Did the 2G Scam Judge expect the prosecution to put a mind-reader on stand to penetrate the minds of the accused?

The 2G Scam judgment running into more than 1500 pages for a case record of more than 3 lakh pages clearly establishes that Judge O P Saini has a brilliant and unparalleled grip of the details of this Corruption scandal that rightly rocked India previously.
However, it is quite a tragedy that the Judge simply got lost in non-essentials in his judgment. The evidence to convict a few of the accused is plainly writ large in his own elaborate and richly detailed judgment, however. It is unclear why the Judge wanted more evidence in places where a judicial inference was called for instead.
The problem with corruption cases is that a judge cannot ask for the same nature of evidence as is sought and received in homicides; a large number of offences under the PC Act come down to making of judicial inferences upon the facts of a case.
And the Judge made a fundamental error in treating the charged offence under the PC Act as a fact instead of as a judicial inference that he is called upon to draw.
For example, take a murder. A murder is already a fact. However, take the offence of illegally conferring a benefit upon an undeserving person without any public good under the PC Act. Except the fact of benefit, rest of the ingredients of this offence are judicial inferences.
Several judges make the same error in Corruption cases and on appeals, our higher Courts do not do a satisfactory job of explaining this distinction and laying down better guides.
A similar judicial error let a former Chief Minister of a southern State dodge a possible conviction under the PC Act recently - to the CBI refusing to file any appeal.
The Central Government today is terribly dishonest in protecting public good in such cases of potential political benefit to it. It should ask the CBI to file an appeal immediately.
Raja, however, doesn't seem to think that this Central Government is interested in getting him behind bars, again.
K.V.Dhananjay

Cannabis And Cancer

Cannabis and Cancer

I cannot think of a bigger mistake than to not pass on life saving information to those in need. Cancer is killing lakhs of people in our country and those working closely with Cancer say that Cannabis holds much, or rather, unbelievable, promise in treating or, even in curing it in some cases. It is a fact that most mainstream treatments for advanced Cancers have turned out to be great disappointments - while the few ones that work have been nothing less than a Godsend. The blame squarely falls on the FDA in the US for blinding itself to numerous pathbreaking treatments that still languish in the labs.
The truth about Cannabis is to be discovered in each individual case by that individual and nobody should forego mainstream treatment for Cancer if so advised - countless noble souls are working tirelessly as doctors in Cancer hospitals.
I am therefore, sharing an email I received last night. Considering the fact that the person in the mail holds much credential and is in fact, stating that Cannabis does cure even terminal cancers, in some cases, it makes more sense to convey this information more widely- to any Cancer stricken person or family that you know. If there is a life that could be saved with Cannabis, the most that we could do, in the framework that we have today in our country, is to pass on such information and to pray for their well-being for now and shortly, to approach the Courts and the Parliament - so that surviving Cancer shouldn't be about information disadvantage or asymmetry or lack of knowledge about Cannabis, our medicine, since the ages:

"Hello Mr. Dhananjay,

My name is Justin **, I was referred to you from Dr. ** Rao. ( a leading Cancer surgeon in Bangalore and India - my words). I believe you are working on a case to accelerate access to cannabis in India. I would like to offer my humble thoughts on achieving this.

For the past nearly ten years, I have been an advocate for the use of cannabis extracts to treat cancer, including speaking at conferences around the world. The evidence supporting this use has grown tremendously over this period. There are thousands of anecdotal cases and even a placebo-controlled clinical trial showing cannabinoids synergize with chemotherapy to fight glioblastoma brain tumors. Overwhelming scientific evidence also shows how our own self-made endocannabinoids kill cancer cells through similar mechanisms as phytocannabinoids like THC and CBD.

Dr. Rao said he had shared with you my book, at http://freecannabiscancerbook.com. This includes a summary of over 100 anecdotal cases, the aforementioned clinical trial, and dozens of scientific studies. Here's the bottom line - in at least some cases, cannabis extracts can put terminal cancers into remission. This is undeniable at this point. While many have reasonable objections to this claim, I have developed answers to those objections at the end of the book. So, given the above fact, that cannabis can in some cases put terminal cancers into remission, there is absolutely no justification for its continued prohibition. It must be allowed as a medicine immediately, at least for terminal cancer patients. Preventing humans from using a potential remedy that could save their lives is the height of evil and cruelty. I believe this could be the crux of a legal argument.

Thank you so much for your work on this and for reading this message. Please let me know if you have any questions or if there is absolutely anything else I can do to help.

Regards,
Justin **
4*-*-*"

Let's not forget that such individuals as Justin ** are tremendously expanding our understanding of Cancer and are lowering our helplessness towards it. The Dr.* Rao that I spoke about above is doing several pathbreaking things about opening up our system to Cannabis through the existing medical infrastructure.

K.V.Dhananjay

The land allotment by the Karnataka Government for the construction of "Dr.Vishnuvardhan Memorial" is illegal

Date: 22-Oct-2014

To
The Principal Secretary
Revenue Department
Government of Karnataka
Bangalore

Copy to

Deputy Commissioner
Bangalore Urban District
Kandhaya Bhavana
Kempegowda Road
Bangalore 560 009

Additional Chief Secretary
Department of Forest, Environment And Ecology
Room 708, Gate 2, M.S.Building
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore 560 001

Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force
Aranya Bhavana
18thCross, Malleshwaram
Bangalore 560 003

Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden
Aranya Bhavana
18thCross, Malleshwaram
Bangalore 560 003

Principal Secretary
Department of Law
Government of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore

Subject: Illegal conveyance and anticipated development over an area adjoining a forest land despite objection by the Forest Department: 2 acres of land adjoining the forest land in Survey No. 22 of Mailasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore is sought to be illegally conveyed by the Revenue Department for the purpose of erecting a memorial in the name of Late Dr.Vishnuvardhan, the iconic Kannada film star.

Dear Sir

1. I write here primarily in the interest of the public that largely comprises of the residents of Mailasandra Village at Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore and these residents and members of the public may be considered herein to be represented by:

(1) Sri Shivaraj.N, S/o Nagaraju, Aged about 25 years and residing at No.325, Near Hanuman Temple, Mailasandra, R V College Post, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South, Bangalore-560 059 and

(2) Sri Deepak C.N, S/o C.M Nagaraju, Aged about 30 years and residing at No. F-73, 13th Cross, Ist Phase, BEL Layout, Bharath Nagar Bangalore 560 091.
Late Dr. Vishnuvardhan is and will always be remembered as an iconic actor of the Kannada film industry. The rest of this communication is not about the memory of the said great actor.

