In a reply to RTI activist Subhash Agrawal, the president’s secretariat has indirectly confirmed that a letter written by Dr Subramanian Swamy to APJ Kalam led to the then President inviting Dr Manmohan Singh as the PM
Janata Party president, Dr Subramanian Swamy’s letter to the then president, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam was one of the deciding factors in the formation of the central government in 2004. Acting on the letter, Dr Kalam had invited Dr Manmohan Singh to form the government, revealed a Right to Information (RTI) query.
Dr Swamy has been claiming that he had written a letter from Chennai to President Dr Kalam before the first UPA government was formed stating that Sonia Gandhi, president of Indian National Congress cannot be made prime minister according to the provisions in the Citizenship Act. And if she is made then PM then he will challenge the decision in court.
Delhi-based activist Subhash Agrawal filed an RTI application with the president’s secretariat seeking detailed information along with documents and correspondence relating to the formation of the central government when Dr Singh was appointed prime minister for the first time in the year 2004.
In its reply, dated 26th April 2012, the secretariat said that, “Letter written by Dr Subramanian Swamy, president, Janata Party to the president was inter alia, a communication sent in confidence by him to the president, based on which the president exercised his/her discretion to appoint the prime minister under Article 75.”
However, the president’s secretariat refused to furnish the copy of the letter as asked by Mr Agrawal in his RTI application. “Disclosure would be a breach of confidentiality and fiduciary relationship and therefore attracts section 8(1) (e) of RTI Act.”
Mr Agrawal, who has now appealed with the aappellate authority at the president’s secretariat, says that, “It is surprising that when author of the letter namely Dr Subramanian Swamy is openly revealing through the media about contents of the letter, how could the president’s secretariat claim the information to be fiduciary in nature? Significantly the CPIO (chief public information officer) has himself confessed that the then Honourable President of India exercised his right to appoint the prime minister based on that letter. At the most, the CPIO could invite ‘Third Party’ comments under section 11 of RTI Act on disclosing the said letter from Dr Swamy within five days of the receipt of RTI petition, which was not done, making the provision infructuous now at this stage.
To the RTI applicant query where he had asked for copies of the correspondence and letters from political parties or individuals for staking claim to form the government before Dr Manmohan Singh was invited , the secretariat said, “as per record no political party staked claim to form the government.”
Mr Agrawal also sought clarity on whether it is true that certain individuals, political parties had objected to some particular person being invited to form the government and asked letters together with replies, if any, to any such objections. But the secretariat said that, “No records are available in this regard.”
Inside story of the National Stock Exchange’s amazing success, leading to hubris, regulatory capture and algo scam
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
1-year online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
Complete access to Moneylife archives since inception ( till the date of your subscription )
Sonia would have been in the front seat and not resorted to back seat driving!
http://janataparty.org/sonia.html
Dr. Subramanian Swami, the ‘crying parrot’ president of Janata Party has always shouted on the roof top questioning the citizenship status of the UPA chairperson Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and also that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi was denied the post of the PM in 2004 after he wrote a letter in this regard to the then President of India Dr. Kalam, emphasisng on the Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1955, which according to Dr. Swami concludes that Mrs. Gandhi is not the valid citizen of the Republic of India. Really, is that so?
Well, after reading about it a lot over the internet, I decided to research on this matter on my own, rather than depending on the unauthentic or incomplete information provided my Dr. Swamy or the youth of India who are prone to be attracted towards the negativity spread by the liars like Dr. Swamy.
In fact there was a press release from Rashtrapati Bhavan on 19th May 2004 stating that there was no issue as such (citizenship) that was discussed by the President and Mrs. Gandhi.
Further the irony is that I found the complete information on Mrs. Gandhi’s citizenship under the same section on which Dr. Swami had been crowing since long.
