India must not be alowed to become police state

29.12.2007
An Open Appeal!!!


Dear friends and comrades ,

This is to inform you of the recent arrest of Prashant Rahi, a senior journalist of Uttarakhand, by the state police. Prashant was arrested on 15 th of this month in Dehradun and was allegedly charged of being a Maoist commander. The police secretly confined him for five days after which he was shown arrested from the forests of Hanspur Khatta on 21 st December. The police have charged him with various sections of IPC including 121, 121A, 124A, 153B, 120B. All the media carried the same version as stated by the police.

Just to give you a background, Prashant Rahi had been working in close association with the local people's struggles in Uttarakhand since last 17 years. He has been a journalist by profession. Started his career from Himachal Times, moved on to The Statesman and worked many years covering people's issues. He is a native of Maharashtra and pursued his education from Banaras Hindu University .

This incident is in continuance of the trend set by many innocent arrests in the last few months including that of Binayak Sen and some journalists in Kerala and Andhra Pradesh of targeting pro-people intellegentsia. The trend has become increasingly apparent in those parts of the country where people's movement is strong.

We firmly believe that this state action is a part of the efforts being carried out by the various state governments to secure hefty amount of funds from the central government in the name of combating naxalism. For this, it becomes imperative for them to prove that the state is inflicted with this insurgency.

We, the undersigned, strongly condemn the arrest of Prashant Rahi and call upon all the concerned individuals, civil society organisations, journalist unions, writers unions, people's movements and struggling groups to join hands in solidarity and support.


Rajendra Dhasmana (President, PUCL, Uttarakhand)
Manglesh Dabral (Poet and Journalist)
Pankaj Bisht (Editor, Samayantar)
Anand Swaroop Verma (Journalist and Human Rights Activist)
P.C. Tiwari (National Secretary, Indian Federation of Working Journalists)
Suresh Nautiyal (General Secretary, Uttarakhand Patrakar Parishad)
Anil Chaudhary (President, INSAF)
Jagdish Yadav (Photo Editor, Pioneer)
Harsh Dobhal (Managing Editor, Combat Law)
Shekhar Pathak, Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library
Gautam Navlakha (Consulting Editor, Economic and Political Weekly)
Ashish Gupta (Asamiya Pratidin)
Anil Chamadia (Journalist)
A.K. Arun (Editor, Yuva Samwad)
Madan Kashyap (Poet)
Pankaj Singh (Poet and Journalist)
Karuna Madan (Journalist)
Piyush Pant (Editor, Lok Samwad)
Sarvesh (Photo Journalist)
Panini Anand (Journalist, BBC Hindi)
Avinash (Journalist, NDTV India)
Bhupen Singh (Journalist, STAR News)
Sukla Sen (CNDP India)
Aanchal Kapur (Kriti Team)
Vijayan MJ ( Delhi Forum)
Sanjay Mishra (Special Correspondent, Dainik Bhaskar)
Prem Piram (Director, Jagar Uttarakhand)
Ashok Pandey (Poet)
Arvind Gaur (Director, Asmita Theatre Group)
Pankaj Chaturvedi (Poet)
Satyam Verma (Rahul Foundation)
Ranjit Verma (Advocate)
Bishambhar (Secretary, Roji Roti Bachao Morcha)
Ajay Prakash (Journalist, The Public Agenda)
Swatantra Mishra (Journalist, IANS)
Vandana (Special Correspondent, Nai Dunia)
Shree Prakash (INSAF)
Abhishek Srivastava (Freelance Journalist)
Rajeshwar Ojha (Asha Pariwar)
Raju (Human Rights Law Network)
Rajesh Arya (Journalist)
Kamta Prasad (Linguist and Translator)
Abhishek Kashyap (Writer)
Thakur Prasad (Managing Editor, Samprati Path)
Rajiv Ranjan Jha (Writer)
Srikant Dube (Journalist)
Rishikant (Journalist)
Pankaj Narayan(Journalist)

Mr Vijaykar , why are you silent on 'dropping' of Mr Nandi from the probe panel

September 7, 2007

Mr Pradeep Vijayakar

President

The Press Club
Mumbai

Dear Mr President,
I am shocked to receive an e-letter written by Chairman Devenra Mohan dated August 30, 2007, addressed to Mr. Jatin Desai, Mr.G.C.Bainik and me, announcing in effect that the Managing Committee (MC) has not only relieved me of my assignment as the Convenor of a three-member committee, appointed to inquire the alleged violent incident of August 3,2006 involving Rennie Abraham and Gurbir Singh, but also as its member.