2. Rather, this communication is about the lawlessness evidenced in the actions of the officers of the Revenue Department and of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District in the matter of conveying a land adjoining a forest land for a non-forest purpose in complete contravention of the relevant regulations.

3. On 4-Mar-2014, the Revenue Department acting through its Principal Secretary had issued a notification (RD 29 LJB 2014 Bangalore) to convey an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy No. 22 of Mailasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore for the purpose of establishment of a memorial in the name of late Dr. Vishnuvardhan, the iconic Kannada actor. A copy of the said notification together with the underlying order is produced herewith as Annexure A.

4. The problem with the aforesaid notification?
Too many.

5. To begin with, this 2 acres of land adjoining a forest land. - that is, Sy.No.22 of Mailasandra village is a land that measures around 109.05 acres. Of this, 79.20 acres is a forest land and it is not in dispute that these 2 acres of land is shown in the records as falling outside the 79.20 acres of forest land. Unfortunately, the Revenue Department appears to have thought that merely because this 2 acres of land falls outside the forest land, it is free to convey the said land for a non-forest purpose. Nevertheless, the Forest Department has been repeatedly bringing to the notice of the Revenue Department through several letters to inform it that they are thoroughly mistaken in assuming as much.

6. A forest land is of course, already protected under the laws in force. However, in order to protect any stretch of forest land, the lawmakers had felt it necessary to create a buffer or protective zone so that they could prohibit deleterious activity in that protective zone. For instance, say there is a forest land and immediately adjoining that land, the Government permits a crowd-congregating activity to come up in that adjoining land. The permitted crowd-congregating activity can generally be expected to endanger the forest growth and wealth at least at the edges and at the boundaries. If the intention of a forest law was to primarily safeguard forest wealth, it could not hope to achieve that objective if the protection would simply stop at the boundary of a forest. The nature of any forest is such that the protection immediately outside its boundary too is a matter of much concern to forest preservation. It is precisely these considerations that gave rise to Rule 41 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. You are invited to pay close attention to the same:

41. Grant of lands by the Deputy Commissioner:-
(1) No land containing valuable trees or other forest growth shall be granted by the Deputy Commissioner, unless the concerned Deputy Conservator of Forests gives his concurrence.
(2) No land from well wooded areas or adjacent to wooded areas in the district or protected forests or within 100 metres of reserved forests shall be granted for occupancy.

7. Now, the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 is clearly binding upon the officers of the Revenue Department as well as upon the Deputy Commissioners.

8. Let us find out about the application of Rule 41(1). It speaks about lands that are sought to be granted by the Deputy Commissioner but contain trees or other forest growth. In such event, what more is required to ensure that the grant is lawfully made? This Rule says that the concurrence of the Deputy Conservator of Forest shall be necessary for the purpose of granting such a land which already has trees or forest growth over it. So, the essential question here is, does the 2 acres of land in question contain trees or other forest growth?

9. The answer, obviously, is ‘yes’. Attached are four photographs of the site as Annexure ‘F’ and you will readily see that there has been substantial forest growth on that site. You may kindly note that the Forest Department was of the impression that this 2 acres of land too is a forest land and I have been informed that the Research Wing of the Forest Department had made several plantations at the said site and had safeguarded the same in the belief that it was a forest land. So, the said Notification dated 04-Mar-2014 is obviously in violation of Rule 41(1) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 as no concurrence has been obtained to the same by the Deputy Conservator of Forest.

10. By the way, how do I know here that the Deputy Conservator of Forest has not already concurred to the grant in question? The various officers of the Forest Department have been repeatedly objecting through letters to the officers of the Revenue Department and the contention taken in those communications make it absolutely clear that the Forest Department is completely opposed to the grant in question though they don’t specifically cite Rule 41(1) but have instead cited Rule 41(2). Further, the two individuals named above have specifically enquired with the officers of the Forest Department and have informed me for the purpose of this communication that there has been no concurrence from the Deputy Conservator of Forest as yet to the purported grant of land. Moreover, the objections that were made by the officers of the Department of Forest would lose all meaning if any such concurrence had already been granted by the Deputy Conservator of Forest. Their objection, however, is rooted in Rule 41(2) and what really does this Rule say?

11. It reads:
(2) No land from well wooded areas or adjacent to wooded areas in the district or protected forests or within 100 metres of reserved forests shall be granted for occupancy.
(Emphasis supplied by us)

12. The first part of this rule is not happily worded and that could have led to much disagreement and confusion. However, the Forest Department is only relying upon the latter part of this rule which is that there shall be no grant howsoever in respect of land situated within 100 metres of a reserved forest. So the only enquiry that must arise in this case is whether the 2 acres of land in Mailasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk is within 100 metres of a reserved forest.

13. It is a fact that the Forest Department has been repeatedly urging that the said 2 acres of land is within 100 metres of a reserved forest. I have reviewed the materials that they have communicated to your office and I have not even the slightest shadow of doubt to inform you that the Forest Department has indeed established to the satisfaction of a reasonable person that the 2 acres of land is within 100 meters of a reserved forest. I invite your attention to the several letters that were addressed to the officers of the Department of Revenue and to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban district repeatedly by the Forest Department and to certain letters that were exchanged between the officers of the Forest Department themselves which subsequently formed part of the communication from the Forest Department to the Revenue Department. These letters are:

Sl.No. Date of Letter From To Summary
Annexure ‘B1’ 30-Sep-2014 Deputy Conservator of Forest Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District Objection in terms of Rule 41 (2) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969
Annexure ‘B2’ 30-May-2014 Deputy Conservator of Forest Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Objection terms of Rule 41(2)
Annexure ‘B3’ 28-Feb-2014 Deputy Conservator of Forest Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District Objection in terms of Rule 41(2)
Annexure ‘B4’ 11-Feb-2014 Assistant Conservator of Forest Deputy Conservator of Forest Objection in terms of Rule 41(2)
Annexure B5 12-Apr-2012 Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Conservator of Forest Information about the 1935 Notifications
Annexure ‘B6’ 07-Feb-2014 Range Forest Officer Deputy Conservator of Forest Spot inspection Report – that the land falls within 100 metres of the Turahalli Reserve forest
Annexure ‘B7’ 01-Jan-2014 Range Forest Officer Deputy Conservator of Forest Inspection report as in above.

14. The aforesaid letters consistently express a single and the same view that the said 2 acres of land is situated within 100 metres of a reserved forest.

15. Now, let us find out about the material that the Forest Department has in its possession to claim that the said land is situated within 100 metres of a reserved forest?

