CBI files chargesheet against 490 accused in PMT-2013 VYAPAM case

No tampering in the hard disc seized by State Police

Newsroom24x7 Staff

 

The pen drive provided by the said private person to the High Court of Delhi as well as to CBI contains false documents created subsequent to seizure of HDD in question.There is no grain of truth in the allegation that the HDD seized on 18 July 2013 from the office of then Principal System Analyst, Vyapam was tampered,  CBI has underscored through a press statement.

Bhopal: The Central Bureau of Investigation on Tuesday (31 October) filed a chargesheet against 490 accused persons, including 3 Vyapam officials, 3 racketeers, 17 middlemen, 297 Solver & Beneficiary candidates and 170 guardians of the Beneficiary candidates in the Court of Special Judge for Vyapam Cases here in the on-going investigation of a case relating to alleged irregularities in PMT 2013 Exam conducted by Vyapam.

In the chargesheet, CBI also submitted its findings on the allegations of tampering of the Hard Disk Drive (HDD) that had been seized by MP Police. Based on the CFSL reports and the other evidence gathered during investigation. CBI has concluded that there was no tampering in the HDD.

The Supreme Court of India through its orders passed on 9 July, 2015 in Writ Petition Civil No. 417/2015 along with various other petitions, had transferred the investigation of VYAPAM Scam Cases to CBI.

Subsequently, CBI had registered the case and took over the investigation of the FIR 539 of 2013 of Police Station Rajinder Nagar, Indore under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to irregularities in Pre-Medical Test 2013 conducted by MP Professional Examination Board (Vyapam).

During investigation, names of certain racketeers, Solvers, Beneficiary candidates and several others emerged, who were operating from places like Bhopal, Indore, Ujjain, Shahdol, Ratlam and Sagar. It was alleged that these racketeers were found to be involved in arranging for Beneficiary candidates and Solvers. The pairing of respective Solvers and Beneficiary candidates was being done by the racketeers. It was also alleged that the racketeers thereafter were getting the roll numbers of these Solvers-Beneficiary candidates manipulated through Vyapam officials, such that Beneficiary candidate was seated right behind his Solver candidate thus enabling the Beneficiary to cheat and copy the answers from Solver candidate.

When the case was taken over by CBI, there were many accused persons, who had remained untraced, since they had provided wrong address or were no longer living at the addresses given on their application forms for PMT 2013. During the investigation, CBI found that these Solver candidates were amongst the medical college students or bright medical aspirants taking coaching in the States of MP, UP, Bihar, Delhi, Rajasthan and districts of Maharashtra neighbouring Madhya Pradesh. CBI collected pertinent details of students of various medical colleges and coaching institutes spread all over these States, and succeeded in preparing a database of more than 10 lakh such students. With the help of advanced forensic software and the said database, CBI was able to identify and trace 42 accused Solver candidates. Using other innovative methods, CBI was able to trace 11 middlemen and made them join investigation.

CBI also conducted investigation on the allegations made by a former Madhya Pradesh chief minister Digvijay Singh and another person in W.P. (Civil) No. 417/2015 and 418/2015 filed before the Supreme Court regarding tampering of HDD seized in the instant case. Both these persons had alleged that the hard disk seized by Indore Police from the computer of the then Principal System Analyst, Vyapam on 18 July 2013 in Crime No. 539/2013 of Police Station Rajinder Nagar, Indore had been tampered with.

During investigation, image of the seized HDD in question along with 2 other HDDs, which was in the custody of the trial court, was prepared through the experts of Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Hyderabad and were forwarded to CFSL for analysis and examination. Two Pen Drives, one kept in custody of the High Court of Delhi in W.P. 334/15 filed by the private person and the other submitted by him to CBI in a sealed cover were also sent to CFSL, Hyderabad for analysis. The pen drives as per the claims of the complainants contained the tampered and untampered versions of the impugned excel file. CFSL examined these HDDs and the 2 pen drives and submitted 7 reports to CBI.

As per CFSL report, the computer with the HDD in question was last shut down on 15 July 2013 and no file on the said HDD was accessed after that. All the 5 Excel files in the pen drive provided by complainants to the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) 334/2015 as well as to CBI, containing reference ‘CM’ in it, were created or last modified on or after 18 July 13 as per the report of CFSL whereas the alleged HDD in question was last shut down on 15 July 13 as per CFSL report. The pen drive provided by the said private person to the High Court of Delhi as well as to CBI contains false documents created subsequent to seizure of HDD in question. “There is no grain of truth in the allegation that the HDD seized on 18 July 2013 from the office of then Principal System Analyst, Vyapam was tampered”,  CBI has underscored through a press statement.

CBI had submitted status report containing the findings of investigation of alleged tampering of the said Hard Disk to the Supreme Court.

After thorough investigation, a chargesheet has been filed today. The chargesheet against another 12 accused persons is also being filed in the Juvenile courts concerned.