The letter among other things states: “In line with the Annual General Meeting’s decision on the above subject on July 27, 2007, it was noted by the Managing Committee that Suresh Nandi, conveyors (sic) of the Enquiry Committee, has failed to call any hearings of the committee. There does not seem to be any progress to complete and deliver the enquiry report either.

In the light of the AGM’s decision, it has now been decided to request Dr.G.C.Bainik and Mr Jatin Desai to proceed with the enquiry hearings without any further reference to Mr. Suresh Nandi”. I am enclosing/attaching the copy of the above letter for your ready reference.

In response to the above letter, I would like to submit the following:

1) In the first place, the letter is grossly misleading. It does not state as to what was the decision taken by the AGM held on July 27, 2007.

2) In the first place, no decision was taken by the AGM to either remove me from the post of convenor of the inquiry committee or as a member from the inquiry committee. (Mind you, I was appointed as the convenor by the AGM at its last year’s meeting).

3) Unfortunately, the issue relating to the functioning of the above inquiry committee was discussed at the AGM in my absence. (I had left the AGM minutes before the issue came to be discussed, to attend to my professional work). Had I been around, I would have explained my side of the story. My side was not brought to the attention of the AGM even when member C P Jha asked Treasurer Rajesh Mascarenhas to read out the last letter written by me to Chairman Devendra Mohan on May 14, 2007.

4) I am told that Mr Jatin Desai expressed certain views against me at the AGM. I do not subscribe to any of his expressed views. Because, they were partisan in nature and aimed at projecting me in poor light vis-à-vis the inquiry committee. In the first place, you as a President – who is presumed to be impartial – should not have allowed Mr Jatin Desai to speak in the first place in my absence. But that was not the case here.

5) In my above letter to Mr Devendra Mohan, a copy of which I had marked to you as well, and an earlier letter written to you way back on February 27, 2007, vide which I had explained in detail as to the problems/issues that were coming in the way of my going ahead with the inquiry. EVEN TODAY, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY REPLIES TO THE ABOVE LETTERS EITHER FROM MR DEVENDRA MOHAN OR FROM YOU.

6) As I have been told by members present at the above AGM, you in your capacity of the President, chairing the meeting, chose not to do anything with regard to the on-going inquiry.

7) As I have explained in detail in my above letters as to what was impeding the inquiry and the efforts made by me to hold inquiries, I emphatically deny the assumption arrived at and stated in its above letter that I have failed to call any hearings of the committee. Let me refresh your memory of various initiatives taken by our committee to go ahead with its task: We had scheduled inquiry hearings beginning from November 3, 2006, and had formally intimated both the accused and witnesses vide our letter dated October 26, 2006. However, we had to defer the hearings a day before the scheduled start of hearings as the Club administration failed to provide secretarial help – a fact which we intimated to all the concerned vide our letter dated November 2, 2006.

8) Coming as it does after the non-cooperation from the Press Club administration all through for ensuring the smooth conduct of the inquiry, the decision to relieve me of my assignment as the convenor of the inquiry and remove me as the member of the committee smacks of a deliberate decision to ensuring against my conducting an impartial inquiry into the alleged violent incident between Rennie Abraham and Club Secretary Gurbir Singh.

9) In the event of your not taking cognizance of my serious grievances, as expressed above and also through other letters in the past, I will be forced to put the entire correspondence in the public domain, so that the club members can draw their own conclusions. I may also contest the MC’s decision in a proper forum.

Thanking you

Yours truly,

(Suresh Nandi)
cc: Chairman, the Press Club, Mumbai

August 30, 2007

Mr. Jatin Desai

Mr. G.C.Bainik

Mr. Suresh Nandi

Sub: Enquiry into alleged violent incident of August 3, 2006 involving Rennie Abraham & Gurbir Singh

In line with the Annual General Meeting’s decision on the above subject on July 27, 2007, it was noted by the Managing Committee that Suresh Nandi, conveyors of the Enquiry Committee, has failed to call any hearings of the committee. There does not seem to be any progress to complete and deliver the enquiry report either.

In the light of the AGM’s decision, it has now been decided to request Dr.G.C.Bainik and Mr Jatin Desai to proceed with the enquiry hearings without any further reference to Mr. Suresh Nandi.

The two members, Mr Bainik and Mr Desai, are requested to complete the Enquiry as far as possible within two months from the date of the AGM, ie. July 27, 2007.