16. Let me produce a sketch that has been prepared by the Forest Department itself to show that Sy No.22 of Mailasandra village is an area comprising of 109.05 acres and of this, 79.20 acres is Forest land. Let this sketch be called as Annexure’C1’. You will see from this sketch that against the marked square portion which is the forest area, there is an adjoining area to it that is not a forest land and the said 2 acres is to the left edge of that square like forest land. So, it is in fact the case of the Forest Department itself that the said 2 acres of land thus constitutes land other than forest land and is adjacent to that forest land. It is our speculation here that this fact might have led to a great deal of confusion on the part of the Revenue Department – that it is free to deal with this non-forest land without consultation or concurrence from the Forest Department. Of course, the Revenue Department would be grossly wrong in law if it held that view.

17. The next document is Annexure C2 which has been prepared or otherwise endorsed by none other than the Tahsildar of the Bangalore South Taluk himself wherein an augmented sketch clearly shows, again, that the 2 acres of land is adjacent to a forest land. Therefore, it should not be open to doubt whether the 2 acres of land is adjacent to the forest land. It indeed is adjacent to a forest land.

18. That it is established that the site of 2 acres of land in Sy No.22 of Mailasandra village is adjacent to a forest land, how does one establish two more aspects:
a) That this forest land is in law, a ‘reserved forest’ and
b) That being adjacent to a ‘reserved forest’, it is within 100 metres of that ‘reserved forest’?

19. Let us first establish a).

20. Your attention is invited to a notification issued by the Government of the Maharaja of Mysore on 14-Dec-1935. This notification was issued in terms of Section 17 of the Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900. It was numbered as G 4906-Ft.154-35-3. What this notification simply did was to classify an area of 514 acres and 29 guntas from four different villages in Kengeri Hobli of Bangalore as a ‘State forest’. A copy of this notification dated 14-Dec-1935 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure ‘D1’. This notification would clearly show that parts of the villages of Mailasandra, Kengeri, Badamanavarthe Kaval and Hemagipura were covered by the said notification. So, this particular notification would show that that the village of Mailasandra was indeed covered by the said notification. However, a further question must arise here on whether Sy.No.22 of Mailasandra village came to be covered by this very notification or through some other notification that had thereby declared the said land as ‘State forest’. Your attention is further invited to Annexure D2. This document goes on to show that Sy No. 22 of Mailasandra village measuring 78 acres and 18 guntas was being taken up for the purpose of constituting the proposed Badamanavarthe Kaval State forest. This document, Annexure D2, would however, show a different notification number though it does bear the date of 14-Dec-1935. So, it would be proper to infer from a perusal of both these documents, Annexure D1 and D2, that Sy. No 22 of Mailasandra was indeed constituted as a ‘State forest’. This is an easily formed contention of a person such as me who is of course, an outsider to these cases. Equally, the Forest Department itself, in its numerous communications has been stating that Sy No. 22 of Mailasandra is in fact, a ‘State forest’ land.

21. So, taking Sy.No.22 of Mailasandra to constitute a ‘State forest’ land, the next question that necessarily arises is that the reference in Rule 41 (2) of the Karnataka Forest rules, 1969 is to a ‘reserved forest’ and not to a ‘State forest’. That is, Rule 41 (2) speaks of a land that is within 100 meters of a ‘reserved forest’ and a land which is situated within 100 metres of a reserved forest cannot be granted at all in terms of the said Rule. Therefore, the question becomes on how the ‘State forest’ that came to be declared as such through the 14-Dec-1935 notification could be treated as a ‘reserved forest’ for the purpose of Rule 41 (2) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969.

22. In answer, please note that the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 to enforce which, the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 has been promulgated states very clearly in Section 23 that:

23. Reserved Forests constituted previous to passing of this Act – (1) Any forest which has been notified as a State Forest under the Mysore Forest Act, 1900 or as a Reserved Forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Madras Forest Act, 1882 or the Hyderabad Forest Act, 135F, prior to the date on which this Act comes into force, shall be a reserved forest under this Act.

23. Accordingly, the State forest that was declared as such in terms of the 14-Dec-1935 notifications simply became a ‘reserved forest’ for the purpose of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 in view of what has been said in Section 23 thereof.

24. The next question, obviously, would be on how we would state here that this adjacent site is also within 100 metres of the said ‘reserve forest’?

25. In answer to the above, your attention is invited to two documents, Annexure B6 and B7 that place the ‘spot inspection report’ by the Range Forest Officer to the effect that the entire site area of 2 acres is within 100 metres of the adjacent ‘State forest’.

26. With the aforesaid analysis, there will be nothing that remains for further consideration than to simply conclude that the grant of the 2 acres of land in Sy No 22 of Mailasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South for the purpose of erection of a memorial in the name of late Dr Vishnuvardhan, the iconic Kannada star would be plainly and completely illegal in view of the fact that the said 2 acres is situated within 100 metres of a ‘reserved forest’.

27. You may however note that the various communications from the Forest Department do not explicitly state that the said 2 acres is a ‘reserved forest’ but do retain the same description that it had in the year 1935, that of being a ‘State forest’. Still, as said earlier, by reason of Section 23 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, the said ‘State forest’ has by operation of law become a ‘reserved forest’ and the same would mean that the said site of 2 acres which is within 100 metres of the said reserved forest cannot be granted at all by the Revenue Department for the stated purpose.

28. Your attention is also invited to the fact that this objection is not being raised merely because there is a technical objection that could be made in this case. We honestly believe that the surrounding reserved forest is one that deserves to be protected at all costs and the task of that protection would be severely defeated if the proposed memorial were to be constructed in the said 2 acres of land. Besides, the several communications addressed by the Forest Department make it very clear to the Revenue Department that there are several plantations that were raised in the said 2 acres of land by the Forest Department. Essentially, the said 2 acres of land is not therefore, a barren or a wasteland and the same is further evidenced by a perusal of the three photographs that are marked herewith as Annexure ‘F’.

29. It should be further noted that the considerable tree growth in the said 2 acres of land has been sought to be removed by the trust that has been created for the purpose of managing the said grant of land. I attach herewith, a copy of a letter dated 6-Aug-2014 addressed by Dr.Vishnuvardhan Prathisthana to the Commissioner of the Bruhat Bengaluru Maganagara Palike (BBMP) seeking permission to uproot the several trees on that site. This letter should satisfy the recipients of this communication that the photographs that are appended to this letter do speak to the actual state of affairs on the site in question – that there is enormous tree growth on the site. A copy of this request is produced herewith as Annexure E.