CCI holds film and television associations and trade unions guilty of entering into anti-competitive agreements

Newsroom24x7 Network

New Delhi: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has found All India Film Employees Confederation (AIFEC), Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) & its affiliates and three producer associations i.e. Indian Motion Picture Producers Association (IMPPA), Film and Television Producers Guild of India (FTPGI) and Indian Film and Television Producers Council (IFTPC) to be in contravention of provisions of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) which prohibits anti-competitive agreements.

The ​Final Order was passed on an information filed by Vipul Shah who alleged that specific provisions of the MoU dated 01.10.2010 and signed between FWICE and producer associations – IMPPA, FTPGI, and IFTPC relating to member-to-member working, fixation of wages, charging for extra-shift, etc. to be anti-competitive. The conduct of FWICE and its affiliated craft associations in enforcing these provisions was also alleged to be anti-competitive.

CCI found Clause 6, which mandated that the producer can only engage with the members of FWICE and its affiliates, and Clause 18, which provided for the constitution of vigilance committee to enforce Clause 6, of the MoU as violative of Section 3(3)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. Further, the directive to engage dancers/fighters in the ratio of 70:30 was also found to be in contravention of Section 3(3)(c) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. Clauses relating to fixation of wages, payment for extra shift, etc. were not found to be anti-competitive.

CCI also noted in its order that trade unions enjoy no immunity or exemption for their conduct which contravenes the provisions of the Act and accordingly, the plea of the trade unions being governed only by the provisions of Trade Union Act, 1926 was rejected.

CCI has issued a cease and desist order against the associations in respect of the conduct found to be in contravention of the Act. However, no monetary penalty was imposed on any of the associations.

CLICK here to download full order

Venkaiah recalls Sardar Patel’s loyalty to the leader and commitment to nationalism

Newsroom24x7 Network

India’s progress in various fields and its march as one of the major economies should not be allowed to be obstructed by anybody. M Venkaiah Naidu, Vice President of India.

New Delhi: Vice President of India M. Venkaiah Naidu today paid rich tributes to Sardar Patel by underscoring his loyalty to the leader, love for the motherland, unshakable commitment to nationalism and complete steadfastness in completing the integration of diverse princely States with the Union of India without bothering about post or position.

The Vice President was delivering the first Sardar Patel Memorial Lecture here today.

He said that India’s progress in various fields and its march as one of the major economies should not be allowed to be obstructed by anybody and no Indian should fall prey to the hideous designs of vested interests and anti-India proponents in fomenting trouble and weakening the unity and integrity of the country.

On Sardar Patel’s “monumental contribution” in shaping the destiny of modern India, Naidu said that the country will remain ever grateful to him for ensuring its unity and integrity.

Former Karnataka Governor, T.N. Chaturvedi, along with other dignitaries, were present. On this occasion, the Vice President administered the Rashtriya Ekta Diwas pledge.

President pays floral tributes

The President of India, Ram Nath Kovind, paid floral tributes to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel on the occasion of his birth anniversary at Rashtrapati Bhavan. The President, officers and staff paid floral tributes in front of a portrait of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in the Durbar Hall of Rashtrapati Bhavan.  Earlier, this morning, the President visited Sardar Patel Chowk in the national capital to pay floral tributes at the statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. He also marked the occasion by planting a sapling in the Mughal Gardens.

Run for Unity

Prime Minister Narendra Modi administered the Pledge for Unity on Rashtriya Ekta Diwas, at a “Run For Unity” event, at Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium, in New Delhi on October 31, 2017. Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh, Minister of State for Youth Affairs and Sports (I/C) and Information & Broadcasting, Col. Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore and the Minister of State for Housing and Urban Affairs (I/C), Hardeep Singh Puri were present.

PM’s Message

In a special message marking the birth anniverary of Sardar Patel, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a message “We salute Sardar Patel on his Jayanti. His momentous service and monumental contribution to India can never be forgotten”, he said.

PM pays tributes to Indira Gandhi

“Tributes to former PM Mrs. Indira Gandhi on her death anniversary”, the Prime Minister said in another one-line message.

 

 

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has already upheld the judgement in M Nagaraj case

Lalit Shastri

A plea has been made by the Madhya Pradesh Government before the Supreme Court, presently hearing the Reservation in Promotion case for a review by a Constitution Bench of an earlier order passed by the apex court in the M Nagaraj case which forms the basis of the Jabalpur High Court order declaring as unconstitutional a State provision for reservation in promotion for SCs and STs.

The present petition arises out of an appeal filed my by the Madhya Pradesh Government against the High Court order. The Madhya Pradesh Government made the plea for referring the matter before a bigger Constitution Bench during the hearing in the Reservation in Promotion case last week.

The Madhya Pradesh Government is either ignorant or is pretending to be ignorant of the fact that a five Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has already passed an order more than three years ago reiterating that the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.

