CVC Pradeep Kumar requested the Supreme Court to allow him to withdraw from the coal scam cases as he had worked with the coal ministry as a joint secretary during 2003-06
Pradeep Kumar, the chief of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has requested the Supreme Court to allow him to withdraw from coal scam case monitoring. Kumar along with two other vigilance commissioners was asked by the apex court to help in monitoring coal blocks allocation scam probe.
The Chief Vigilance Commissioner submitted before a Bench headed by Justice RM Lodha that he be allowed to withdraw from the cases as he had worked with the coal ministry as a joint secretary between 2003-06.
The apex court said that it would consider the plea made by CVC when the special bench, which is hearing coalgate cases, assembles.
The court had on 28th March sought assistance of CVC to examine all cases in coal blocks allocation scam in which there were divergent views between the investigating officer and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s head office on filing charge sheets.
It had asked CVC and two vigilance commissioners to give their suggestions whether the cases can be closed or CBI can go ahead with the filing of charge sheets in them.
The apex court had passed the order after it was informed that the agency had filed closure reports in two cases despite there being difference of opinion among CBI officials.
The CBI had informed the court that there were till date 20 such cases where officers had differed on what further action needed to be taken.
The court had directed the agency to place the documents of all 20 cases within five days before CVC for its perusal and the corruption watchdog was asked to file its report in four weeks.
It had said CVC, along with other two vigilance commissioners, will examine the documents and file their report in a sealed envelope on what should be done in those cases.
DIG Ravi Kant Sharma, who supervises the coal scam probe, along with other two officers of the same rank, had said that the investigating officer (IO) had opined to close one of the cases which was rejected by him but his officers approved the opinion of IO after which closure report was filed.
According to AIBEA, the largest bank employee union, what India needs is strengthening of public sector banks and not opening up banking sector to private players whose track record is also not appreciable
The All India Bank Employees Association (AIBEA) has objected the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)'s in-principal nod for new bank licences to IDFC and Kolkata-based Bandhan Financial Services Pvt Ltd.
"It is a matter of concern that despite protests, the Election Commission (EC) has given its approval to the RBI to go ahead with the process of new bank licenses and immediately the RBI has already given in principle permission to two companies to start their own private banks," said CH Venkatachalam, general secretary, AIBEA in a statement.
The bank employee union said its officer bearers will meet on 19th April in Punjab to decide upon the next course of action against RBI's decision.
Last week, the RBI gave its approval to IDFC and Bandhan Financial to start new banks following green signal from the EC. Affirming that the grant of new bank licences is a regulatory process and not political, RBI governor Raghuram Rajan had said the central bank sought the EC's nod only to shield the announcement from any political controversy.
The process to award new bank licences was initiated in 2011 and it has spilled over to the election season because the due diligence process took a little longer, Rajan said, adding, "All regulatory processes have to come to an end."
Mr Venkatachalam said, "It is strange that even though the Standing Committee on Finance consisting of all major political parties has unanimously given its recommendations against the banking licenses at this juncture, the RBI is going ahead in their anxiety to appease the corporates. What our country needs strengthening of public sector Banks and not opening up banking sector to private players whose track record is also not appreciable."
Malnourished children should not be given vaccination as their immune system cannot respond with antibodies which are proteins
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” — George Orwell
Vaccination is for the whole society while drugs to treat illnesses are for a small cohort of the sick at a given time. Obviously, big business will be more interested in vaccination than drugs. But how much of it is beneficial? Lifelong immunity after an infection is accepted science but immunity from attenuated or dead germs is still only a hypothesis.
We have devised an ingenious method of claiming that we have won the war on polio or any other illness—by changing the name of any such disease after the last case was reported. We have a new disease in India, acute non-polio paralytic illness. What is that label? Developing immunity against any illness is the job of our immune system.
Our immune system needs serum proteins for its good health. Naturally, malnourished children, of whom India has the lion’s share in the world, cannot, and should not, be given any vaccination as their immune system cannot normally respond with antibodies which are proteins. Malnourished children must be treated for their malnutrition before being vaccinated. Oral live polio vaccine drops, Japanese encephalitis vaccination and many others are not only useless but dangerous for malnourished children.
Now comes a bombshell from a prestigious government teaching institute where an upcoming young teacher, who has superb academic credentials, has been denied his due promotion as he had written some excellent scientific articles on the rational use of vaccines which had embarrassed the government policymakers. Unfortunately, the details of this problem cannot be revealed as the young teacher fears for his career. It brings to mind that half-page article by Dr Pushpa Bhargava, the then deputy chairperson of Indian Knowledge Commission, in The Hindu some years ago titled Politics of Polio. Dr Bhargava later resigned from his job because of his strong views against polio vaccines for malnourished kids.
I can understand the government’s attitude as they are more interested in the health of the corporate segment and the pharma industry rather than the health of the poor malnourished and dying kids. The latter have no votes anyway! Our sarakari scientists are there to dance to the tune of their political masters to hang on to their posts and also to get ‘cushy’ parking lots after retirement. Many of them manage to get a stint at the WHO or UNESCO, thanks to their earlier connections.
The WHO has even tried to dilute the diagnostic criteria of vaccine-related deaths and disability. What worries a thinking person is the apathy of our so-called champions of freedom of speech and our guardians of science. If science is echoing the sentiments of our masters in the government, science becomes another fanatical religion. We seem to have twisted our definition of vaccine-related deaths and disability to suit the industry.
When small matters like banning a book or so crop up, the great champions of freedom of speech jump in to condemn such a ban. But when people play with human lives to make money, the whistleblowers are not backed by anyone!
Professor Dr BM Hegde, a Padma Bhushan awardee in 2010, is an MD, PhD, FRCP (London, Edinburgh, Glasgow & Dublin), FACC and FAMS.