30. Finally, your attention is also drawn to the past experience of the person on whose behalf this letter has been made to you all. Mr Shivraj is a volunteer with the BBMP Forest Cell and it is his own testimony that he has rescued numerous wildlife from the said area and it is their collective concern that the erection of a memorial at the site in question would bring grave danger to the existing population of wildlife in the edges of the reserved forest. You should certainly note that the said reserved forest is a block of nearly 79 acres.

31. This letter has also been marked to the Principal Secretary in the Law Department in view of the fact that two different Departments within the Government of Karnataka are at loggerheads over a given issue as we are of the view that should there arise a genuine disagreement between the two Departments of the Government on the interpretation of any provision of law, it would be desirable for the officers of the Law Department to intervene, to clarify and to reliably interpret the disputed provision in question.

32. However, I must state here that all that the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District and the officers of the Revenue Department seem to have done so far in response to the various letters addressed to them by the officers of the Forest Department is to simply maintain a stoic silence and to do nothing more. This kind of a callous response is quite disturbing. There should never have been any need for the officers of the Forest Department to write a series of letters and that too, repeatedly, to the officers of the Revenue Department if only the officers of the Revenue Department had taken the ordinary courtesy to respond to even some of those letters. Such callous disregard to the concerns of a co-ordinate Department of the Government is very unusual and also speaks to a great degree of disorder within the Revenue Department.

33. To end this communication, I would like to request the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District as well as the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to immediately withdraw the notification (Annexure A) that they have issued to grant the said 2 acres of land in Sy No 22 of Mailasandra village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South for the purpose of erecting a memorial in the name of late Dr Vishnuvardhan, the iconic Kannada actor on the ground that the said land is within 100 metres of and adjacent to a reserved forest and is therefore, in violation of Rule 41(2) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969.

34. On a personal note we would like to state that we have come across instances of highly fraudulent and bogus entities being given vast tracts of land by the Government and sometimes, such gifts run into even hundreds of acres and it is truly painful to note that when it came to the task of granting land to erect a memorial in the name of the late Dr Vishnuvardhan, the iconic Kannada star, the Government has simply settled for a relatively small patch of land and that too at a place which should never have been considered for the said purpose. We are fully aware of the fact that the Government does have in its possession, vast tracts of land that could be put to the said use and there is absolutely no manner of compulsion for the Government to give effect to the impugned notification.

35. Finally, it must be said that should the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District as well as the officers of the Revenue Department not take the requisite interest over whether the notification (Annexure A) is lawful for the reasons stated in the communication from the Forest Department and through this letter, we would certainly be constrained to move an appropriate court of law and when we would do so, the grossly unacceptable, indifferent and lawless attitude of the officers of the Revenue Department as well as of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District would be shown to the court to the fullest extent that it deserves to be shown for the purpose of drawing a direction from the court to initiate disciplinary action against the said erring officials.

Sincerely

K.V Dhananjay
Advocate

Speaker to Forest Officers: Do not follow SC and HC Orders

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION No. 15511 - 14 of 2013 (GM – RES) PIL

BETWEEN:



Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Others
Petitioners

AND:



Union of India and Others
Respondents

MEMO No.2

1. The Petitioners in the aforesaid matter most respectfully submit that:

2. The Petitioners have sought a continuing mandamus and monitoring by this Hon’ble Court into the efforts of the Government of Karnataka to remove the encroachment of public lands by private persons across the State of Karnataka. More than 13 lakh acres of Government lands are currently under such encroachment. The Petitioners herewith invite the attention of the Government of Karnataka and thereby, the gracious indulgence of this Hon’ble Court towards the issue of encroachment of forest lands across the State:

3. Please see: (in the Writ Petition)

a) Encroachment of Forest lands, Page 37-39, Volume – I;

b) Grounds in support of the Writ Petition, Page 50-62, (Forest Lands – Para VI Pg.54, Para VIII Pg 56, Para XVIII Pg 62), Volume-I;

c) Report of the Joint Legislature Committee (Interim Report-II), Encroachment of Forest lands in the vicinity of Bangalore, Pg.298-310, Volume –II;

d) Report of the Task Force, Forest Encroachments, Pg-494 to 496, Volume – III;

e) Report on ‘Encroachments of 10 acres or more by each encroaching person in the Chikmagalur forest’, Pg-839 to 866, Annexure L, Volume – IV;

f) Summary of the aforesaid report in e) so as to reflect ‘encroachments of 30 acres or more by each encroaching person in the Chikmagalur forest’, (ANNEXURE M1)

4. The petitioners have come across evidence of a very disturbing incident whereby the Hon’ble Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Sri Kagodu Thimmappa, is seen to have convened a meeting of various officers of the Government for the purpose of explicitly directing them to not proceed with the process of eviction of encroachers of forest lands in the several districts of the State.

5. The Hon’ble Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Sri Kagodu Thimmappa had conducted a meeting of legislators from the Malnad districts on 11-Jun-2013 at Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore and to this meeting were summoned, the senior officers of Forest, Revenue, and Social Welfare Departments. Further, this very meeting was also attended by the Hon’ble Minister for Forests. It is not in dispute that at this point of time, the various officers of the Government were engaged in the process of eviction of encroachers from forest lands. Such progress was evidently in the knowledge of the Hon’ble Speaker. The developments that took place in the said meeting are detailed below:



6. The petitioners have come into possession of a note prepared by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) and sent to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) on 29-Jun-2013. The said note reads as under: (A copy of this document is produced herewith and marked as Annexure M2.)

“It has been found that more than one lakh sixty one thousand acres of forest lands are under encroachment by private individuals. Major chunk of these encroachments are in Shimoga, Chickmaglur, Mangalore, Hassan and Canara circles. Many DCFs in charge of the division, under the guidance of respective Chief Conservator of Forests, have followed procedures contemplated in Sec 64A of KFA 1963 and succeeded in evicting the encroachments in some areas. They have ripped the area and raised seedlings for planting during current rains.

While many divisions have swung into action, Hon’ble Speaker has conducted a meeting of legislators from Malnad districts on 11-06-2013 in Vikas Soudha, which was also attended by Hon’ble Forest Minister and some senior officers of Forest, Revenue and Social Welfare Department. Legislators were united in opposing the action of the department in continuing the process of eviction. Hon’ble Speaker concluded that claims under FRA would be reopened and FRA Committee be reconstituted. He further added that boundaries would be jointly surveyed and deemed forest notification be revisited. He asked forest department not to continue with the encroachment eviction process, until above mentioned actions are finalized. This resulted in entire programme of eviction receiving a setback. Planting programme was obstructed and in many cases, even seedlings were pulled out. In Basavanahalli and Taverekere villages of Chennagiri Taluk, even protests were organized, which was backed by local MLA. As a result planting was prevented in the area. Belligere village of Bhadravathi Taluk received a bigger protest, which was also backed by MLA, Bhadravathi, and planting have remained suspended.”