Now, read it carefully and again and again; the Section 5(1) (e) of The Citizenship Act 1955 says that:
A “person of full age and capacity who are citizens of a country specified in Schedule I:
PROVIDED that in prescribing the conditions and restrictions subject to which persons of any such country may be registered as citizens of India under this clause, the Central Government shall have due regard to the conditions subject to which citizens of India may, by law or practice of that country, become citizens of that country by registration.”
So now, the countries specified in Schedule I, are the common wealth countries and The Republic of Ireland. The list of the commonwealth countries is as under:
1. United Kingdom
2. Canada
3. Commonwealth of Australia
4. New Zealand
5. Union of South Africa
6. Pakistan
7. Ceylon
8. Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland
9. Ghana
10. Federation of Malaya
11. Singapore
And the republic of Ireland
Therefore, the section 5(1) (e) of The Citizenship Act 1955 is applied only on the citizens of the countries mentioned above.
Sonia Gandhi has been living in India since 1968 and she did qualify for citizenship through naturalisation as laid down by the citizenship law and rules; however, she could only apply for the citizenship when Section 5 (1)(c) was inserted in the Citizenship Act, 1955, through an amendment. The section 5 (1)(c) states that “persons who are, or have been, married to citizens of India and are ordinarily resident in India and have been so resident for five years immediately before making an application for registration”.
Also, Sonia Gandhi became the citizen of India in 1983 by naturalisation as provided for under Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 says, “Citizenship by naturalisation” -
(1) Where an application is made in the prescribed manner by any person of full age and capacity who is not a citizen of a country specified in Schedule I for the grant of a certificate of naturalization to him, the Central Government may, if satisfied that the applicant is qualified for naturalisation under the provisions of Schedule III, grant to him, a certificate of naturalisation:
PROVIDED that, if in the opinion of the Central Government, the applicant is a person who has rendered distinguished service to the cause of science, philosophy, art, literature, world peace or human progress generally, it may waive all or any of the conditions specified in Third Schedule III.
(2) The person to whom a certificate of naturalisation is granted under sub-section (1) shall, on taking the oath of allegiance in the form specified in Schedule II, be a citizen of India by naturalisation as from the date on which that certificate is granted.
Also, in order to clear the air about Mrs. Gandhi still holding the Italian citizenship; please be informed that she acquired Indian Citizenship in April 1983 and surrendered her Italian passport to the respective embassy. The Italian Nationality Law at that time (prior to July 1, 1992) did not permit dual citizenship. If an Italian citizen naturalized the citizenship of any other country (India in this case), then the person automatically loses the Italian citizenship.
Therefore, Sonia Gandhi has fulfilled all the conditions including that a person must have adequate knowledge of a language specified in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, with her more than adequate working knowledge of Hindi.
Consequently, referring to the Citizenship Act 1955, Mrs. Gandhi is a valid citizen of India and has and can avail all the rights provided to the citizens of India and hence, can also become the Prime Minister of India (which she got the opportunity but she declined, not denied) whether you like it or not, this is the truth!
You may access the copy of the Citizenship Act 1955 from the link mentioned below:
http://www.legalhelpindia.com/bare-acts....
Are these sections and schedule are correct which you have mentioned actually please help me out because I've got a research paper to do. Within few hours.
http://janataparty.org/annexures/ann01p0...
http://www.knowyourswamy.blogspot.com
http://janataparty.org/soniaintro.html
Patriotic Indians should thank the President of India for having the courage, by citing a legal hitch, to dissuade Ms. Sonia Gandhi from staking her claim to form the government on May 17th this year. She therefore, despite all the contrived media hype, did not, and could not, become the Prime Minister of 1 billion plus people of India.
It can now be said that Bharat Mata has been saved from a monumental, devastating, and permanent injury to her national interest and to the patriotic psyche of Indians.
Therefore, it should be the resolve of every Indian to make any and every effort that can be made in a democracy, to ensure that Ms. Sonia Gandhi is kept permanently out of reckoning for any public office. For those who instinctively understand that imperative, this Note has been written to explain the factual basis for this rational determination, and suggest what patriotic Indians can do now to implement that democratic and patriotic resolution.