The above order was passed by a five Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha, and Justices Jagdish Singh Khehar (the present Chief Justice of India), J Chelameswar, AK Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman on July 15 2014 in the Rohtas Bhankar and others versus Government of India and others case. This order also stamped the ceiling limit of 50% for reservation.

In the July 2014 order, Supreme Court said it is important to note that the constitutional validity of Article 16(4A) had come up for consideration before the Constitution Bench in the case of M. Nagaraj case.

The Constitution Bench had observed:

“Clause (4-A) of Article 16 is carved out of clause (4) of Article 16. Clause (4-A) provides benefit of reservation in promotion only to SCs and STs. In S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India this Court held that relaxation of qualifying marks and standards of evaluation in matters of reservation in promotion was not permissible under Article 16(4) in view of Article 335 of the Constitution. This was also the view in Indra Sawhney.”

By the Constitution (eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000 a proviso was inserted at the end of Article 335 of the Constitution which read as under:

“Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.”

The Apex court also noted in the 2014 order that this proviso was added keeping in view the benefit of reservation in promotion conferred upon SCs and STs alone. This proviso was inserted keeping in mind the judgment of the apex Court in Vinod Kumar case which took the view that relaxation in matters of reservation in promotion was not permissible under Article 16(4) in view of the command contained in Article 335. Once a separate category is carved out of clause (4) of Article 16 then that category is being given relaxation in matters of reservation in promotion. The proviso is confined to SCs and STs alone. The said proviso is compatible with the scheme of Article 16(4-A).

Significantly, the Constitution Bench also pointed out in its 2014 order that the conclusions recorded by the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj case were relevant.

They read as under:

“The impugned constitutional amendments by which Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) have been inserted flow from Article 16(4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16(4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and inadequacy of representation which enables the States to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the State administration under Article 335. These impugned amendments are confined only to SCs and STs. They do not obliterate any of the constitutional requirements, namely, ceiling limit of 50% (quantitative limitation), the concept of creamy layer (qualitative exclusion), the sub-classification between OBCs on one hand and SCs and STs on the other hand as held in Indra Sawhney, the concept of post-based roster with inbuilt concept of replacement as held in R.K. Sabharwal case.”

The Supreme Court in its order of 11 March 2010 ordered that the batch of writ petitions, pending before the Supreme Court, challenging various orders/notifications issued under Article 16(4)(A) of the Constitution, were disposed of, by the Supreme Court vide order dated 11th March, 2010, in the following terms:-

“The Constitution of India was amended by the Seventy-Seventh Amendment Act, 1995, Eighty-fifth Amendment Act, 2001 and Eighty-first Amendment Act, 2000. By these Acts Article 16(4), (4-A) and 16(4-B) were amended. Thus Seventy-Seventh Amendment Act, 1995 and Eighty-fifth Amendment Act, 2001 came into effect w.e.f. 16.06.1995 and Eighty-first Amendment Act, 2000 came into effect on 09.06.2000.

Subsequent to these Amendments of the Constitution various State Government issued order/notifications to implement the provisions of the Constitution.
These notifications/orders were challenged in various writ petitions and special leave petitions before this Court. In these proceedings the constitutional amendments were also challenged. By the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in M. Nagaraj and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 212, the constitutional validity of Article 16(4), (4-A) and (4-B) was upheld. In the judgment it was directed that various individual writ petitions would be considered by appropriate Bench in accordance with the law laid down in this decision.

As various state orders and notifications have been challenged in these writ petitions be considered by the respective High Courts. The validity of the same be decided in view of the final decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in M. Nagaraj and others vs. Union of India and others (supra).

Therefore, we permit the petitioners in these writ petitions to withdraw these writ petitions with liberty to move the High Court and in the event of writ petitions are filed before the High Court the same may be considered by the High Court in the light of the observations made by this Court in M. Nagaraj and others vs. Union of India and other (supra). The petitioners would be at liberty to seek appropriate interim relief in the High Court. The writ petitions as well as contempt petitions are disposed of accordingly”.

Earlier in the M Nagraj case, the Supreme Court on 19 October 2006 had ordered:

The impugned constitutional amendments by which Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) have been inserted flow from Article 16(4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16(4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and inadequacy of representation which enables the States to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the State administration under Article 335. These impugned amendments are confined only to SCs and STs. They do not obliterate any of the constitutional requirements, namely, ceiling-limit of 50% (quantitative limitation), the concept of creamy layer (qualitative exclusion), the sub-classification between OBC on one hand and SCs and STs on the other hand as held in Indra Sawhney case , the concept of post-based Roster with in-built concept of replacement as held in R.K. Sabharwal case.

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, the Constitution (Eighty-First Amendment) Act, 2000, the Constitution (Eighty-Second Amendment) Act, 2000 and the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001.

In 2014, since the Constititution Bench of the Supreme Court did not examine the validity of individual enactments of different States, it specifically said in its order that questions will be gone into in individual writ petitions by the appropriate bench in accordance with law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the in the Rohtas Bhankar and others versus Government of India and others case.