7. The aforesaid description of the actual state of affairs in an internal document shared between high ranking officers of the Forest Department of the State is simply sufficient enough for any reasonable person to form a strong inference that the further process of eviction of forest lands in the State is fully likely to come in for further illegal interference by persons with power and influence.

8. The fact of the aforesaid illegal interference by the Hon’ble Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly in the very presence of the Hon’ble Minister for Forests fits into the principal argument of these petitioners that regular instructions by this Hon’ble Court, acting on this petition, to the officers of the Government to remove encroachments of forest lands is highly unlikely to yield any concrete result unless the compliance with such directions is continuously monitored by this Hon’ble Court itself or by a Committee that this Court would convene for the purpose of such continuous monitoring.

9. It is also pertinent to note that, as on 11-Jun-2013, this very petition was receiving the due consideration of this Hon’ble Court and the fact of such consideration was also reported widely in the press and the media. Even otherwise, it is very unlikely that the Hon’ble Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Hon’ble Forest Minister or the several MLAs were unaware of the fact that the subject of encroachment of forest lands had engaged the serious attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Hon’ble Court, acting in public interest and in pursuance of several statutes that exist for the protection of forest lands.

10. Further, in the minutes of the co-ordination meeting held between the officers of the Forest Department on 12-Jun-2013, the impact from the illegal instruction given by the Hon’ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on the previous day was noted as under: (A copy of this document is produced herewith and marked as Annexure M3)

“After the briefing by PCCF (HoFF) officers expressed concern about safety of forest land in the State. CCF, Shimoga narrated an incidence of burning of two motor cycles of her staff, two JCB, while ripping encroachment land for eviction at Billigere in Kukkuvada Ubrani SF of Channagiri Range, Bhadravati Taluk, Bhadravati Division. Despite protests by encroachers, forest officials took possession of nearly 200 acres of aforesaid encroached forest land and ripped the area for planting during 2013 rains. CCF Shimoga also added that the encroachers, who were already evicted, started ploughing the area on very next day of meeting conducted by Hon’ble Forest Minister and are to take up agricultural operations such as tilling, sowing of seeds etc. This is a fallout of the meeting conducting by the Hon’ble Forest Minister on 11-06-2013. PCCF (Hoff) clarified that the matter would be referred to Government, but encroachment eviction process should not be halted.”

11. This Memo is being filed for the purpose of bringing to the notice of this Hon’ble Court, the real hurdles in the form of illegal interference and intervention by persons in position of power and influence whenever forest lands under illegal encroachment are sought to be cleared by well-intentioned officers in the Forest Department and the Government.

Bangalore



Date: 10-Feb-2014

Advocate for Petitioners

K.V.DHANANJAY

Date: 26-Feb-2014

To

The Hon’ble Minister for Primary and High School Education
Government of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore – 560 001

Copy to:

Principal Secretary
Primary and High School Education
Department of Education
Multi-Storied Building
Bangalore – 560 001
State of Karnataka

The Commissioner for Public Instruction
Primary and High School Education
Department of Education
Nrupatunga Road
Bangalore – 560 001
State of Karnataka

Sub: Children cannot be admitted against the 25% Reservation under the ‘Right of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009’ in private unaided schools unless the Government cannot first find seats for them in Government Schools, schools run by local authorities or private aided schools.

For the forthcoming Academic Year, 2014-15, members of “Karnataka Unaided Schools Management’s Association” will refuse to admit children under the 25% reservation unless they are individually assured that the said children could not be admitted in the neighbourhood Government schools, schools run by local authorities or private aided schools due to lack of seats therein.

Dear Sir
1. The official declaration of the Government of Karnataka is, in its own words:

“Nearly 4 out of every 5 elementary schools in the State are either run by the Government or supported by the Government;
Nearly 9 out of 10 lower primary schools are managed by the Government”

2. And, to desire that those who have earned a good name or reputation should suffer some misfortune and to take delight therein is known as ‘schadenfreude’ and Schopenhauer, the renowned philosopher had cautioned that,

“The worst trait in human nature…is schadenfreude”.

3. I write here on instruction from and for the benefit of:
Karnataka Unaided Schools Management’s Association (‘KUSMA’ for short) is organized as a ‘Society’ whose members are comprised only of educational institutions in the State of Karnataka. This ‘Society’ is registered under the State law in force for the registration of ‘Societies’ and has been continually registered at all relevant times – S.No.438/83-84 dated 08-Mar-1984. Membership to this ‘Society’ is open only to those educational institutions which are privately organized and which do not receive aid or assistance of any kind from the Government, State or Central. Membership to KUSMA is strictly enforced and the current membership of KUSMA stands slightly above one thousand eight hundred educational institutions.

4. The enforcement of the ‘Right of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009’ (‘RTE’ or ‘RTE Act’ for short) in the State of Karnataka has fully exposed the lack of preparation on the part of officers of the State Government.

5. Section 12(1) of the RTE Act speaks of reservation in favour of children from socially and economically backward classes to the extent of 25% in private unaided schools. You may kindly recollect that most of the associations representing private unaided schools had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the various provisions of the RTE Act. KUSMA was the only major association that did not join such a challenge against RTE in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court went on to hold that the RTE Act could not be enforced against unaided minority educational institutions. Therefore, non-minority private unaided educational institutions are fully subject to the provisions of the RTE. This much is not in dispute.

6. Now, the RTE Act merely says that there shall be a reservation in private unaided schools to the extent of 25% in favour of children from socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. And, the whole law of RTE is built on the concept of ‘neighbourhood’. That is to say, children from a given neighbourhood should, as far as practicable, receive education in their own neighbourhood and should not be compelled to travel to a different neighbourhood merely to receive elementary education (Std. I to VIII). Suppose, we have a neighbourhood, say a specially developed and built township for the affluent and wealthy in which there simply are very few children from the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. And, a couple of schools come to be established in this township. Obviously, there would be no compulsion upon such schools to shut down simply because they could not find many children to fill in the 25% reservation. In a situation like this, the RTE law would be interpreted to only mean an obligation to enrol available reservation children only. Similarly, say there is a district that has a good network of government schools and also a large number of private unaided schools. Say, the children who are eligible to be admitted under the 25% reservation in that district is 500 but the 25% quota seats in all private schools combined therein is say, 5000. In a situation such as this, most private unaided schools in that district may end up enrolling reservation children to an extent of below 25% of their strength. In fact, in the last academic year itself, hundreds of schools in the State of Karnataka individually witnessed enrolment of less than 10% under the RTE quota. If RTE law were interpreted to mean a compulsory enrolment of the full 25% reservation irrespective of availability of such children, thousands of schools across the country would have to shut down today. It is therefore, evident that any such interpretation would be wholly wrong.

