Rs 15 lakh promised by PM Modi doesn't come under RTI Act: PMO

Agencies
April 24, 2018

New Delhi, Apr 24: A query on when the Rs 15 lakh promised by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his 2014 election campaign would be transferred to people's bank accounts, does not come under the definition of information under the RTI Act and so cannot be answered, the PMO has told the Central Information Commission.

RTI applicant Mohan Kumar Sharma filed a plea on November 26, 2016 - nearly 18 days after demonetisation of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 was announced by the Prime Minister - seeking to know the date of deposit of Rs 15 lakh in the account of each citizen as promised by Modi, besides other queries.

During the hearing, Sharma told Chief Information Commissioner R K Mathur that complete information had not been provided to him by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and the Reserve Bank of India.

The respondent no. 1 (PMO) stated... They have informed the appellant that information sought by him on point nos. 1 and 4 (regarding date of deposit of Rs 15 lakh in the account of each citizen as promised by PM Narendra Modi, how print media houses came to know before the announcement of PM Narendra Modi about the demonetisation, etc.) of the RTI application does not fall under the definition of information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, Mathur noted.

According to the section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information related to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.

The action/steps taken by the respondent nos. 1 (PMO) and 2 (RBI) in dealing with the RTI application are satisfactory, Mathur noted.

During the 2014 Lok Sabha election campaign, Modi had said each Indian would receive Rs 15 lakh when black money would be repatriated from abroad.

Comments

abbu
 - 
Wednesday, 25 Apr 2018

all 15lakh each went to modi's most beloved bhakts accounts.... nirav, ambani, adani, etc etc..... forget about 15lakh and work hard.... and earn

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
January 14,2020

New Delhi, Jan 14: The curative petitions of Vinay Sharma and Mukesh, who were sentenced to death in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, was on Tuesday rejected by a five-judge Supreme Court Bench led by Justice N.V. Ramana.

In a three-page order, the Bench concluded, after an in chamber consideration that began about 1.45 p.m., that there was no merit in their pleas to spare them from the gallows.

“We have gone through the curative petitions and relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra versus Ashok Hurra. Hence, the curative petitions are dismissed,” the court held.

Curative is a rare remedy devised by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Rupa Ashok Hurra case in 2002. A party can take only two limited grounds in a curative petition - one, he was not heard by the court before the adverse judgment was passed, and two, the judge was biased. A curative plea, which follows the dismissal of review petition, is the last legal avenue open for convicts in the Supreme Court. Sharma was the first among the four convicts to file a curative.

The Bench also rejected their pleas to stay the execution of their death sentence and for oral hearing in open court.

Besides Justice Ramana, the Bench comprised Arun Mishra, Rohinton Nariman, R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan.

Curative petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by both convicts on January 9. The petitions had come just days after a Delhi sessions court schedulled the execution of all the four convicts in Tihar jail on January 22.

Sharma and Mukesh, in separate curative petitions, argued that there was a “sea change” in the death penalty jurisprudence since their convictions. Carrying out the death sentence on such changed circumstances would be a “gross miscarriage of justice”.

In his plea, Sharma said the Court had commuted the death penalty in several rape and murder cases since 2017, when it first confirmed the death penalty to the Nirbhaya convicts.

“fter the pronouncement of judgment in 2017, there have been as many as 17 cases involving rape and murder in which various three-judge Benches of the Supreme Court have commuted the sentence of death,” the petition contended.

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a review petition filed by Akshay Singh, another of the four four condemned men, to review its May 5, 2017 judgment confirming the death penalty. It also refused his plea to grant him three weeks' time to file a mercy petition before the President of India.

A Bench led by Justice R. Banumathi had said it was open for the Nirbhaya case convicts to avail whatever time the law prescribes for the purpose of filing a mercy plea.

Akshay (33), Mukesh (30), Pawan Gupta (23) and Sharma (24) had brutally gang-raped a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012. She died of her injuries a few days later.

The case shocked the nation and led to the tightening of anti-rape laws. Rape, especially gang rape, is now a capital crime.

One of the accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar jail. A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board. He was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term.

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
April 8,2020

Jamnagar, Apr 7: A 14-month-old baby boy, who had tested positive for coronavirus in Gujarat's Jamnagar district on April 5, died of multiple organ failure on Tuesday, said officials.

The toddler, son of a migrant labourer-couple having no recent travel history, died in the evening at a government hospital in Jamnagar, said an official release.

He was in a critical condition ever since he was admitted to the hospital, it said.

The boy, who tested positive for coronavirus two days ago, was as on ventilator support and eventually died due to multiple organ failure, said the release.

He becomes the youngest patient to succumb to COVID-19 in Gujarat, where the death toll has now gone up to 16.

The baby was the first and the only case of coronavirus infection so far in entire Jamnagar district and the youngest to be diagnosed with the disease in Gujarat.

Ever since he tested coronavirus positive, the authorities had been tracing the source of his infection.

His parents are from Uttar Pradesh and work as casual labourers in factories in the port city.

His parents, who have no travel history in the recent past, are asymptomatic (not showing symptoms) and kept under quarantine, officials said.

The locality where the couple resides in Dared village near Jamnagar city has been put under complete lockdown to check the spread of the virus, they said.

Gujarat has so far recorded 175 coronavirus positive cases and 16 fatalities.

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
January 19,2020

Mumbai, Jan 19: After Kerala and Punjab, the Maha Vikas Agadi (MVA) government is also mulling over a resolution against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in Maharashtra Assembly.

Speaking to news agency, Congress spokesperson Raju Waghmare said: "Our senior party leader Balasaheb Thorat has also shared his stand on the CAA. Even Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray has said that we are against the CAA. As far as the resolution against CAA is concerned, our senior leaders of MVA will sit together and decide."

If this happens, then Maharashtra will be the third state to pass a resolution against CAA, which grants citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

Emphasising that CAA is 'unconstitutional,' senior lawyer and Congress leader Kapil Sibal has said that every state Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek CAA's withdrawal.

He added that it would be problematic to oppose the CAA if the law is declared to be 'constitutional' by the Supreme Court.

"I believe the CAA is unconstitutional. Every State Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek its withdrawal. When and if the law is declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it. The fight must go on!" Sibal tweeted.

Earlier speaking at the Kerala Literature Festival on Saturday, the Congress leader had said that constitutionally no state can say that it will not implement the amended Citizenship Act, as doing so will be "unconstitutional".

Kerala government has also approached the Supreme Court against the CAA following the passage of a resolution against it in the state Assembly.

Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singh has also announced that the Congress state government is going to join Kerala in the Supreme Court in the case.

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.