“The finding in the judgment that the state is duty bound to conduct a public auction whenever it distributes natural resources, such that said resources always go to the highest bidder, is contrary to the principle in the Constitution and various legislations which prescribe various alternative method of distributing natural resources, including the policy of first-come-first served,” the plea said…
The government’s petition filed under Article 137 of the Constitution contended that the Supreme Court verdict of February 2 “is liable to be reviewed since there are errors which are apparent on the face of the record.”
The petition said: “The court would further have had to consider that as the urban market is already captured by existing telecom providers, there is a need to induct new telecom service providers who would provide service in semi urban and rural areas,” it said.
The petition further said: “The court failed to appreciate that in order to facilitate tele density it was necessary to offer at competitive rates thereby allowing millions of rural and semi urban consumers to gain access to telecom services.”
It also maintained that the apex court’s prescription of a single method for distribution of all natural resources, including spectrum, through the “auction” route was contrary to the principle of separation of powers embodied in the Constitution….
“The impugned judgment is, with the greatest respect, internally contradictory as it holds the policy was flawed because it did not adhere to the principles of equality, while acknowledging that the policy was based on the twin principles of level playing field between different players, as well as including the need to promote affordability and increase penetration of wireless services in semi-urban and rural areas, both of which promote the principle of equality,” the petition said.
The Supreme Court, if one were to read the judgement carefully does not totally rule out the FCFS principle, but has passed this order in this case as the even the FCFS principle was observed to suit the Companies and to fill in the pocket of the Politicians and A.Raja.
First come first served Policy-in how many instances has it been followed and with what results?
The purpose of Tendering is to have available options to determine the best.
In the FCFS, how does one find that out and by what yard stick?
By the ability of the Companies to bribe?
The Supreme Court has interfered in the 2 G case at corruption has come to light-that too corruption at astronomical proportions.
True the Court does not have the power to usurp or interfere with the Executive.
But when the Executive is Corrupt and is mending laws to suit the personal aggrandizement of the Politicians-by even holding meetings among Ministers with our-notes, calling them,’paperless decisions’ and sets impossible terms for genuine participants in the tendering processes by asking to remit money to the tune of Crores as EMD with in a couple hours,the Court has every right to dictate to the Executive..
The statement that only FCFS alone will ensure Teledensity is laughable.
Another ridiculous part of the Review petition is that the Companies have to invest more in the case of Tenders and it will become unviable to run the Service effectively and the Common man will be affected.
How and why does the Tendering Authority worried about the economics of the companies participating in the Tender?
Do they not know that none will quote if the project is not viable.
The Government, by filing the Review Petition has more than tipped its intentions of burying the 2 G investigation.
Above was the the Title of the Head Line published’ in Yahoo news‘ that was delivered to my IN Box and it was changed into
“Penn Judge Tosses Case in Which Muslim Was Accused of Attacking Atheist”
May be the writer felt that the original title was inappropriate and changed into the more acceptable current Head Line.
The Judge’s Observation seems to be correct.
While I hold no brief for terrorism, be it in any form,the insult of a Religion by a Group or an individual is to be condemned.
If you do not agree with their views keep it to your self.
You have no Right to denigrate other’s Religion or for that matter other’s ideas.
You must counter them ,if warranted, by ideas and arguments and not by this senseless and irresponsible behaviour which hurts others.
Of course one can not expect any better behaviour from a Group which believes in Nihilism.
One has the right to believe in what one thinks as to be Right.
Any way belief in Islam or any Faith is better than being unruly, anarchic and a Belief which has no Rational Basis, where one can not define the instrument one calls mind and where one closes one’s mind to the wonders and the complexity of Nature and yet believes that every thing is a Chance!
Yet to attack one for his views in barbaric and it does not reflect great on the Religion.
Their Religion or that part that deals with proselytization, must be interpreted to suit Rationality.One should remember that any Religion has its Metaphysical aspect and Social aspect.
The latter can be modified keeping the Metaphysical aspect intact.
