collapse under Article 101 (4) of the Constitution necessitating a fresh election in his constituency of Mayurbhanj which would denude the exchequer of huge money. The High Court, in a ruling on Misc. Case No. 3722 of 2015 arising out of the Writ case, has rendered Article 101 (4) of the Constitution inconsequential in his case and helped him retain his membership by releasing him from the jail to attend the ensuing session of the Lok Sabha for a day on 20 March 2015.

Orissa in embarrassment

In this ruling, the CBI is directed to receive him from the jail as an accused under custody and hand him over to the Security officer of the Parliament who in turn shall return him to CBI after he joins the Lok Sabha session for a day. March 23 has been stipulated as the day of his reproduction before the CBI Court at Bhubaneswar to be remanded to the jail again. We consider such presentation of the MP to the Lok Sabha very embarrassing to Orissa.

Was this order necessary? Had Hansada not been judicially helped to overcome the mischief of Article 101 (4), was he sure to forfeit his membership? We would like to seek the answer.

Peculiarity of Article 101 (4)

The peculiarity of this article is that it has an inbuilt remedial provision that a member may resort to in order to avoid disqualification due to absence for a period of sixty days or more. He/she has to seek permission to stay absent for a long period under unavoidable circumstances. Hansada was never debarred from applying for permission. He has told the High Court that he has applied for leave of absence, which has not been denied. This means, mischief of Article 101 (4) was not to hit him with termination of his membership. The very thinking of termination of his membership while his application for leave of absence is pending in the Parliament is itself an affront to dignity of Parliament, being suggestive of possible contravention of the law of natural justice in the highest law making House of India.

Remedial Provisions

Lest the law of natural justice gets contravened in matter of Article 101(4), provisions are made for notice to the member found absent for 40 days, so that the member shall apply for leave of absence before the Article gets activated against him or her. This is as per recommendation of the Committee on Absence of Members on 13 March 1956, when founding fathers of our Constitution were members of this Committee. On 24 March 1975, 11 April 1975 and 25 July 1975, CAM further prescribed that reminder would be sent to a member when his/her continuous absence amounts to fifty days. Hansada has not revealed whether or not he was reminded by the Lok Sabha Secretariat of his absence. If he was not reminded of his absence in time, the Lok Sabha was in such fault that termination of his membership on absence of sixty days (in fact 55 days by the day the High Court issued the order in question) would have been impossible, because, all the members in the current CAM are supposed to have expertise in handling leave of absence of members.

Moreover, there are provisions in practice for condonation of absence without permission, even when the period exceeds sixty days. Condonation of absence of B. Shiva Rao without permission for 68 days [3R (CAM-1 LS)] is one of many instances.

The House Committee

The Lok Sabha has a Committee to deal with absence of Members from the sittings of the House, created under Rule 325.

This Committee, under Rule 326 (1) (i) and (ii) is empowered to consider all applications from members for leave of absence from the sittings of the House and to examine and report every case where a member has been absent for a period of 60 days or more, without permission, from the sittings of the House.

Practice and Procedure

So, even if Hansda was to be hit with Article 101 (4) by not joining the sessions of the Lok Sabha for more than 60 days his membership was not to be terminated on ground of absence. The Court has recorded that the CBI has already informed the Speaker about the arrest of Hansada and his detention jn jail as an under-trial prisoner. So the Parliament is aware of his absence due to detention in jail. Detention in Jail is a recognized ground for condonation of absence beyond sixty days. (Leave of Absence of Members; Practice and Procedure of Parliament, p.409).

Without travesty of repetition, it can, therefore, be said that even if he would have stayed away from the sittings for more than 60 days, it should have been wrong to assume that by such absence he was to forfeit his membership. The Committee on absence of members might have recommended in his favor as “detention in jail” could never have been considered as willful absence. Might be, the Committee could have recommended for “condonation” of his absences on the ground of “detention in jail” in view of precedences created by the CAM, one of which is cited supra.

Direction should have been different

Orissa High Court should have taken this constitutional provision, invigorated with Rules and Procedures of the Parliament into consideration and should have directed Hansda to avail the constitutional facility prescribed for members of Parliament who remain absent around or beyond the permissible period of 60 days, instead of allowing him to attend the Lok Sabha session for a day under judicial custody.