Yours sincerely,

Devendra Mohan

Chairman

cc : President

Exposing Distortions in July 27 AGM official minutes relating to Gurbir-Rennie case

Mumbai. 5 December 2007

To
The President
The Press Club , Mumbai
Sub: Draft Minutes of the July 27 AGM

Dear Mr President,

This refers to the draft minutes of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the
Press Club, Mumbai, held on July 27,2007 – which were circulated among
the Club members by the Secretary on October 25,2007 and put up simultaneously
on the club’s notice board.

Having actively participated in the deliberations of the said AGM, I hereby
lodge my strong protest with you against the distorted manner in which the
Secretary has chosen to present the deliberations, in the above draft minutes.
If anything, the draft minutes are an affront to the very general body of the club.

Here, I am confining myself to the distortions in the presentation of facts – as
transpired at the above AGM – relating to the inquiry pending against the
Club Secretary Mr Gurbir Singh and a member Rennie Abraham. The distortions
relate to the following paragraph in the draft minutes:

“C P Jha raised the issue of enquiry, which was set up to look into the August 3,
2006 incident involving cross-allegations of violence by Gurbir Singh and Rennie
Abraham. Treasurer Rajesh said that the Enquiry committee had failed to complete
its work despite several letters and offer of cooperation for providing extraordinary
demands like stenographer, tape recorder, etc. One of the enquiry committee
members, Jatin Desai, who was present in the AGM, blamed the convenor Suresh
Nandi for deliberately delaying the enquiry and displayed the correspondence with
the other two members on the issue. C P Jha suggested Suresh Nandi be dropped
from the enquiry committee and proposed the other two members complete the
enquiry. After discussion in the house, it was decided that the convenor would be
given time till July 31, 2007 to complete the enquiry process, failing which he
should be dropped from the Committee, and the other two members should complete
the process within two months thereafter”.

With regard to the above-referred mentioned portion of the draft minutes, I have to
make following submissions:
1) It is grossly incorrect to state that any decision was taken at the above AGM to
the effect that Mr Suresh Nandi be dropped from the three-member enquiry that
was set up to look into the August 3, 2006 incident in which the Club Secretary
Gurbir Singh is one of the accused and that the other members should complete
the inquiry process be within two months.

2) I vehemently deny that I proposed that Suresh Nandi be dropped from the
committee and the other two members complete the enquiry. Because, mine
was a qualified observation that I made based on some statements made at
the above AGM by Treasurer Rajesh Mascarenhas on behalf of the
Managing Committee vis-à-vis the status of inquiry into the alleged incident
of violence involving member Rennie Abraham and Club Secretary on the
night of August 3, 2006.

3) Last but not the least, I request you to exercise your powers as the
President to disallow the Managing Committee's reported decision to drop
Mr Suresh Nandi from of the Committee till the draft minutes are
confirmed by the general body as per the procedures laid down in the
Club’s Constitution.

In elaboration of my above submissions, let me state the following:
We all are aware that one of the accused being investigated in the
incident is club Secretary Gurbir Singh and the issues relating to the
incident have been raised and discussed in two AGMs of the Club.
It is, therefore, essential that utmost care is taken to ensure that
the enquiry is not influenced by the current Managing Committee
and it is conducted in a 'free and fair' manner. I hope, you, as the
custodian of the Club, would take all possible steps to do justice
in this regard.

Going by the distortions in the draft minutes of the above AGM, one can
safely infer that a blatant attempt is being made by the Managing Committee
to twist facts relating to the incident involving the Secretary. Or how else
can you describe an effort made by the Secretary to fire the gun from
shoulders of an ordinary member like me in an apparent effort to sabotage
the inquiry being held against (the Secretary) himself? It is rather surprising
as to how you – as the custodian of the club and its constitution -- have
the circulation of distorted portion of the draft minutes relating to the
said violent incident involving then and the current Secretary Gurbir
Singh and Rennie Abraham, among the members.

I reiterate my above contention that no decision was taken to drop
Mr Suresh Nandi both as the convenor and member of the three-member
committee inquiry committee – appointed to probe the above alleged
violent incident in which Mr Gurbir Singh is one of the accused
-- based on my purported `suggestion’ and subsequent `discussion” -- as
has been made out in the draft minutes of the above AGM.

It is but essential that I put the records straight with regard to the above
alleged violent incident involving then and current secretary Gurbir Singh
and member Rennie Abraham. You may recall, I was among several members
who had petitioned the then President Mr Madhu Shetye vide a joint letter
dated August 5, 2006 and sought his intervention to “get to the bottom of thi
unfortunate incident and come up with remedial measures to ensure against
recurrence of such incidents in the future”. The joint letter had also
emphasized that the incident warranted the President’s serious cognizance,
considering that the Secretary – entrusted with the responsibility of
maintaining peace and decorum in the club – had resorted to violence
against a member for whatever purported “provocation or justification”.
If necessary, I can make you available a copy of the said joint letter written
by me and 15 other members to then Club President Mr Shetye. Incidentally,
the letter is also a part of the inquiry committee records.