My opposition to Ms. Sonia Gandhi is not merely because she is Italian---born, although that by itself is a major issue. In other democratic countries, including in Italy, such an issue [of foreign-born aspiring to be head of government]would not even arise at all because the issue has already been settled by incorporating into law that a person cannot hold the highest public office unless he or she is native born.
In India there is no such law but the President, according my knowledge, has correctly acted on a proviso to Section 5 of the Indian Citizenship Act[1955] which requires the Union Home Ministry to lay down conditions to Indian citizenship acquired by foreigners by registration, condition based on the principle of reciprocity [see annexure 1 & 2]. In Ms Gandhi’s case, such of those conditions that apply to Indians on becoming citizens of Italy, would apply to her.
The President reportedly had communicated to Ms. Gandhi on the afternoon of May 17, 2004, that if she insisted on being invited to form the government, he would want first to clarify, on a reference to the Supreme Court, whether in view of this proviso her appointment as PM could be successfully challenged in the court.
It is fair to assume that this report of the President’s decision is correct, since the President had before him my petition dated May 15, 2004 [see Annexure-3] making just that point--- that Ms. Gandhi’s citizenship is conditional, and in particular she cannot be the PM legally.
The President had also given me an appointment at 12.45 PM on May 17, 2004 to explain my submissions in person, which I did. I also told him that I would challenge such a unconstitutional appointment in the Supreme Court just as I had in 2001 when Ms Jayalalitha was illegally sworn in as Chief Minister by the Tamil Nadu Governor.
In that case, the Supreme Court had after hearing me and many other constitutional luminaries, upheld my contention that mere majority in the House is insufficient for being sworn in to a constitutional office, and that the constitutional appointing authority must ensure that there are no disqualifications as well. Ms. Jayalalitha had therefore to step down because she had been disqualified by her conviction in a trial court in the TANSI corruption case [filed by me as a private complaint]. She was subsequently acquitted by the Madras High Court, and hence became eligible the following year.
I also cited to the President a 1962 Allahabad High Court case which held that this proviso in the Citizenship Act was binding and lawful.
The nation by the stalling of Sonia becoming Prime Minister of India, has thus got an unexpected but temporary reprieve, a reprieve received not only because her citizenship of India by registration is not equal to one by birth even by Indian law, but a reprieve more because of the national security risk that was averted.
To comprehend that risk, we must however first understand who Sonia Gandhi really is and what kind of danger she, her family and her friends in Italy, hold for India’s national security. Very little is known about the Mainos’ murky past, and the little that we are told about Sonia are lies. In other words, Indians do not know who Sonia really is or what she represents [see Annexure-4].
Even for an Indian born citizen, we find it difficult to know a person’s true background, but for a foreign-born it is extremely hard because of the remoteness of the place and the language barrier for most people, in this case---Italian.
This note is thus an aide d’memoir of certain verifiable facts that taken together constitute the danger that Sonia Gandhi represents for the nation. And that is the real Sonia and what she represents.
I'd rather go by presidential press release dated May 19, 2004 when Kalam was the President of India, Kalam's own words when he responded to a specific question in an interview after his presidentiall years,and the account of PM Nair who Kalam's secretary at Rashtrapathi Bhavan and the author of 'The Kalam Effect'
"CITIZENSHIP ISSUE NOT DISCUSSED WITH SMT. SONIA GANDHI
19-05-2004 : Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi
PRESS RELEASE
It has been reported in a section of the press that the President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam had discussed the citizenship issue with Smt. Sonia Gandhi when she met him yesterday at Rashtrapati Bhavan. This is contrary to facts. It did not figure in the discussions at all."http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=1730
"after the 2004 elections returned a divided verdict. Media reports said Sonia Gandhi had the support to become prime minister.Kalam wrote a letter to Sonia on May 17, inviting her to meet him the same day.
