By Martin Macwan* The Patidars, popularly known as ‘Patels’, are far from ignorant to know that to acquire other backward class (OBC) status for securing reservation in Gujarat (each State has its own commission and list of its own castes), they have to file a claim before the permanent OBC commission set up by the Government of Gujarat. Knowing well they stand no chance to prove themselves as ‘an educationally and socially backward caste’ before the OBC commission, Patidars have chosen a path of popular show of muscles to bend the Gujarat Government headed by the first woman chief minister and a Patidar herself to agree to their demand. Patidars have also threatened the BJP Government of Gujarat as well as Narendra Modi, the OBC Prime Minister of India that they may fall if their demands are not met. Patidars claim that without their critical support both the rise of BJP government of Gujarat and Modi as the Prime Minister of India was not possible. The prominent personalities and org

By Venkatesh Nayak* Readers may remember the major controversy over the coverage of Public Private Partnerships (PPP) under The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) during the tenure of the United Progressive Alliance Government. While the Central Information Commission (CIC) wanted them to be covered by the RTI Act, the now defunct Planning Commission was hesitant to act immediately. Pursuant to this controversy, in August 2011, I had filed an RTI application with the Department of Ports, Puducherry asking for the Concession Agreement relating to the PPP project. After four years, the CIC has ordered that the Concession Agreement be disclosed after severing those portions relating to commercial confidentiality. Despite the order being passed in June 2015, the Department of Ports, Puducherry has neither sent me the information nor issued notice challenging the CIC’s decision in the High Court. Thanks to the very vocal demand made by the RTI fraternity in India and the numerous case

By Venkatesh Nayak* According to media reports , the three-Judge Supreme Court Bench hearing the Aadhaar-related (UID) batch of petitions has decided that these petitions and the issue — whether people have a fundamental right to privacy and what is its scope and ambit — should be decided by a Constitution Bench. The pleadings of the Attorney General of India (AGI) appear to have prevailed over those of the Petitioners who argued that the right to privacy is undoubtedly a fundamental right. The AGI cited Constitution Bench judgements of the Court which are 5-6 decades old to argue that the right to privacy was recognised by Benches of lesser strength and therefore the matter should be authoritatively decided once and for all. Last week I commented on the incredulity (if not the fallacy) of the AGI’s arguments. Those comments as well as the core issue of the right to privacy and the legality of Aadhaar became the subject of a major debate on a TV Channel as well. How large is the Const

By Krishnakant* A case-appeal has been filed against the order of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and others granting CRZ clearance for establishment of intake and outfall facility for proposed 6000 MWe Nuclear Power Plant at Mithi Virdi, District Bhavnagar, Gujarat by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) vide order in F 11-23 /2014-IA- III dated March 3, 2015. The case-appeal in the National Green Tribunal at Western Bench at Pune is filed by Shaktisinh Gohil, Sarpanch of Jasapara; Hajabhai Dihora of Mithi Virdi; Jagrutiben Gohil of Jasapara; Krishnakant and Rohit Prajapati activist of the Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has issued a notice to the MoEF&CC, Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and case is kept for hearing on August 20, 2015. Appeal No. 23 of 2015 (WZ) is filed, a

By Venkatesh Nayak* According to news reports , the Supreme Court has reserved its opinion on referring to a larger bench the Attorney General of India’s question as to whether it was correct or not for a smaller Bench of the Court to hold that every citizen has the fundamental right to his/her privacy when two earlier Constitution Benches of the Court have held that there is no such fundamental right. The opinion is likely to be delivered on Tuesday. As we wait for that opinion, it is useful to examine how the concept of the right to privacy has evolved in modern India. It is also necessary to examine whether the questions raised by the Attorney General of India (AGI) are germane or not to the debate on Aadhaar or Unique Identification (UID) which is central to this controversy. Right to privacy in India before Independence Several researchers, including this author and academic scholars and experts, have noted with exasperation the absence of a term in most of the popular languages i

By Venkatesh Nayak* Heated debate took place inside and outside Parliament during the budget session earlier this year, on the proposals to amend the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2011 (WBP Act). The WBP Amendment Bill , approved by the Lok Sabha and now pending consideration in the Rajya Sabha, seeks to amend the WBP Act substantially apart from rectifying some typographical errors. In May I had made critical comments on these amendment proposals arguing: “If the Whistleblower Act amendments go through, it might be easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than to get a whistleblower complaint inquired as it will have to pass through 32 tests.” WBP Amendment Bill’s Cabinet Note proves the critique right: After the last budget session ended, I sought a copy of the Cabinet Note that was placed before the Union Cabinet for its approval to table the draft WBP Amendment Bill in Parliament. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) which is the nodal department in the Gove