They were involved in the murder of a Chief Minister. Yet they were living in the lap of luxury as if they were VIPs under house arrest. While the search for them continues, it is necessary to have a close look at all the jails in the region and beyond to make sure that a similar racket is not thriving anywhere else. This is not the first case of its kind. The creature comforts that influential prisoners have managed to smuggle even into Tihar jail in the past have shocked the public conscience, although not the police conscience. That is proof enough that the jails are a den of corruption where comfort and freedom can be organised with impurity.

Parliament had enacted POTA to combat terrorism. However, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa has been misusing it to settle political scores with her opponents. Reports of misuse have also come from states like Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand. As a result, the very purpose of enacting POTA is being defeated. It was mainly to check such flagrant misuse by chief ministers that the Central Review Committee was duly appointed. Under the law, the committee’s decision is binding on the Centre and the state and thus, the Tamil Nadu government is not right in questioning the jurisdiction of the committee to review the cases.

The Congress, which is no longer dazzled by Ms Sonia Gandhi’s vote-catching abilities, particularly after her miserable performance in the recent Assembly elections, seems to have discovered some hope in the children. Congressmen of all hues have been clamouring for their induction in the party to give its election campaign a new thrust. Why? It is a question Congressmen prefer not to answer because they themselves have no clue about what the children stand for. For mixed economy? For reforms? For secularism? Why blame them? No one has ever heard them speak their mind on any issue. All that is known is that they stand for the Family. The rest is of no consequence.

In the meanwhile, in September 2001 the Supreme Court of India in Hari Shanker Jain vs Sonia Gandhi considered a challenge to her election as a Member of Parliament. The main ground raised was that she being an Italian citizen did not satisfy the prerequisites for entitlement to registration as a citizen of India. The High Court of Allahabad, where the election petition was originally heard, held that it had no power to deal with the challenge to citizenship in an election petition. In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the following were the main questions considered:

(1) Whether the plea that a returned candidate is not a citizen of India can be raised in an election petition before the High Court.

(2) Whether a plea questioning the citizenship of the returned candidate is entertainable by the High Court hearing an election petition in spite of the returned candidate holding a certificate of citizenship granted under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act.

(3) Whether on the pleadings of the two election petitioners, a cause of action and a triable issue was raised which should have been put to trial calling upon the respondent to file her written statement.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court and held that a court trying election disputes had the jurisdiction to pronounce upon the validity of certificate of registration of citizenship. The court further noted that the pleadings in the particular case were “bald, vague and baseless and could not be put to trial”. In the result, unfortunately, the issue of Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s eligibility to be an MP was neither approved nor disapproved.

Under the Constitution, the basic qualification to hold any of the offices created by it is that he or she must be a “citizen” of India. Anyone who is eligible to be a Member of a House is qualified to hold any constitutional office like the President of India or that of the Prime Minister. And Mrs Sonia Gandhi is about to complete a full term as a Member of Parliament. But the quality of her citizenship is not a settled issue and vulnerable to challenge, as held by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the question whether a person projected as a future Prime Minister is a “citizen” as conceived by the founding fathers of our Constitution, is of great concern to the nation as a whole — never mind the timing and all that has gone by. Hence it deserves objective examination before it gets too late.

At the commencement of the Constitution, every person who had his domicile in the territory of India and who or either of whose parents was born in India, or was ordinarily residing in India for not less than five years immediately preceding January 26, 1950, was regarded as a citizen. Thereafter, it was left to Parliament to make laws with respect to “the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship”. The Citizenship Act of 1955 so enacted enumerated the following six distinct types of Indian citizens:

(1) citizenship by birth; (2) citizenship by descent; (3) citizenship by registration; (4) citizenship by naturalisation; (5) citizenship by incorporation of territory; (6) citizenship rights conferred on the basis of reciprocity.

Of these, the first two categories were already created by the Constitution at the inception and the fifth is only a logical consequence of the expansion of the “territory of India” for example, incorporation of Sikkim as Indian territory and consequently former citizens of the kingdom becoming the citizens of India. The other three types were created by Parliament in 1955. The Assam accord resulted in the addition of another group to the ranks of Indian citizens with effect from December 7, 1985.

Registration is granted on application and is restricted to five specified categories only. We are concerned with “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”.

The Act provides for the deprivation of citizenship of specified categories of citizens, viz., those by naturalisation and some categories of the ones by registration — that too by an order of the Central executive. One of the grounds for passing such order can be that “the citizen has shown himself by an act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Constitution of India”. There are other vague criteria for deprivation like the “satisfaction of the government that it is not conducive to public good” that the person should continue to be a citizen of India. Mrs Sonia Gandhi belongs to this category of citizens.