7. Building from the above reasoning, KUSMA would demand that, for the academic year 2014-2015, the enrolment of reservation children to the extent of 25% in private unaided schools in the State be done in any given neighbourhood as under:

8. The RTE Act regulates four classes of educational institutions. They are:
i. Government schools,

ii. Schools that are run by the local authorities;

iii. Private Aided Schools and

iv. Private Unaided Schools

The data published by the Government of India in respect of the State of Karnataka would show that, there were 70851 elementary schools in the State. The break-up thereof is as under:

Class of Schools

Number of Schools

Percentage of Total

Government Schools

56305

79.47

Private Aided Schools

3160

4.46

Private Unaided Schools
11386

16.07

Total

70851

100.00



9. As may be seen from the above, out of every 100 schools in the State of Karnataka, 80 schools are Government schools and 4 schools are private aided schools. Therefore, private unaided schools in the State constitute a mere 16% of the overall number of schools. Further, the data published by the Central Government would also show that 87% of all elementary schools in the State are situated in rural areas. And, 89% of all rural elementary schools are Government schools. Nearly 76.36 lakh students were enrolled in elementary schools across the State.

10. The exact word of the Government of Karnataka on the above statistic is:
“Nearly 4 out of every 5 elementary schools in the State are either run by the Government or supported by the Government;
Nearly 9 out of 10 lower primary schools are managed by the Government”

11. Therefore, in order to subject the mere 16% private unaided schools in the State to 25% reservation under the RTE, KUSMA would demand that the enrolment of children proposed to be admitted in private unaided schools under the 25% reservation for the forthcoming academic year be staggered as under:

a) The Government schools in the neighbourhood should be the first and foremost choice for enrolment;

b) Schools run by the local authorities in the neighbourhood should rank next in order for the purpose of enrolment;

c) Private aided schools in the neighbourhood should rank next after a) and b) above and

d) Private unaided schools should be considered for enrolment only after there is a shortage despite enrolment in Government schools, schools run by local authorities and private aided schools.

12. In other words, private unaided schools cannot be told to enrol children under the 25% reservation if seats in Government schools, schools run by local authorities and private aided schools are all going empty due to the failure of the officers of the Education Department to first look to those three categories of schools.

13. You may kindly note that the RTE law is built on the concept of need for education and is not intended to create any preference in society for education in private unaided schools only. No part of the RTE Act says any such thing as ‘education in Government schools or schools run by local authorities is inferior to education in private unaided schools’. As such, it was never the intention of the RTE Act to sound the death knell of Government schools and schools run by local authorities.

14. You may note that almost all central taxes come with a 2% education cess and across India, Governments have spent thousands of crores of rupees on establishing schools for the poor and the needy and the State of Karnataka itself has spent hundreds of crores of rupees to establish and administer schools by itself and through local authorities. When such is the case, it would be opposed to ordinary common sense as well as fiscal prudence for the officers of the Department of Education to ignore seats in Government schools, schools run by local authorities and private aided schools and to only turn towards private unaided schools.

15. Private unaided schools survive on their own through funds from parents. While it is true that a good number of private unaided schools is quite unscrupulous, a number of private unaided schools are run transparently, ethically and in obedience to the laws of the State.

16. The Parliament of India, speaking through the RTE, has not said that education in Government schools is inferior to education in private schools. When the Parliament intended to provide for reservation in private schools, the Parliament clearly knew that thousands of crores had already been spent on Government schools and still, children from the socially and economically backward class were not catered to by the available Government schools. It is in this context that the RTE law put in a reservation in private schools. So, the RTE cannot be implemented by the Government of Karnataka in a manner so as to dry the existing Government schools and schools run by local authorities. Moreover, the Government of Karnataka is incurring substantial expenditure towards salaries of teachers in Government schools, schools run by local authorities and private aided schools. Such commitment to pay teachers would rather seem perverse if the officers of the Department of Education would act in such a way as to ensure migration of children from Government schools in favour of private unaided schools. After all, lakhs of teachers who must receive their monthly salaries in Government schools, schools run by local authorities and private aided schools cannot be expected to teach to empty benches if the Department of Education would cultivate among parents of children from the socially and economically backward classes, a preference for private unaided schools only.

17. Data published by the Central Government would show that 2,28,681 teachers were in employment in Government elementary schools in Karnataka. For some mysterious reason, both the Central Government and the State Government seem to be reluctant to publish the item-wise monetary spending on education. The exact word of the Karnataka Government is that:

“Over 90% of the budget for school education in Karnataka is spent on salaries to Government primary and secondary school teachers and as grant-in-aid to aided institutions…”

18. However, assuming conservatively that the salary of a teacher in a Government school is not less than Rs.12000 per month and given that there are 2,28,681 teachers employed in Government elementary schools in the State, the payment by the Government of salaries of teachers in its own elementary schools is as under:

2,28,681 Government Teachers * Rs.12000 pm = Rs.274.40 Crores per month.

19. Annually, the Government teachers in elementary schools in the State would therefore receive, Rs.274.40 Crores * 12 months = Rs.3292.80 Crores. In perspective, this Rs.3292 Crores is far more than the combined annual global theatrical revenue of all the four southern film industries put together. In other words, the money spent by the Government of Karnataka on teachers’ salaries in Government schools in any year is far more than the total box-office receipts of every Kannada, Telugu, Tamil and Malayalam film released in theatres across the world in a given year. Despite such a massive financial commitment by the State Government to pay its own teachers in Government schools, it is a mystery as to why the officers of the Department of Education are trying to dry Government schools. The teachers in Government schools are contractually entitled to receive their salaries irrespective of whether or not they have any work to do in Government schools. So, what kind of inexplicable logic has the Department of Education fallen prey to in now pushing children from Government schools to prefer private unaided schools?

20. A parent who is poor and cannot afford to pay the regular fees in a private unaided school cannot legally claim that education in Government schools or schools run by local authorities or private aided schools is not acceptable to him and that he would admit his child only under the 25% reservation in private unaided schools. If any person would read the RTE Act carefully, he will nowhere find any such right vested in a parent. Therefore, the Government would do well to simply ignore such ‘misguided vanity’ in any parent and should admit his child in the available Government school, school run by the local authority or private aided school. It is only if there is no physical availability in these three classes of schools could the Government enrol those children in a private unaided school and even then, not in a choice of the parent but in a randomly selected private unaided school in the neighbourhood. You may see from the RTE Act that admissions therein are to be made in a random manner and not through personal preference or selection.