In the context of the above background, it was but natural of me to raise
the issue relating to the said inquiry at the July 27, 2006 AGM and seek
an update on the ongoing inquiry. Given that you yourself were presiding
over the said AGM, you will recall that the following transpired at the
above meeting:

To a query by me as to the status of the inquiry, Treasurer Rajesh
Mascarenhas –replying on behalf of the Managing Committee – made a
serious allegation against the entire three-member committee, saying that
the inquiry committee in general and Mr Nandi as the convenor of the
committee in particular had failed to complete its work despite several
letters and offer of cooperation for providing “extraordinary demands” like
stenographer, tape recorder, etc.

In retrospect, you will appreciate that Mr Mascarenhas (a joint secretary at
the time of incident) – considering that he was a willing witness to the
incident (read a man who wrote a letter to the then chairman and
President justifying the action of the Secretary and seeking action against
Rennie Abraham, even before an inquiry into the incident) – had no business
to cast aspersions on the inquiry committee in general and Mr Nandi in particular.

I again draw your attention to a part of the objected portion of the draft
minutes, which states: “… One of the enquiry committee members, Jatin
Desai, who was present in the AGM, blamed the convenor Suresh Nandi
for deliberately delaying the enquiry and displayed the correspondence
with the other two members on the issue”.

As you and all others present in the meeting may recall I had asked Mr
Mascarenhas to read out the latest letter by Mr Nandi to the President
and the Chairman of the club. Mr Mascarenhas, however, spoke about a
letter sent recently by the Managing Committee to Mr Nandi, who was not
present at the AGM at that time.

Unfortunately, with Mr Nandi not being present when the issue of inquiry
came to be discussed, the members were not briefed by him (Mr Nandi) of
the difficulties faced by him in completing the probe. Not surprisingly
though, the treasurer did not think it fit to read out letters written by
Mr Nandi to you as well as the chairman of the club, who heads the
Managing Committee of the Club, on several occasions in the past with
regard to the said inquiry.

After Mr Mascarenhas laid the blame of the delay in the completion of the
inquiry at the door of Mr Nandi in particular, I had the following to say if the
managing committee was objectively convinced that inquiry can not be
completed due to the hurdles posed by Mr Nandi, then he (Mr Nandi)
may be dropped”. This was my qualified observation; either pre-supposing
or taking at face value as to what Mr Mascarenhas claimed was true.

The draft minutes have, however, failed to either capture or reflect the
tone and tenor of what I said. They, instead, seek to give an impression that
I contributed to the AGM ‘s decision to drop Mr Nandi from the probe panel.
As I have already stated, no such decision was taken in the AGM and, I
believe, it was the Managing Committee which as an afterthought took
such a decision to sabotage the inquiry. This is my humble submission,
after considering that Mr Nandi had taken upon himself to conduct an
impartial inquiry into the incident – a thing that was not taken kindly by
one of the accused (the then and current secretary) and it was Mr Nandi,
who had in the SGM preceding the said AGM had taken serious exception
to the miserable failure of the Managing Committee (in which the Secretary
had the key role to play) to ensure “financial closure of the Club”
before undertaking demolition and reconstruction/refurbishment of a major
portion of the Club building that used to called earlier as the Glass House.

I understand to the best of the information I have at my disposal that Mr
Nandi had indeed taken several steps to conduct an impartial probe into
the above incident. Apart from others, he had also ‘summoned’ me to
appear for the hearing before the probe panel as per my own written
request. I am told that Mr Nandi had written numerous letters to the
various club functionaries, including you and the club chairman, over
the issue. There is nothing amiss or illegal, if he wanted the Managing
Committee to provide him a stenographer or audio-video instruments to
correctly record deliberations before the probe panel as anybody
entrusted with a task to conduct such a probe would definitely strive
ensure that the depositions are recorded correctly.

Under the circumstances, I would like you to consider seriously the
distortions in the draft minutes of the above AGM vis-à-vis the deliberations
regarding the inquiry into the incident involving Secretary Gurbir Singh
and member Rennie Abraham, various issues that I have raised in that
context and the fact that the current Managing Committee – of which
the accused Mr Gurbir Singh is a key functionary in his capacity as the
then and current Secretary of the Club – has gone ahead and removed
Mr Nandi not only as the convenor but also as a member of the inquiry
committee even before the draft AGM minutes – which I insist have
doctored – are adopted by the General Body of the Club. I would also
request you to act in a just and fair manner – as is expected of a person
holding the coveted President’s post of a leading Press Club in the country.