But the role of the CAM, and the remedies available to him under the scheme of CAM and Parliamentary precedences were not placed before the High Court by Hansada. Obviously the High Court was hoodwinked.

KRUSHI KARMANA of NAVEEN PATNAIK – A SAMPLE

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

People of Orissa have been fed with publicity over Orissa bagging the best Krushi Karmana award for agricultural excellence.

When in Naveen Patnaik’s regime, Oriya cultivators are distress selling their paddy, Oriya consumers are perishing under unbearable price rise of essential food grains and agro-products, how the same regime bags Krushi Karmana award is a conundrum.

Plutocracy expands its domain by dazzling the gullible people with jargons like Krushi Karmana. Whosoever State Government works for the industrialists in India may get awards helpful to its image building.

Manipulation of paper works, entertainment in wine joints and sex hubs are mostly used in fixing/cultivating official awards in many cases, including Sahitya Awards and Padma decorations in India. In these pages, earlier postings carry certain documentary evidences to this regard.

Krushi karmana Award is one of the official awards.

Without diving deep into that, let me put here a few pictures of a government Cold-storage unit that belongs to the State’s cooperation department. This facility was created when J.B.Patnaik was the Chief Minister of the Congress government. Post-JB regime of Naveen Patnaik has dragged the facility to this state of dilapidation and death.

Let the pictures testify and let you see a sample of Naveen Patnaik’s Krushi Karamana.

photo(14)photo(17)photo(16)

Incorrigible Congress

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

It seems the Congress Party is incorrigible. For its offense of keeping Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister, people of India have punished this party by thrashing it into the ignominy of having no strength even to have the chair of the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Instead of condemning Singh for all the offenses he committed against the people of India, the party has staged demonstration in his support, when a Special Court has summoned him in the matter of coal block scam.

Repeated use of CBI to cultivate a clean chit for Singh has failed and the Court has declared that there are “incriminating circumstances”, enough to summon Singh to find out the truth. The Court has taken note of “the extra undue interest” Singh’s office had overwhelmed the MoC with to help Kumar Mangalam Birla bag the Talabira-II coal block for Hindalco. “The repeated reminders from PMO, written as well as telephonic, to MoC to expeditiously process” the allocation of the coal block to Hindalco is an indicator, according to the 75-page order of the court promulgating the summon on March 11.

As the mega scam had come out in CAG report and as concerned files were found missing, we had wondered in these pages: Are members of the Congress Party not ashamed of Manmohan Singh?

Congress members did not dare to express their shame.

Had they, the Congress party might not have been forced out of office by the people.

Now in support of Manmohan Singh, they have dared to condemn the judicial wisdom of the Special Court!

It seems the Congress Party is incorrigible.

Read:
Are members of the Congress Party not ashamed of Manmohan Singh?

Also read:

Manmohan must be made to quit

And browse pages of this site to read many more write-ups on how Singh had played mischief against India when in office. In absence of an organized uncompromising Left,  the nation needs the Congress most urgently now. members of the Congress party should tell their so-called supremo Sonia Gandhi that they ought to stand with the people of India, not with fellows like Manmohan Singh who sabotaged Indian interest to provide the “Bonanza for U.S. Firms” they were so desperately searching for.

Read one more of the speaking articles:

Come Elections, the Nuke deal won’t be able to help Singh retain his position

This posting is directly addressed to the members of the Congress Party. Let them shun sycophancy and wake up in cause of the Nation. More than me, they know, how Manmohan Singh has harmed India. Let them rise to the occasion, help the Court to prosecute him and welcome if he is punished. If they do this, I believe, people may again embrace the Congress, in absence of a credible Communist movement.

Oriya literature enters into family festivities

Determination of Orissa’s main mainstream daily ‘The Sambad’ to strengthen Oriya literature has finally entered into family festivities, which would revolutionize the literature campaign, said the Chief Guest, Journalist Subhas Chandra Pattanayak, who is marked for having released all his books on important days of his family festivities, specifically on birthdays of his children and grand children so far.

Falguni 1Eminent educationist Kailash Chandra Nayak, in his house premises at Mirzapur, linked the endeavor of Sambad Sahitya Ghar (SSG) to associate every household with Oriya literature by celebrating his grandson Phalguni’s birthday with a conference of poets under the banner of SSG, Rasulpur chapter, which he heads.