21. Therefore, you are hereby informed that the members of KUSMA have been constrained to come to the decision to not admit children under the 25% reservation under the RTE for the forthcoming academic year unless they are individually assured that the children they are told to admit under the 25% reservation could not be accommodated in Government-run schools, schools run by local authorities or private aided schools in the neighbourhood.

22. Finally, it is quite evident that the officers of the Department of Education seem to take special delight in vexing reputed private unaided schools in the name of RTE. To desire that those who have earned a good name or reputation should suffer some misfortune and to take delight therein is known as ‘schadenfreude’ and Schopenhauer, the renowned philosopher had cautioned that,

“The worst trait in human nature…is schadenfreude”.

Sincerely

K.V.DHANANJAY

Advocate

The tv9 journos stinging the minister committed no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - their arrest was wholly wrongful

Bribery of public servants often happens behind closed doors. Corruption among public servants is a grave threat to the social, legal and moral fabric of our society. So, there is enormous public interest involved in facilitating the media to expose corrupt politicians. Therefore, the public is profoundly interested in a careful and balanced interpretation of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in so far as sting operations by the media are concerned. In the instant case, two journalists of a Kannada news channel have been arrested on the ground that they had sought to bribe a Minister in the Government of Karnataka. It is the stated case of both the sides that the journalists were only pretending to seek favours for a certain fictitious company that was not even in existence or in the reckoning for Government favours. In the background of this factual context, I, K.V.Dhananjay, an advocate in practice at the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and also at this Hon’ble Court would respectfully submit the following propositions of law, with the due leave of this Hon’ble Court, that:

I do not have any connection or relationship, monetary or otherwise, with the complainant-minister or with the television channel. I do not personally benefit and I would not be personally deprived in the event of any outcome in this case.

When a tv reporter would offer a bribe to a minister with an express indication that the minister should, in consideration for the bribe, favour a certain company which the tv reporter knows to be fictitious and not even in existence except on paper, the tv reporter has committed no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On examination of the foundational principles of criminal law and of criminal jurisprudence, it is evident that a person cannot be charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that he had offered a bribe to a public servant if only the transaction sought to be corrupted had no real existence at all. Therefore, the very arrest of the two journalists was wrongful. They are therefore, entitled to bail as a matter of right in view of the fact that their very arrest was wrongful in the first place.

To illustrate, say there is a 75 year old man. He was never married and never had any children. He would proceed to a police station and would hand over a bunch of notes totalling Rs.1 lakh to the sub-inspector and he would plead with the sub-inspector: “My son has committed a very heinous crime. Please do not arrest him. Here is your money to not arrest him”. Has this man committed an offence of ‘bribery’ for the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? Not at all. That man was never married, never had any children and there was no person that he knew who had committed any heinous offence and so, nobody who was liable to be arrested and therefore, there simply was nobody to be corruptly shielded from arrest. So, all that could be said of this old man’s act is that he did commit a ‘mischief’. And if there is any statute that expressly makes any mischief directed at a public servant, a punishable offence, the old man in this illustration could be charged thereunder and prosecuted for it. I am not aware of any such statute, however.

As such, resort to various judgments of the High Courts or of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not even be warranted when it is first seen that the act in question cannot even be qualified as ‘an act of bribe giving’. Several judgments that have appreciated acts of ‘sting operation’ by the media and have thereby quashed the criminal prosecution against the journalists might become relevant only when the the act in question would technically qualify as a ‘offence’ for the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. That is, I humbly submit that I understand the several judgments that have applauded ‘sting operations’ as applying only to those circumstances when, technically, an offence was indeed committed by the journalist under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but that the public interest that had motivated such a ‘sting operation’ would justify the Court to quash the criminal proceedings against the journalist-accused.

In the illustration given earlier, it would be irrelevant to ask whether that old man was a journalist or not in order to say that he never did commit any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 though what he did pay would readily become a ‘bribe’ in the hands of that sub-inspector. It would also be unnecessary to even take into account, the fact of whether the journalists in the case before this Court had a laudable motive or not or even whether, the law should treat journalists differently from common folks. So, on the facts of this very case, the two journalists who went on to sting the minister simply committed no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Again, the fact that they were journalists is simply immaterial and the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence alone are the guiding factor to hold that they did not commit any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Further, it may become necessary to address the concern here that in the illustration given above, the old man should be let off scot-free whereas the sub-inspector should be jailed although it could be forcefully argued for the sub-inspector that the same consideration that there was nobody to corruptly shield should also equally apply to the sub-inspector and he too should be held to have committed no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. To address this argument, I would respectfully submit, by resorting to foundational principles of our criminal jurisprudence that:
a) The culpability of a bribe taker has very little to do with whether or not there is a corresponding charge that has been brought against the bribe-giver. So, the act of bribe-taking primarily begins with a state of mind in the bribe-taker that he has a certain power to exercise as a public servant which he has shown a willingness to corrupt by the act of bribe-taking. Again, the test is ‘not whether there is an occasion for the power to be abused’. The test is merely whether ‘the public servant possessed a certain power that is open to abuse by it’s very nature – not whether, in the specific facts of the case, the power was liable to be abused’. So, a person who has just been designated as a ‘public servant’ of a certain rank and who hasn’t even been assigned any specific task yet would still run the risk of being charged with ‘bribe-taking’ should be accept money from any person who expects that this public servant would come to hold a certain portfolio though the public servant himself would hold no such certainty. As such, it is the mere receipt of bribe that is of relevance to charge a ‘bribe-taker’ and not whether the bribe was taken to abuse his office under any specific circumstance or condition or even whether, the act to be corrupted was even capable of performance or execution. Therefore, given this state of the established law in relation to a ‘bribe-taker’, the sub-inspector in the aforesaid illustration could be readily charged for the offence of ‘bribe-taking’ though the giver, the old man, would be let off for his act of mischief which would not constitute an act of ‘bribe-giving’.



