Unshackle CBI

Don8217;t think, act

8226; This refers to 8216;PM on Zaheera: Ponder and Reflect8217; IE, November 8. Enough pondering and reflecting has been done on the civil justice system. Concrete proposals for judicial reform including witness and whistleblower protection have been drafted. Time the government focused on restoring faith in the criminal justice dispensation mechanism.

8212; Abhinav Chandrachud Mumbai

By political will

8226; What this country needs is not just witness protection, but a comprehensive law to deal with instances of communal rage and mob violence. You cannot be dependent on a criminal prosecution system which fails because of faulty evidence, witnesses turning hostile or police officers filing FIRs that do not name individuals. The UPA has spoken of enacting such legislation, but legislation is often hostage to the political divide. A law will be a first step, but it won8217;t be enough. The problem is not in the letter of the law but in its implementation. Ultimately, political parties have to summon the will to take the tough decisions.

8212; Nasreen Shaikh Nagpur

The facts speak

8226; Zaheera Sheikh8217;s allegations against Teesta Setalvad are patently unbelievable. As people who have known Teesta and her organisation for many years we can vouch for her integrity, courage and keen sense of justice. We wish to point out some facts: Zaheera8217;s mother Sehrunnisa on July 6, 2003 gave an interview in the Indian Express about their experience in Gujarat8217;s notorious fast track court which acquitted all the accused. 8216;8216;Dar se kampte, kampte, hum ne jhoot bola tha8217;8217;. For over a year Zaheera repeated this story to the media, NHRC and in the Supreme Court. Fourteen people were burnt alive at Best Bakery. The fact that a mob was responsible is not disputed. What is in dispute is the identity of the killers and whether they enjoyed the support of the Gujarat government. The Supreme Court reopening the matter and moving it to Bombay has become a make or break case for Narendra Modi. Survivors have begun to identify their attackers in court. Zaheera was to testify a day before she went to the media with claims against Teesta. If Zaheera was being held captive by Teesta for the last year, how is it that she visited Baroda three times in this period, unescorted by Teesta and her friends? At Zaheera8217;s latest televised press conference in a Baroda hotel owned by a confidante of Modi, by her side was Atul Mistry, junior to advocate Rajendra Trivedi. Trivedi was the defence lawyer who succeeded in getting all the accused acquitted in the fast track case! Zaheera now travels in an official motorcade. Modi has embarked on a media blitz attacking human rights organisations. We call for an unbiased probe.

8212; Nikhil Wagle, Anand Patwardhan, Shabana Azmi and others Mumbai

Write back

8226; WIn the news item 8216;8216;BSNL vs Reliance: Govt said switch off in an hour, TRAI washed its hands of8217;8217; dated November 6, 2004, you have alleged that TRAI abdicated its duty to intervene in the dispute when BSNL first complained to it on September 20, 2004. The facts in regard to the actions taken by TRAI and its status in the dispute are as follows:
Upon receipt of complaint from BSNL, TRAI analysed the data enclosed and it was found that as in the case of any complaint, there was an urgent requirement for investigation of the various issues raised. Since the TRAI does not have the organizational structure to carry out the investigations of this nature which involve tracing calls, etc and the Department of Telecom has a well-established Vigilance Wing which carries out such investigations as a normal practice, TRAI, thus, forwarded the complaint to DoT with a request to investigate the complaint. The same approach was adopted when MTNL8217;s complaint was received.
In regard to interventions in the disputes, it is necessary to understand the present status vis-a-vis the various clauses of the TRAI Act and certain judgments passed recently by the Hon8217;ble TDSAT.
TRAI has been issuing directives and determinations in the past to resolve the interconnection related matters between two service providers. TRAI had issued a directive to all operators in regard to disconnection of Points of Interconnection PoI in the event of a dispute on interconnection between two operators. The directive inter alia required the operators to mutually come to an agreement, failing which they could approach TRAI before resorting to disconnection of PoIs, since disconnection was not desirable in view of the inconvenience cause to subscribers of the networks of both the interconnecting operators. This directive issued under Section 13 read with Section 111b of TRAI Act in the general consumers8217; interest was challenged by BSNL stating that in the area of disputes between two operators TRAI did not have any jurisdiction. This contention was upheld by the Hon8217;ble TDSAT in its order dated 21.4.2004 delineating the areas of jurisdiction of TDSAT and TRAI specifying clearly that disputes on a complaint are to be handled by TDSAT to see that the service provider conforms to the terms and conditions imposed by the licensor in its licence.
In another case also, Hon8217;ble TDSAT has ordered that TRAI does not have the powers to issue directions except on matters specified in Clause 111b. This order of TDSAT has been challenged by TRAI in the Supreme Court and the matter is sub judice. In the meantime, to remove ambiguities TRAI has also recommended to the Government to amend the Act suitably.
From the above, it is quite clear that there has been no abdication of duty on the part of TRAI and that TRAI has strictly followed the requirement and the legal position that prevails on date.

8212; Pradip Baijal Chairman, TRAI