Pattanayak recalled how India had woke up against the arbitrary rule of the British by patriotic songs and poems by her bards of the struggle and called upon poets to now devote their pens to transmit the message of freedom, the fight for which, is to commence anew. He lauded the Sambad chief Soumya Ranjan Patnaik for having launched the SSG, which is the most appropriate campaign for our mother tongue in contemporary Orissa.

IMG_9710IMG_9706

Presided over by Sri Nayak, the Sahitya Ghar conference was addressed by Guests of Honor – Rudranarayan Prusti (President of Jajpur Yuva Lekhaka Sammilani) and Sangram Singh (Jajpur District Representative of Sambad).

Secretary of SSG, Rasulpur, Prahallad Panda and poetess Anjumala Jena coordinated the poem recitation session. As many as 44 poets of the locality, who are members of the SSG, Rasulpur Chapter, including Nirmal Kumar Giri, Bidyadhara Sahu, Nrottam Sahu, Pramod Kumar Dash, Pandav Charan Das, Prabhati Khuntia, Nirmal Kumar Das, Sridhar Sahoo, Santosh Kumar Padhee, Sanatan Guin, , Pramila Devi, Nyamat Ali Khan, Achyutananda Patra, Anjubala Jena (Co-ordinator), , Kailash Chandra Nayak (Presiden, SSG, Rasulpur Chapter), Prahalad Panda (Co-ordinator), and Namasya Nayak recited their poems. Pabitra Mohan Maharatha and Subhas Chandra Pattanayak were the two guest presenters of their poems matching the occasion.

IMG_9737

It is remarkable that most of the poems, in the context of India’s future generations symbolized by Phalguni, whose 12th birthday the poets were celebrating, besides being letters of blessing to the boy, were revolutionary poems addressed to dreams for the future.

Young author Achyutananda Patra proposed vote of thanks, when Journalist Devi Prasanna Nayak, father of Phalguni, had introduced the Chief Guest and the Guests of Honor.

Young India celebrates as Delhi HC Rules in favor of Priya Pillai

Young people of Bhubaneswar came together on March 13 with posters and banners declaring, ‘I am Mahan’, symbolizing the Mohan Forest, vandalized by coal block grabbers whom the plutocratic state has been patronizing.
Greenpeace volunteers and supporters from across the country celebrated the day as the day of victory of democracy following the historic verdict of Delhi High Court on the preceding day in favor of Greenpeace activist, Priya Pillai.

Young activists from all over the country have came together in solidarity with the people of Mahan – the 50,000 villagers from tribal and forest dwelling communities, who are threatened with dire loss of their livelihoods because of a proposed coal mine in Mahan forests –their home and primary source of livelihoods.

On January 11, 2015, Pillai was on her way to London to talk about the forest and human rights violations in Mahan, when she was arbitrarily offloaded from her flight. After a harrowing two months, the court ruled on March 12 in favor of Pillai and quashed the lookout circular issued against her. The court also ordered that the endorsement of ‘Offloaded’ be expunged and that she be removed from the Intelligence Bureau’s database.

“The government must accept that dissenters are essential to a vibrant democracy. The government cannot force their own definition of development down the throats of tribal and forest communities. They have to work with civil society to come up with a sustainable and equitable model of development,” said Priya Pillai, who has worked with the people of Mahan over the last five years, making them aware of their rights as per the Forest Rights Act.

De-allocated by the Supreme Court, after the coal scam verdict, the Mahan coal block was initially given jointly to London-registered Essar Energy and Indian firm Hindalco. The growing fight to stop the mine is believed to be the reason Pillai was singled out by the government as she was headed to the UK to brief British MPs on the issue. In December 2014, the Ministry of Environment informed the Ministry of Coal that Mahan coal block should be considered an inviolate forest area and not be auctioned for mining.

“In this new era of bans, this judgment will go down in history as a victory for democracy. It upholds our basic right as Indians to freedom of speech and expression and makes it clear that criticism of the government’s policies does not make one anti-national”, said Debu Nayak a volunteer coordinator with Greenpeace India.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,686 other followers