“There is a surprising story out of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania that seems the perfect storm of religious tensions. You begin with Ernie Perce, an atheist who marched as a zombie Mohammad in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. Then you add Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim who stepped off a curb and reportedly attacked Perce for insulting the Prophet. Then you have a judge (Judge Mark Martin) who threw out the criminal charges against Elbayomy and ridiculed the victim, Perce. The Judge identifies himself as a Muslim and says that Perce conduct is not what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. [UPDATE: The judge says he is not a Muslim despite what is heard by most listeners on the tape. That being the case, the criticism of the comments remains.] [UPDATE2: Perce has responded to our blog and denied many of the factual representations made by Judge Martin].”
”
Here is part of the hearing transcript:
Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …
In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.
Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did.
Here is part of the hearing transcript:
Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …
In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.
Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did.
I’ve spent about seven years living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ‘ugly Americans.’ This is why we hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re so concerned about our own rights, we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.
Morbid creativity that expresses the darkest recesses of the mind.
This contraption is as good an invention as the Cyclon B Hitler used in the Camps of Auschwitz,Bergen-Belsen,Treblinka etc.
If Euthanasia is sparingly approved world-wide, surprising that this Killing machine is being promoted.
”
A Lithuanian architect and former theme park worker, has designed a chilling roller coaster concept to thrill passengers – and kill them.
Dubbed the ‘Euthanasia Coaster’, the morbid design by Julijonas Urbonas, “humanely, with elegance and euphoria, takes the life of a human being” by travelling at 100m/s and lifting the passenger up to a height of more than 1,600ft.
During the three-minute ride, passengers are spun and flung into hoops at 223m/h.
The ride would cause the brain to die from cerebral hypoxia, or lack of oxygen, after experiencing the deadly spins and turns of the track.
“Thanks to the marriage of the advanced cross-disciplinary research in space medicine, mechanical engineering, material technologies and, of course, gravity, the fatal journey is made pleasing, elegant and meaningful,” explains Urbonas in the video interview.
“Celebrating the limits of the human body but also the liberation from the horizontal life, this ‘kinetic sculpture‘ is in fact the ultimate roller coaster,” adds Urbonas.
‘The ultimate roller coaster is built when you send out twenty-four people and they all come back dead.”
An informative site on Euthanasia which assists people who are terminally ill or call it a day.
”
We campaign for a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults – a campaign which benefits from overwhelming public support.
Alongside access to high quality care and treatment, dying adults who can make the decision of their own free will, should have the choice of an assisted death, within strict legal safeguards.
An assisted death is where a doctor prescribes a life-ending dose of medication to a mentally competent, terminally ill adult at their request, and the patient then chooses to administer the medication themselves.
Assisted dying is different to euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia is a term often used to describe life ending medication being administered by a third party. Assisted suicide refers to providing assistance to die to someone who is not dying.
In this section of the website you can find out more about our campaign to change the law on assisted dying including key research from other countries that already have legislation. Should you be unable to find the information you are looking for, please contact us.
To read more on how people are affected without an assisted dying law, visit our personal stories section
You can join our campaign to change the law on assisted dying by becoming a member, signing up to our email group, and taking action as set out in our ‘Act now’ section.
Human Rights activists normally intervene in these types of instances and whenever law enforcing Agencies try to curb crimes which are heinous.
If these Agencies do not resort to strict measures, the very fabric of society will be torn.
If the law enforcing agencies do not check crime, then people accuse them of soft approach and dereliction of Duty.
You can not ask the law enforcing agencies to work with both hands and feet tied.
Normal precautions are taken for normal individuals.
People as these are not Human beings and are to be treated as such.
At times like these, Islamic law, though looks barbarous, is the Best.
”
Under German law, serious sex offenders can volunteer for the operation as part of their treatment.
The Strasbourg Council of Europe‘s anti-torture committee said the procedure was rare in Germany, with fewer than five cases a year over the past decade.
But surgical castration was mutilating and irreversible and there was no evidence it prevented men from committing new sex crimes, the committee said in a report on Germany.
“Surgical castration of detained sexual offenders could easily be considered as amounting to degrading treatment,” said the report.
