Bureaucratic tapism in the form official correspondence between the home ministry and the defence ministry led to a delay in sending army troops to quell violence is clear from the RTI query. The information which was denied under “classified information” was later ‘de-classified’
Deployment of the army can be made at the local level
• Sections 130, 131 and 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, are crystal clear about the processes by which the local administration may request the assistance of the locally stationed armed forces for dispersing unlawful assemblies (in simple language—bloodthirsty mobs)
• Even an executive magistrate has the power to requisition the assistance of armed forces without waiting for orders from their superiors. The local head of the armed forces has a duty to assist the local administration to keep the peace under such circumstances
• Under Section 131 even if no executive magistrate is contactable, any commissioned or gazetted officer of the armed forces may take prompt action on his own to disperse the mobs, arrest any person to punish him for violent actions or to prevent him from committing further violence. Such officers are granted immunity from criminal proceedings without the permission of the central government. None of these provisions seem to have worked in the violence-affected areas of Assam.
• States Mr Nayak “In 2002 when communal violence broke out in Gujarat a similar controversy arose about the deployment of armed forces to stem the violence. A similar three-day delay in the deployment of armed forces in the violence affected parts of Gujarat was noticed then as well. Human Rights Watch’s report places the blame on the state government (see: “We Have No orders to Save You- State Participation and Complicity in Communal Violence in Gujarat” accessible at: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/india/India0402-03.htm).”
Edelweiss conducted a survey to gauge the market sentiment on Budget Day. Majority of the respondents seem to be optimistic.
The CBI had Monday registered a preliminary enquiry (PE) against 11 people, including former Indian Air Force chief SP Tyagi, and four companies, in the purchase of VVIP helicopters from AgustaWestland
The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government on Wednesday proposed a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probe into the Rs3,600-crore VVIP chopper deal.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Wednesday accused the government of delaying the probe into the VVIP helicopter deal and demanded that the money trail be traced so that those who received kickbacks could be punished.
Initiating a short duration discussion in the Rajya Sabha on the purchase of the VVIP helicopters by the defence ministry, BJP member Prakash Javadekar alleged that Rs400 crore had been paid in kickbacks for the deal.
Attacking the UPA government, Javadekar accused it of not acting on the voluminous documents on the deal prepared by Italian investigators.
Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati said there should be a joint parliamentary committee probe into the helicopter deal in addition to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe.
The CBI had Monday registered a preliminary enquiry (PE) against 11 people, including former Indian Air Force chief SP Tyagi, and four companies, in the purchase of VVIP helicopters from AgustaWestland.
Besides Tyagi, the inquiry names his cousins Sanjeev alias ‘Julie’ Tyagi, Docsa Tyagi, Sandeep Tyagi, advocate Gautam Khaitan, formerly associated with Aeromatrix, and the company's CEO, Praveen Bakshi.