The plan was as follows: Nair would wait with a letter appointing her as prime minister in an ante room near the study in which Kalam and Sonia would meet; Kalam would ring a bell, Nair would walk in, and she would be named PM.The letter was prepared. Sonia came, but brought Manmohan Singh along. Nair waited impatiently for the bell to ring. It finally did.“I hurried out with the papers — only to see Sonia Gandhi and Dr Singh leaving. I ran into the study,” Nair writes. Sonia ultimately stepped aside for Singh. The letter was discarded, and a new one was drawn up.http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/India/2-letters-that-Kalam-wrote-and-junked/Article1-305694.aspx
.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/in-04-...
If you are interested to see the RTI petition you can file an RTI yourself.
Why should I trust money life which shouldn't be having any business of reporting political news?What's the stated purpose of this not for Profit organisation? Oflate Sucheta Dalal is canvassing for Swamy and this headline is clearly an attempt to mislead people
Thanks for your comment.
People may be capable of distinguishing between headlines but unfortunately you do not want to.
Please allow us to tell you something...Moneylife magazine, Moneylife Digital and Moneylife Foundation, the is a not for profit organisation, are three separate entities. And all three share the responsibility to create an awarness among people, who otherwise are fooled day in and day out by mainstream media. And for the digital media, there are no restictions on any particular segment. That is the reason you will find articles from healthcare to RTI and from personal finance to nuke tech on the digital space. Political beat is certainly not monopoly of selected few as you like to think. The above news is completely based on an RTI reply received by Mr Subhash Agrawal.
Lastly, does Dr Swamy really need canvassing from either Ms Dalal or Moneylife?
Hope you understand.
Regards,
Moneylife Team
You can't change anything by planting headlines and reading between the lines in a reply to RTI petition
And top of it a very low profile man.
Long live RTI!
In President Patils post retirement residence in Pune controversy the bungling was due to lack of application of brain by the Defense Min authorities who should have clearly told the President Sect as to whether the said piece of land was available for Post retirement stay of President. President might have desired the particular location but it was the duty of Estate Dept to inform the correct position. So President Sect and Kalam might have erred if his decision was based on the contents of Swami's query/point as the above news paper report suggests. Let RTI activist Subash Agrawal and Dr. Swami share the copy of the entire correspondence as a PDF document duly attesting their signature with money life so that Country can know as the saying goes "doodh kaa doodh, paani kaa paani" as both have in times spoken in moneylife gatherings. it should be known that Dr. Swami recently threw a howler about involvent of Karti s/o P.Chidambaram
I hope you understand.
Many amendments prove that it has failed the test of time.
Mr "Tihar" have Nationalistic Vichar and thank Swami for the advice and APJK to Save India from Vatican Rule.
But India has given dual citizenship to pravasi bharatiyas as far as I know. High post may not be allowed to those who have dual citizenship. I wonder Raul Vinci and Rahul Gandhi may be the same person with two different pp of two different countries too. Then how can he be eligible. I am confused. Will some one like Swamy clarify my doubt.
Can you point where in Janta Party's website it say about India doesn't allow dual citizenship?
This is what I gather from wikipeida .
"Senior Congress leader Pranab Mukherjee said that she surrendered her Italian passport to the Italian Embassy on 27 April 1983. Italian nationality law did not permit dual nationality until 1992. So, by acquiring Indian citizenship in 1983, she would automatically have lost Italian citizenship."
the Janata party is a Single member party ( a letter head party - but as long India is there it will be there in google search. rather after the janata party rule in 1977-80 - word janata conveyed the meaning "a failure"
As per our citizenship act she is eligible to be a citizen. But the circumstances in which she has obtained the citizenship and the way in which rules have been bent to grant it is questionable.
You can read the wikipedia page on her and see the respective references given there.