“Therefore, the Committee recommends that immediate steps be taken by the relevant authorities to discontinue in all German Laender (federal states) the application of surgical castration in the context of treatment of sexual offenders,” it added.
The German government said in an official response to the report that the practice was under review but it believed there were medical grounds for continuing to offer the operation.
Under German regulations, a sex offender can be castrated if he ask for the procedure, is older than 25 and gets the approval of a panel of experts.
On black money in Swiss banks,Indian Government has been dragging its feet by saying that Swiss banking laws do not allow information to be shared with others on the ground of ‘Client Confidentiality’.
This is absolute non sense.
The Indian Government is to have an agreement with the Swiss Government
If the person has not declared his Swiss account in his Country of origin,
If the Government can declare the person to have amassed wealth by Criminal means.
If the Government brings in a complaint to the Swiss Government and the concerned bank,
then the Bank on receiving the deposit if it is being made after the complaint may notify the Swiss Government to arrest the person when he comes to Switzerland for claiming the amount.
If he refuses to come, then the bank may freeze his assets.
( in case the criminal act for which the person/information is being sought is not punishable under Swiss law, one needs to book the offender under an appropriate offence that would meet with Swiss Law-some times you have to tweak the law to get Justice)
What is needed is the Political will.
Now to the laws on Swiss Banking System.
”
The Swiss banker’s requirement of client confidentiality is found in Article 47 of the Federal Law on Banks and Savings Banks, which came into effect on November 8, 1934. The article stipulates that “anyone acting in his/her capacity as member of a banking body, as a bank employee, agent, liquidator or auditor, as an observer of the Swiss Federal Banking Commission (SFBC), or as a member of a body or an employee belonging to an accredited auditing institution, is not permitted to divulge information entrusted to him/her or of which he/she has been apprised because of his/her position.”
Exceptions
In order to sidestep this law, there must be a substantial criminal allegation before a governmental agency, especially a foreign one, can gain access to account information. Tax evasion, for example, is considered a misdemeanor in Switzerland rather than a crime.
According to the Swiss Bankers’ Association Web site, however, there is also a duty for bankers to provide information under the following circumstances:
Civil proceedings (such as inheritance or divorce)
International mutual legal assistance proceedings (explained below)
International mutual assistance in criminal matters
Switzerland is required to assist the authorities of foreign states in criminal matters as a result of the 1983 federal law relating to International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Assets can be frozen and handed over to the foreign authorities concerned. Assistance in criminal matters follows the principles of dual criminality, specialty and proportionality.
Dual criminality means that Swiss courts don’t lift the requirement of bank/client confidentiality unless the act being investigated by the court is punishable under the law in both Switzerland and the country requesting the information. The specialty rule means that information obtained through the arrangement can only be used for the criminal proceedings for which the assistance is provided. The proportionality rule means the measures taken in conducting the request for assistance must be proportionate to the crime.
International mutual assistance in administrative matters
Under these proceedings, the Swiss Federal Banking Commission (SFBC) may communicate information only to the supervisory authorities in foreign countries subject to three statutory conditions:
The information given can’t be used for anything other than the direct supervision of the banks or financial intermediaries who are officially authorized and can’t be passed on to tax authorities.
The requesting foreign authority must itself be bound by official or professional confidentiality and be the intended recipient of the information.
The requesting authority may not give information to other authorities or to other public supervisory bodies without the prior agreement of the SFBC or without the general authorization of an international treaty. Information can’t be given to criminal authorities in foreign countries if there are no arrangements regarding mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between the states involved.
Taxation
Swiss residents pay 35 percent tax on the interest or dividends their Swiss bank accounts and investments earn. This money is namelessly turned in to the Swiss tax authorities.
For nonresidents of Switzerland there are no taxes levied on those earnings, unless:
There is a 35 percent Swiss withholding tax on interest and dividends paid out by Swiss companies. So, if you invest in a Swiss company such as Nestlé or Novartis, then 35 percent of any dividends will be withheld as a tax regardless of where you live. The same is true if you buy bonds issued by a Swiss company. If you’re a Swiss taxpayer (or if your country has a double taxation agreement with Switzerland) then you can claim the tax back. Double taxation is when income is taxed both in your home country, as well as the country in which the income is earned.
