Jump to content
Atul Patankar

SC notice to CAG on disabled person's plea

Recommended Posts

Atul Patankar

As reported at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 4 September 2009

 

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the country's top auditor Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and others on a petition accusing it of failure to recover "around Rs 10,000 crore" from banks and deploy it for welfare of the disabled.

 

The petition filed by one Ravi Shankar Bhushan, a disabled person working in an NGO, said that CAG had not complied with the apex court's directions given in April 2004.

 

CAG was to recover the money illegally collected by banks from individual borrowers by rounding-off interest rate and ensure that the money was used for welfare of disabled.

 

A bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan sought replies from the Ministries of Finance and Social Justice and Empowerment, CAG, RBI, the Indian Banks' Association and 26 public sector banks, including State Bank of India.

 

The petition has sought a direction to the ministries to disclose details of disbursements made to disabled in accordance with the apex court decision's and also frame appropriate schemes for disabled like their rehabilitation, entrepreneurial activity, prevention and early detection.

 

Bhushan claimed that only Rs 150 crore had been recovered so far against Rs 10,000 crore collected by banks by rounding-off interest rates.

 

The petition noted that RBI had given approval to the system of rounding-off of the rate of interest to be levied by the banks by up to 0.25% and shift the burden of the same on to the borrowers.

 

Bhushan alleged that CAG was not collecting the money expeditiously and the banks were also not giving full details about the dues in a time-bound manner.

 

Though a Trust headed by CAG was set up, it appeared that apart from starting a scholarship scheme for disabled students envisaging a maximum expenditure of Rs one crore per year as late as August 2008, nothing further seems to have been done in the matter, the petition said.

 

Further, the amount recovered was to be used for separate schemes and not for funding existing government programmes for disabled persons, it said, adding that the amount was to go into a fund which was over and above the sum spent by the Government of India for disabled persons.

 

It is in the interest of justice and transparency that prominent NGOs working in this area and disabled persons should be involved in framing of schemes, the petition said.

 

The apex court had in 2004 barred banks and the Centre from keeping the money, which was collected illegally by rounding-off interest rate, and had directed CAG to recover the excess amount from them and deposit the same in a corpus fund for the benefit of the disadvantaged.

 

Bhushan, who had collected the information under the Right to Information Act, said that the apex court's decision in 2004 had not been implemented.

 

The apex court, while deciding the PIL in 2004, had held that the fund managed by CAG should be collected for the benefit of disabled persons and the excess collection of Rs 723.79 crore collected annually since 1993 by the banks all over the country should be deposited in the fund.

 

Source: SC notice to CAG on disabled person's plea - India - NEWS - The Times of India

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      Find here the original Supreme court judgement on Aadhaar.
      (1)        The requirement under Aadhaar Act to give one's demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy.
      (2)        The provisions of Aadhaar Act requiring demographic and biometric information from a resident for Aadhaar Number pass three­fold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional.
      (3)        Collection of data, its storage and use does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy.
      (4)    Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.
      (5)        Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and safety of the data received from individuals.
      (6)        Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The provision does not deserve to be struck down on account of denial in some cases of right to claim on account of failure of authentication.
      (7)        The State while enlivening right to food, right to shelter etc. envisaged under Article 21 cannot encroach upon the right of privacy of beneficiaries nor former can be given precedence over the latter.
      (8)        Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.
      (9)        Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be  said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).
      (10)      Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process.
      (11)      Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void. Thus, the last phrase in main provision of Section 57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down.
      (12)      Section 59 has validated all actions taken by the Central Government under the notifications dated 28.01.2009    and 12.09.2009 and all actions shall be deemed to have been taken under the Aadhaar Act.
      (13)      Parental consent for providing biometric information under Regulation 3 & demographic information under Regulation 4 has to be read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3 & 4 of Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.
      (14)      Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act. Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002.
      (15)      Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside.
      (16)      Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as Money Bill.  The decision of Speaker certifying the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review.
      (17)      Section 139­AA does not breach fundamental Right of Privacy as per Privacy Judgment in Puttaswamy case.
      (18)      The Aadhaar Act does not violate the interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      In this context a reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under: 35.....
      “It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” 

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy