Sameer Wankhede alleges harassment by NCB officer, moves scheduled castes panel
Mumbai, Oct 19: The National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has said it will probe a complaint received by Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede alleging harassment by Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Deputy Director General (DDG) Gyaneshwar Singh, who headed a vigilance probe that found irregularities in the 2021 drugs-on-cruise case.
The commission, in a statement on Tuesday, said it will probe the alleged harassment and atrocities committed by Singh and directed that no further action be taken in the matter till the complaint is pending before the panel, which enjoys powers of a civil court.
The NCB had instituted the vigilance probe after several lapses were found in the inquiry into the alleged drug seizure from a cruise ship in Mumbai last October. Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan, was arrested after a raid on the ship, but he was later given a 'clean chit' in the case. Wankhede was the NCB Mumbai zonal director when the raid was conducted on the Goa-bound ship.
"A complaint or information has been received by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) from Wankhede and the commission has decided to investigate or inquire into the matter in pursuance of the powers conferred to it under the Constitution," said the statement.
Wankhede, who in May was transferred to the DG Taxpayer Service Directorate in Chennai, also met the NCSC chairman and discussed his case in detail, it said.
"There appears to be discrimination and harassment of the petitioner (who belongs to a Scheduled Caste). Therefore, the NCSC has desired that no further action in the matter be taken till the pendency of the case in the commission," said the statement.
The commission has asked the Central Board of Indirect Texas and Customs (CBIC) to hand over original documents submitted by the NCB's Special Enquiry Team (SET) for examination by the panel.
The Indian Revenue Service (IRS) is governed by the CBIC.
The NCSC , which enjoys powers of a civil court, has asked the CBIC, a body functioning under the Union finance ministry's Department of Revenue, to submit information sought by it in 15 days.
When contacted by PTI, Wankhede said, "I have approached the commission, but do not want to comment further as the matter is sub-judice. Singh humiliated and mocked Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. I have faced continuous harassment and exploitation for a year.''
The NCB inquiry into the probe of the drugs-on-cruise case has flagged several irregularities but found no evidence of extortion, an official said on Tuesday.
A special investigation team of the NCB which looked into the probe of the case submitted its vigilance report a few weeks ago. It flagged "suspicious behaviour" of seven to eight officers of the NCB.
Questions were also raised about the intention of the officers involved in the investigation of the drugs-on-cruise case and some people were found to have changed their statements many times, the official had said.
There was "selective treatment" and procedural lapses during the probe, he had said.
The report has recommended action against erring officers including those who were deputed to the NCB at the time, he said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
BCI urges CJI to take action against Andhra HC judge for sending young lawyer to 24-hour custody
New Delhi (PTI): The Bar Council of India on Wednesday sought the urgent intervention of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant following a "deeply disturbing" incident where a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reportedly sent a young advocate to
24-hour judicial custody over a procedural lapse.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, in a formal representation, termed the conduct of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao "grossly inappropriate" and "damaging to the confidence of the Bar".
“I most respectfully request your Lordship to kindly take immediate institutional cognizance of the matter and call for the video recording of the proceedings, the order passed, and the surrounding circumstances.
“I further request that appropriate administrative action may kindly be considered, including withdrawal of judicial work from the learned Judge pending review, his immediate transfer to some far off High Court, and his nomination for appropriate judicial training/orientation on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional exercise of contempt/judicial authority,” Mishra wrote.
This representation is made to preserve the “dignity, moral authority and public confidence of the judiciary”, he said, adding, “Judges command the highest respect not by fear, but by fairness, patience, restraint and constitutional humility”.
The communication urged the CJI to intervene at the earliest to ensure that the faith of Bar, particularly young advocates, in the protective and corrective role of the judiciary is restored.
The controversy stems from proceedings on May 5.
According to the BCI, a video circulating online shows Justice Rao rebuking a young advocate who was unable to produce a specific order copy during a hearing.
The letter said that despite the advocate "repeatedly seeking pardon and mercy" and claiming he was in physical pain, the judge remained "unmoved".
The judge allegedly told the lawyer, "now you will learn," and mocked his experience before directing the Registrar and police personnel to take him into custody for 24 hours.
The BCI chairperson said that the judge’s actions lacked proportionality and fairness.
"The dignity of the court is not enhanced when a lawyer is made to beg for grace in open court and is still sent to custody for a procedural lapse," the letter said.
"A young lawyer... is an officer of the Court, still learning, still growing, and entitled to correction without humiliation," it added.
The bar body said that such actions create a "chilling effect" on the legal fraternity, particularly among junior members, and undermine the mutual respect required between the Bench and the Bar.