EU Withholding Tax
On July 1, 2005, the European Union Withholding Tax came into effect to prevent residents of EU member countries from avoiding paying tax on interest earned on money deposited in foreign banks with very strong banking secrecy laws. The EU goal had been for all countries to disclose interest earnings to the home countries of their bank clients so that that money could be taxed. Several non-EU countries, Switzerland included, didn’t agree because it went against their banking privacy/secrecy laws. Now, bank clients who live in the European Union pay a withholding tax on the interest made by certain investments. This tax started at 15 percent and is gradually increasing to 35 percent by 2011. No exchange of information or taxes on capital or capital gains is levied.
If you want to pass on your account to your family (and you’re not a Swiss resident) you’re in luck because there is no inheritance tax in Switzerland for nonresidents. Your heirs are responsible for declaring the holdings to their country’s tax authorities, however.
We recognize the necessity for an exchange of information between reporting offices (Financial Intelligence Units, FIU), as Switzerland would otherwise face the threat of a suspension of its membership in the Egmont Group, which would lead to unnecessary international pressure and reputational damage.
The exchange of information must, however, be conducted in adherence to strict guidelines. For example, the information can only be exchanged in the instance of a concrete case, but not amongst all group members or beyond a specific case.
Furthermore, the information may not be passed on to other authorities in the respective country, nor may the normal administrative and legal assistance procedures be circumvented as a result thereof.
The Swiss Bankers Association will closely examine the proposal and will provide a comprehensive statement of its position on the matter during the course of the consultation process.
What is money laundering? Money laundering is the covert introduction of illegally acquired assets into the legitimate economy with the aim of disguising their true illegal origin.
This may take place in three phases:
Phase 1: placement
In this phase, the assets (primarily cash) are paid into banks and thus turned into bank money, or used to purchase assets that can be liquidated at short notice.
Phase 2: layering
The goal of this phase is to spread the money placed in phase 1. It often involves complex international transactions using, amongst other things, offshore banks and bogus companies. Another way to spread the money is via a myriad of confusing and seemingly unconnected transfers.
Phase 3: integration
The integration phase is when the assets are reintroduced into the legal economy, which may involve purchasing assets (e.g. real estate or precious metals) or shareholdings, etc.
Money laundering is usually associated with drug trafficking or organised crime. However, there are many other crimes which may be predicate offences to money laundering, e.g. embezzlement, corruption, extortion or human trafficking, to name just a few.
What does Switzerland do to against money laundering? Switzerland’s mechanisms for combating money laundering, which were established with the Agreement on Due Diligence (CDB) in 1977 and have been expanding ever since, today include provisions in the Swiss Penal Code (Art. 305bis and 305ter StGB), the Federal Act on Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing in the Financial Sector (AMLA) and a corresponding Ordinance of the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (FINMA Anti-Money Laundering Ordinance, AMLO-FINMA).
Swiss law is therefore broadly in compliance with the international recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The FATF report on the third country evaluation of April 2005 attested that Switzerland has a well functioning network of preventative measures against money laundering and terrorist financing. However, the Federal Department of Finance (FDF) did look into the implementation of individual criticisms that FATF experts had levelled at Switzerland’s anti-money laundering mechanisms. The resulting revised Anti-Money Laundering Act came into force, after the referendum period had expired unused, on 1 February 2009. The Anti-Money Laundering Ordinance was subsequently also revised, with the updated version entering into force on 1 January 2011.
The Agreement on Due Diligence (CDB), which is issued by the Swiss Bankers Association (SBA) as a set of self-regulation guidelines and is revised and updated every five years, has since 1977 laid down the obligations of banks with regard to the identification of clients and beneficial owners. It prohibits active assistance in the flight of capital and tax evasion. The statutory bank auditors are commissioned by the banks and FINMA to verify bank compliance with this Agreement. Special investigators and a CDB Supervisory Board assess breaches of the Agreement, and offences are punishable by fines of up to CHF 10 million.
You must be logged in to post a comment.