In contrast, neither Parliament nor even the Supreme Court can deprive citizens by birth, descent or as a result of another territory becoming part of India such as Sikkim, of their status as Indian citizens on any ground whatsoever. In other words, citizens belonging to these three types can be sentenced to death but their citizenship will last as long as they live — renunciation apart. Thus, our Parliament through the Citizenship Act has created in terms of quality two classes of citizens — one that is permanent and another that is only permitted. Can it be said that the offices reserved for the “citizens” as originally conceived in the Constitution when that expression meant only a “permanent citizen” have since been thrown open to the second class citizens also? Parliament could not have diluted the constitutional mandate.

The recent Citizenship (Amendment Act), which received the ascent of the President in January 2004, creates another class known as “Overseas Citizens”. It enables the Central Government to register persons of Indian origin and presently citizens of 16 specified countries as “overseas citizens”, while they continue to retain the citizenship of the other country. Thus, dual citizenship is legalised subject to certain conditions. However, the new Act dictates that an overseas citizen shall not be eligible to hold any of the constitutional offices nor contest an election to Parliament as well as a state legislature — nor even to be a voter.

It further rules out the right to hold posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any state, including the right to reservation under Article 16. In short, an overseas citizen will be entitled only to the civil rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and not civic or political rights. The new Act has been passed unanimously by both Houses of Parliament. The logic is obvious that anyone who has one leg planted in another country is not an exclusive citizen of India and, therefore, should not meddle with administrative or political activities here. That reasoning should apply to every “registered citizen” who has an option to shift the citizenship back to the original motherland — and almost all the nations permit their “citizens by birth” who have opted another citizenship to reacquire the original position as a matter of right.

When the Constitution prescribes that certain offices are reserved only for citizens, the meaning of the word “citizen” should be appropriate to the context. A person whose citizenship can be cancelled by an executive order and thus, in effect, the occupant of the office can be dismissed through a collateral order, should not be permitted to hold any post reserved only for the citizens of India. Reading the word “citizen” literally to include even a “registered citizen” would render the constitutional protection enjoined to the offices meaningless. Surely, no country’s constitution can be interpreted to permit a “shaky citizen” to be the President or the Prime Minister or a judge, who enjoy constitutional protection against executive attacks.

But this is not a story about army engineers, or how well they fared; it is about the ordinary people who faced the calamity with courage and fortitude, and while picking up the threads of their life, taught an old soldier gone cynical that there still were things to learn.

The entire Kutch district had been ravaged. By the third or fourth day, there were no more people to be rescued. We turned to other things — clearing rubble, sprucing up relief camps and so on. Someone floated the idea of restarting schools, to give children something to do. “Bright idea!” we said. Where were the school buildings? Every building was a ruin. Where were the teachers, books and stationery? Who would come to the schools?

The general thought it was a good idea and we all pitched in — no one questions the wisdom of generals. Makeshift classrooms were erected from plastic sheets and materials scrounged from flattened buildings. Schools of sorts were organised in many places and it was time for my inspection, to ensure things were moving on ground. Whether the system was working would come later.

Mr Putin evidently hates him because the tycoon made no secret of his ambition to use his wealth for replacing him as the next President. Of course, Mr Khodorkovsky is not a very popular figure even among his billionaire colleagues. His rags to riches story has earned him more enemies than friends. However, under the United Nations Charter even unpopular billionaires have human rights. Russia’s richest prisoner has now begun to skip lunch, not because of the poor quality of food, but because he is busy pouring over all the books his lawyers have provided him for preparing his defense.

Mr Khodorkovsky, 40, is a former Communist Youth Leader turned Russian billionaire with alleged ties with the country’s mafia. In August 2001, he hired APCO Worldwide, a public relations firm, to restore investors’ trust in his scandal-plagued company, Yukos Oil Company, where he is Chairman and CEO. APCO advised him to adopt “honesty, openness, responsibility” as his new motto — quite a turnaround for someone who has reportedly trafficked in women, laundered money and defrauded minority investors.

However, his supporters paint a completely different picture of him. According to them “one of his first strategic decisions, the acquisition of the Eastern Oil Company, immediately made Yukos Russia’s second-largest oil producer. He has been recognised as a leader in the transformation of Russian business practices and is committed to the principles of good corporate governance and full transparency.”

In 1987, at the age of 24, Mr Khodorkovsky began his career at the Youth Centre for Inter-Sectoral Scientific and Technical Programmes. His rise to fame and riches began during the early days of Mr Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of perestroika. The centre, established with a few of his entrepreneurial associates, helped introduce new technologies into industry and performed market research for Russian manufacturers. In 1988, Mr Khodorkovsky launched the Commercial Innovation Bank for Scientific and Technological Progress.

