Indian media should do better reporting of 'High profile backers of Lalit Modi' matter; By Hem Raj Jain
28 Jun 2015
Sub:- How can 'High profile backers’' denigrate Indian State without Lalit Modi first exhausting all remedies in India ?
-- As per report in prominent media - “[Former IPL chief Lalit Modi had enlisted several high profile backers in its efforts to procure resident status in the UK and for his legal defense in India.Three former Supreme Court judges Justices Jeevan Reddy S.B. Sinha and U.C. Banerjee had given Modi favorable opinions and former Mumbai Police Commissioner R.D. Tyagi, Senior Editor Prabhu Chawla etc stood witness for Lalit ]”. - Media even has come out with signed letter (with secrecy clause) of Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje in support of Lalit but Vasundhara said that it was not submitted to UK authorities [Hence unless media or someone else (political parties etc) come out with prove that UK authorities admitted this letter in their proceedings, Vasundhara can not be said to have backed Lalit’s case].
Reportedly the reasons given for this support by high profile backers are that video conferencing was denied to Lalit, even High Court order of August 27, 2014 (restoring Lalit’s passport) was not appealed because (as claimed it was not worth appealable), death threats were there to Lalit from underworld and Lalit was singled out and harassed by Indian agencies & government out of jealousy and political vendetta.
There is nothing special in getting resident permit in another country. Hundreds of thousands of Indians in USA etc, while holding Indian passport also have green cards etc (residency permit which allows work also) hence normally Lalit seeking residency in UK should not be a controversial matter. But residency permit to Lalit has a background of denigrating Indian State (and its institutions including Judiciary) for enabling Lalit to get his residency permit.
As far no-appeal of August 27, 2014 order, it was not appealed because Government of India (GOI) wants to protect Lalit Modi in a legally objectionable manner and as far personal appearance, the FEMA authorities are entitled to demand for it, as explained below:-
Appeal in Supreme Court of India (SCI) was legally imperative as Delhi High Court order (of August 27, 2014) is bad in law because - (1)- Passport can be impounded or revoked under section 10 (3) ( C) of Passport Act in the interests of the general public. (2)- Because Lalit Modi was avoiding (by giving untenable argument of threat to his life) personal appearance before FEMA Authorities in a matter reportedly of Rs. 17 Billion which is concerned with the money of IPL, there can not be any other matter which is of more general-public-interest than IPL [which (cricket being the most popular game in India) is thriving on the immense money of ultimately the general public of 1.25 Billion India]. (3)- Enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath is mandated under section 37 of FEMA. which allows the exercise of like powers which are conferred on income-tax authorities under the Income-tax Act. (4)- Therefore GOI was under legal obligation (in the interest of general-public-interest) to appeal in SCI against Delhi High Court order of August 27, 2014.
Moreover video conferencing can not be pressed as some inalienable fundamental right enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. If Lalit was aggrieved by the order of FEMA authorities denying him video conferencing then Lalit should have appealed against this denial order in court [after-all even Section 144 CrPC orders (given under discretionary power by Executive / District Magistrates for maintaining peace ) if considered arbitrary are also successfully appealed / revised in courts]. As far threat to life and reduction of Lalit’s security persons by government this also could have been taken / appealed by Lalit in Court.
[In a nutshell without exhausting all the remedies in India (including in SCI and NHRC) by Lalit Modi, how could these high profile backers denigrate Indian State. [Any body who has gone to SCI and NHRC for getting justice knows that these are institutions which always do not dispense justice. But normally they deny justice to either minorities (as, apart from many such instances, is evident from fate of matters related to Srikrishna commission report and http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/viewarticles.php?editorialid=2425 ) or to economically humble citizens. But Lalit was neither of the two and he could have easily got justice from High Courts and SCI].
After exhausting remedies in SCI and NHRC if Lalit could not get justice then Lalit had two options (i)- To remain in India and to struggle & fight politically to make Indian State justice - friendly as many Indians (who have been persecuted by Indian State) are doing or (ii)- To ask for citizenship or residency or political asylum etc in UK or in any other country.
But before exhausting all remedies in India by Lalit Modi the arguments, of these high profile backers, buttressing Lalit’s (for getting residency in UK) theory of persecution by Indian State is simply not tenable and media should cover this matter accordingly.