b) To finally amplify the aforesaid a), we may consider another illustration. A politician who has a devout and massive following is charged with rioting or some such offence and arrested on that charge. Investigation ensues and the politician applies for bail. Unknown to others, just before the crucial bail hearing, the public-prosecutor in this case would receive en envelope that is stashed with currency notes totaling Rs.10000. The prosecutor is of course, a ‘public servant’ for the purpose of the ‘Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988’. Nobody knows who sent this envelope. The prosecutor tells nobody of this fact – of the envelope. He simply takes that money into his custody for his own use, without informing any person of it. He goes on to argue and his superiors come to entertain a feeling that he did not do well in Court. Eventually, the judge would reject the arguments of the prosecutor and would grant bail to that politician. The superiors of the prosecutor would later come to know of the envelope and that the prosecutor had come to receive Rs.10000 through that envelope. The superiors then charge the prosecutor of having receive a ‘bribe’ to show favour to that politician by not arguing well in the Court. In this very charge, there are two aspects – first, that the prosecutor did knowingly and clandestinely receive a bribe and secondly, in exchange for that bribe, he went on to deliberately ruin the case of the prosecution. The prosecution would be under no duty to identify the person who had sent the envelope or to even prove that the prosecutor had any special communication or instruction from the person who had sent the envelope. It is further, not necessary, for the prosecution to succeed on the first aspect of bribe-taking that the public-prosecutor had in fact, deliberately not argued efficiently. The offence of ‘bribe-taking’ is complete at the point of receipt of the bribe. At this juncture, let us say that the person who had indeed sent the envelope would come forward to say that “he was in no way related to that politician and that he in fact, had believed that the politician in question was a menace to the society and that, moved by the plight of the poor circumstances under which the public prosecutors work, he had sent in that money to the public prosecutor with a view to helping him to spend, if necessary on books or judgments and to argue the bail hearing effectively. However, he had left no instruction whatsoever on how the money was to be spent”. Let’s also assume that this person could prove his act of sending and his sentiment and motive to a legal certainty. Is this motive of the person who sent in the envelope relevant at all to the trial of the public prosecutor who has been charged with having received a ‘bribe’? The answer would strictly be in the negative. The motive of the person who did send in that envelope containing the money is relevant, if only, he himself is charged during the trial. Otherwise, the act of payment of money and the act of receiving that money as a ‘bribe’ are often, conceptually, two separate transactions in the eyes of law and are to be separately analysed and examined.

K.V.DHANANJAY, Advocate

Increasing instances of suicides and attempt to suicide by school-going children is sought to be addressed by Karnataka Unaided Schools Management’s Association by constituting a study group.

Date: 22-Mar-2014

To

The Hon’ble Minister for Primary and High School Education
Government of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore – 560 001

Copy to:

Principal Secretary
Primary and High School Education
Department of Education
Multi-Storied Building
Bangalore – 560 001
State of Karnataka

The Commissioner for Public Instruction
Primary and High School Education
Department of Education
Nrupatunga Road
Bangalore – 560 001
State of Karnataka

Sub: Increasing instances of suicides and attempt to suicide by school-going children is sought to be addressed by Karnataka Unaided Schools Management’s Association by constituting a study group. This study group would very much need copies of investigation reports accumulated by the Department of Education in respect of suicides of school-going children – for the past five years

Dear Sir
1. I write here on instruction from and for the benefit of Karnataka Unaided Schools Management’s Association (‘KUSMA’, for short), an association that represents the interests of more than 1800 private unaided schools in the State of Karnataka.

2. Instances of school-going children committing suicide is very much on the rise across the State of Karnataka and schools in the State are truly concerned about this worrisome trend.

3. Teachers in schools that are members of KUSMA have begun to openly express concern about news reports of children committing suicide after mild criticism or disapproval by their teachers. Thereby, a large body of teachers in private schools is considerably worried at not being able to anticipate the unintended consequences of even ordinary verbal disciplining of children. With the law in India on legal liability for suicide of another person remaining very uncertain, teachers and managements of private schools are greatly worried about not being able to navigate the challenges brought about by increasing suicides of school-going children. Therefore, KUSMA has resolved to constitute a study group comprising of competent professionals to devise practical guidelines for use by its members on ‘how to spot vulnerabilities in school-children and to manage such vulnerabilities in a careful manner’. For this task, KUSMA would require from the Department of Education, copies of investigation reports that the Department has collated on the subject of suicides of school-going children in the past five years.

4. The Department of Education has a real interest in addressing the suicide of any school-going child if only such suicide is related to any incident or conduct committed while that child was in school. Accordingly, the Department of Education invariably orders investigation in all such cases even when the criminal justice system and the police do not get involved. However, where the police are involved in a case of suicide of a school-going child, the Department of Education would still obtain administrative reports for its record. KUSMA would require copies of all such investigative reports that have been accumulated by the Department of Education for the purpose of enabling KUSMA’s own study-group to devise practical guidelines as aforesaid.

5. Standard textbooks or theories on child psychology are no substitute whatsoever to investigation reports in the custody of the Department of Education on real cases of suicides of school-going children in the State – when one sets out to learn about possible causes of such suicides. Such investigative reports would help KUSMA’s study group in a detailed understanding of what might have led to the actual suicides of school-going children and it is only such practical knowledge that could be of any use to the study group to guide teachers in private schools to spot vulnerabilities in young children.

6. Further, the investigation reports in the custody of the Department of Education are not, in any real sense, confidential or private and the Department may, if it chooses, redact or black-out any identifying information while providing KUSMA with copies of such investigation reports. KUSMA would ensure that its study group would leave out identifying information it has learnt from investigative reports provided by the Government while circulating its practical guidelines.

7. KUSMA would like to state that a significant section of teachers in member schools are of the informed and careful opinion that an increasing number of school-going children are becoming afflicted with depression and mental disorders without anybody in school or home noticing it in time. When mental disorders in young children go undiagnosed at home or school, the possibility of such children receiving much needed medical care or therapy would be drastically cut down. Suicidal behaviour or tendencies in a few school-going children may fully remain hidden to teachers unless teachers are provided with helpful guidelines on ‘how to spot such vulnerabilities’. Therefore, KUSMA has devised this study group and any publication by this study group would remain practically useless unless this study group receives the benefit of investigative reports that are in the custody of the Department of Education.

8. Further, in view of the fact that police investigation and criminal trials in Karnataka are not yet digitized, indexed or searchable electronically, one would be without any clue on obtaining police reports on cases of suicide of school-going children in the State. The Department of Education is the only recourse to KUSMA at this time.

9. Finally, KUSMA awaits copies of investigation reports that are in the custody of the Department of Education on the subject of suicides of school-going children in respect of the past five years. Further, in view of the fact that the members of KUSMA are spread out across the State of Karnataka, KUSMA would request the Department to not limit the information that it would provide to merely cases of suicides from urban areas or towns.

10. KUSMA would be immensely grateful to the Department for its timely release of information sought herein.

Sincerely


K.V.DHANANJAY

Advocate