There is a disturbing similarity between the Russian billionaire’s tale and the one in which Agha Hasan Abidi, founder of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), was charged with promoting money laundering under the garb of introducing the concept of Islamic banking. Founded in the 70s the BCCI became a source of threat to established western banks. Abidi himself died a broken man and the BCCI collapsed under the sustained onslaught on its professional credentials and integrity.

Ironically, on January 20, the British high court was told about the dubious role of the Bank of England, appointed financial regulator after the collapse of the BCCI, in the controversy. The court is hearing complaints of the BCCI investors. The liquidators told the court that the Bank of England had been deliberately “unaware of the embezzlements of the BCCI”.

Is Mr Khodorkovsky being targeted by an intolerant and insecure President in much the same manner? The tycoon, worth $8 billion after taking over Russia’s biggest oil company, claims he is being victimised because he dared to cast his eye on the Russian presidency!

His lawyers say that defending the tycoon may be a futile exercise. The case, they say, has clearly been orchestrated from the top, and courtroom arguments may have little influence on its outcome. “He understands that he may have to be in prison a long time,” according to them.

As of today the charges against Mr Khodorkovsky are a mixture of white-collar crimes including tax evasion, fraud, embezzlement and forgery. Yet the real reason for his arrest is still a matter of debate in Russia.

During a public discussion American Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said “there’s still no definitive analysis. “A lot of factors were involved. I think that clearly President Putin and the leadership viewed Khodorkovsky as posing both a political challenge and becoming too much of an independent actor in the economic sphere.”

The western media, at least, believes that the leadership has used the arrest to send a message about who is boss in Russia. The audience includes Mr Khodorkovsky’s fellow billionaires to the envious hoi polloi.

Beginning with a predawn arrest by armed masked men on October 25 his harassment has continued through a court hearing last week. He was shown on television pleading in vain to be freed on bail. Independent observers insist that the Khodorkovsky case has become an exercise in public humiliation.

The tycoon shares a small cell with two other men and exercises in a walled enclosure for two hours a day. He is permitted to talk with his wife and parents through a plate glass window once in two weeks.

President Putin himself hinted last month that “five or seven or 10” more people could follow Mr. Khodorkovsky into jail. Not surprisingly, the voices in support of the oligarch are getting faint with every passing day. Only the lawyers, who have been paid handsome retainers to defend him, have yet not made a public show of backing away from what is developing into an unequal fight. The fact that the lawyers have come all the way from America carries an unstated message about who will gain the most when the dust has settled on the worst case of human rights violation in Russia after the collapse of the Iron Current.

With the presidential election due in two months, going for the richest man in the country is not going to harm Mr Putin’s chances of reelection. As one plebian put it, “most of Russia would be happy to see him carried through the streets in a cart so that they could poke sticks at him”. Unhappily for Mr Khodorkovsky even the Moscow office of the Foundation for Civil Liberties, which monitors prisoners’ rights, is not moved by his plight.

In this particular case (Pravesh Kumar Mukherjee and Air Transport Corporation and another, Revision Petition No 1404 of 2003), one of the main contentions raised by the opposite party was that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Kolkata had no jurisdiction to adjudicate over the complaint since the consignment note issued to the consumer clearly said that all disputes were subject to the jurisdiction of Guwahati only. While the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission agreed with this view and concluded that the Kolkata Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the case in view of this ouster clause, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which is the apex consumer court, disagreed with this verdict.

The Commission pointed out that, first of all, this unilateral condition incorporated in the consignment note would not be binding on the consumer as there was no conscious agreement between the parties. Second, the consumer courts, being quasi judicial forums, were not bound by technicalities such as this as it would defeat the very purpose of the law.

Under the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be filed in a district forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party resides or carries on business or where the cause of action, either wholly or in part, arises. In this case, the consumer had filed the complaint in Kolkata on the ground that one of the respondents was carrying on business there. Besides, the cause of action had partly arisen there as the goods were expected to be delivered there. However, the opposite party had taken objection to this on the ground that the consignment note had restricted the jurisdiction to Guwahati.

About ten years ago, this issue pertaining to the applicability of the ouster clause to cases filed before the consumer courts had come up before the apex consumer court in the case of A.N. Das vs Shimla Development Authority (RP No 434 of 1992). In this case, the Development Authority had questioned the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in Ambala to hear the complaint, when the Authority had said in its brochure that “all disputes were subject to Shimla jurisdiction” . At that time, the National Commission had relied on the order of the Supreme Court in the case of ABC Laminart vs AP Agencies, Salem, wherein the Supreme Court had held that where the ouster clause did not use words like “only, alone or exclusive” while mentioning the jurisdiction, it did not clearly, explicitly and unambiguously oust the jurisdiction of other courts.