Irregularities in selecting Hajj pilgrims, alleges woman
Bengaluru, Jan 23: Nusrat Raza, a beneficiary who was denied Hajj pilgrimage, alleged that both State Haj Committee and Minority Welfare Department have involved in irregularities in selecting Hajj pilgrimages for the present year.
Speaking to reporters at the Press Club here on Wednesday, she said that during present year, the central Haj Committee has fixed 6,701 quota for the state. But more than 14,000 people have applied for it. But the state Haj Committee, after selecting the beneficiaries under the central quota through Khurra (lottery), has informed the beneficiaries that you were not selected.
The Committee has conducted the Khurra process at Vidhana Soudha Banquet Hall on January 16 in which Minority Welfare Minister Zameer Ahmed Khan, Committee president Roshan Baig, CEO Sarfraz Khan, Ministers, Religious leaders and state committee members were present.
As planned, in the beginning, Khurra of Bagalkot district was completed and later, Bengaluru Urban district held. In the same way, all 30 districts were covered. In that process, for Bengaluru urban district, lottery was held for 395 covers and in each cover, there would be three names. In the same way, total 994 names in 395 covers were selected and announced their names. But on the next day, she received a message that she was not selected for the Hajj pilgrimage from the Haj Committee, she alleged.
What went wrong?
The lottery was fixed on January 16. In order to avoid last minute lapses or mistakes, the officials have conducted rehearsal on January 15. Surprisingly, during the lottery on January 16, all the 395 covers of Bengaluru urban district were conducted as per the rehearsal list of January 15. This mistake was disclosed only after completing all 30 districts, she said.
In order to rectify the mistake of rehearsal, the officials held the lottery of Bengaluru urban district as per the January 16 list. So, due to the mistakes of officials, the beneficiaries who were selected during January 15 have lost the opportunity of pilgrimage. So, the minister should interfere and ensure justice to them. They were not interested for conflict. But they should be given opportunity. Otherwise, they would take up legal fight, she warned.
Action against erring officials: Minister Zameer Ahmed Khan
No irregularity was occurred in the present year selection process of Hajj pilgrims. Instead, some confusions were created due to some technical problems, for which, action would be taken against the erring officials, State Wakf and Hajj Minister Zameer Ahmed Khan said.
Speaking to reporters here on Wednesday, the Minister said that the lottery process was fixed on January 16. In order to avoid last minute confusions, the officials have conducted experiment on January 15 and this has led to some confusions, for which he would tender apology, he said.
Central Haj Committee has allotted 6,701 seats for this year to the state. But more than 10,000 people have applied for the selection. Even the selection process would also be monitored by the central committee. Everybody wanted to conduct Hajj pilgrimage once in their lifetime. So, some people have experienced the confusion due to some technical issues. He would initiate enquiry into such mistake and take action, the Minister 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.
Excise policy case: HC gives more time to Kejriwal, Sisodia to respond to ED plea to expunge remarks
New Delhi (PTI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted time till April 2 to former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and 21 others to respond to a plea by the Enforcement Directorate to expunge "unwarranted" remarks made against it by the trial court while discharging them in the liquor policy case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed displeasure over the request for more time by the lawyers appearing for Kejriwal and other accused, and said it would fix a date for final hearing in the matter during the next hearing on April 2.
"I don't know why you are not filing a reply. You should have filed a reply if you think you really needed to file a reply. They are only saying judge should not have written something that he has written."
"By second (of April), you file your reply. Then we will fix a date for final hearing," the judge said.
The Enforcement Directorate's counsel said there was no need to file replies to its petition and that this was an attempt to delay the case.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for ED, contended that the agency's petition has no impact on the accused, as the challenge was limited to the trial court judge's observations against the agency when it discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the CBI case.
The counsel for one of the accused said a brief reply was necessary and time was needed for it as the discharge order was 600 pages long.
Justice Sharma remarked that the ED's case has nothing to do with all 600 pages.
"Here is a prosecuting agency which has stated that the judge exceeded jurisdiction. I told them even I make such observations. I need to deicide it but you said I need to file a reply. Now you say 600 pages have to be read," the judge observed.
Raju also urged the court to direct that the observations of the trial court would not be relied upon by the accused in related proceedings. "It is a short date. Let them reply," the court responded.
On March 10, the court had asked Kejriwal and others to respond to the ED's plea.
In the petition, ED said the trial court's remarks were wholly extraneous to the CBI's case. It said the ED was neither a party in those proceedings nor afforded any opportunity to be heard.
"If such sweeping, unguided, bald observations are permitted to stand ... grave and irreparable prejudice would be caused to the public at large as well as the petitioner," the ED plea said.
"Therefore, the aforesaid paragraphs which concern the investigation independently conducted by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) deserve to be expunged as it amounts to a clear case of judicial overreach...," it added.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor policy case, pulling up the CBI by saying that its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
The trial court ruled that the alleged conspiracy was nothing more than a speculative construct resting on conjecture and surmise, devoid of any admissible evidence.
To compel the accused to face the rigours of a full-fledged criminal trial in the stark absence of any legally admissible material did not serve the ends of justice, it said.
In its order, the trial court highlighted that a procedure permitting prolonged or indefinite incarceration based on a provisional and untested allegation risked "degenerating into a punitive process" and raised a "concern of considerable constitutional significance" where individual liberty was "imperilled" by invoking the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
It said the issue assumed heightened significance where an accused was arrested for the offence of money laundering and thereafter required to surmount the stringent twin conditions prescribed for the grant of bail, resulting in prolonged incarceration even at the pre-trial stage.
It further said that despite the settled legal position that the offence of money laundering cannot independently subsist and requires the foundational edifice of a legally sustainable predicate offence, the prevailing practice revealed a disturbing inversion.
Underlining that the objective of PMLA was undoubtedly legitimate and compelling, the trial judge mentioned that statutory power, however wide, could not eclipse constitutional safeguards.