I reserve my right to send you letters over the matters I have already
discussed above and to propose amendments in the draft minutes of
the July 27, 2007 AGM. Similarly, I reserve the right to come back to
you on other distortions in the said draft minutes in near future.

Yours truly
CP Jha
Membership No 388
C/c Chairman, The Press Club, Mumbai
B/cc all those members who had attended the AGM of July 27, 2007

Revisiting terms of reference for the probe panel in Gurbir-Rennie case

We are producing below a notice received by the members
through email. The notice was also put up on the notice boards.
The current managing committee while 'dropping' Mr Suresh Nandi
has failed to send any notice to the members. The current Chairman
must come out with explanation for this. The other two members of
the probe should also tell the world , who is supreme- members or
the managing committee.

From: The Press Club, Mumbai <secretary@pressclubmumbai.com
Date: Aug 24, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: NOTICE - THREE MEMBER INQUIRY COMMITTEE
To: pressclubmumbai@yahoo.com

Dear members,

At its meeting held on August 16, 2006, the managing committee decided
to appoint a three-member committee to inquire into an alleged violent
incident involving club member Renni Abraham and Gurbir Singh, Secretary
of the Press Club, which took place on the night of August 3, 2006. 

The inquiry is being ordered based on the complaints filed against each
other by Mr Abraham and Mr Singh.

The three-member inquiry committee will consist of Mr  Suresh Nandi, Mr Jatin
Desai and Dr G.C.Banik.

The following will be the terms of reference for the inquiry committee: 

1)          To probe the circumstances leading to the above-mentioned
alleged violent incident.

2)          To probe the actual incident. 

3)          To fix the responsibility for the misconduct, if any, in the incident.

4)          To make its recommendations, and come up with suggestions to
ensure against recurrence of similar incidents in future. 

The inquiry committee will have to submit its report within two months.
The club administration will provide necessary assistance to carry out
the inquiry. 

Yours truly, 

(T N Raghunatha) 

Chairman, The Press Club, Mumbai 

August 23, 2006 

On violence in Press Club - without our comment

Two 'missing' letters from ''official file' of Gurbir-Rennie case

The first 'missing' letter , that was not placed
in the AGM of The Press Club, Mumbai on
July 27 ,2007 by the managing committee
despite request from the floor to know about
the 'latest' letter from Mr Nandi.

Mr Devendra Mohan
Chairman
The Press Club Mumbai
Azad Maidan
Mahapalika Marg
MUMBAI – 400 001 May 14, 2007

Dear Mr Chairman,

I am flabbergasted at your letter dated May 9, 2007 in

which you have incorrectly blamed the 3-member committee

for delaying the Probe into an alleged violent incident

involving Club member Renni Abraham and Club Secretary

Gurbir Singh, which took place on the night of August 3, 2006.

The following is my response to your said letter:

1) I have brought to the notice of Press Club president Pradip
Vijayakar from time to time about various difficulties being
faced by this committee in carrying out the probe, and
sought his intervention.

2)Given that I have marked all copies of my letter written to
the president, to you as well, you must be equally aware of
the problems faced by us in going ahead with the probe.
That being the fact of the matter, I am rather appalled to
receive a letter from you in which you have blamed the
probe committee unnecessarily.

3) In your letter, you have referred to an earlier letter
written by the Club Treasurer Rajesh Mascernhas to the
committee. You may kindly note that if the committee had
not chosen to act upon the contents of the letter written by
Mr Mascernhas per se suo-moto, it was because I was not
sure about the possibility of President having authorized him
to write such a letter nor had Mr Mascernhas mentioned in
his letter to that effect. Similarly, considering that the
Chairman had not addressed the letter to me, I was also not
sure about the Managing Committee having deliberated on
the issue and then authorized Mr Mascernhas to send the letter.

4) Now that you in your capacity as the Chairman written to me
after the deliberations on the issue by the Managing Committee
at its meeting on May 7, 2007, I have duly chosen to respond to you.

5) Significantly, you have stated in your letter that “the Managing
Committee at its meeting held on May 07, 2007 has decided to
complete the enquiry by the end of the month.” In continuation,
you have also given the Probe Committee 7 days’ time to inform
the Managing Committee as to whether we will be able to complete
the same within the deadline now stipulated by you –which in effect
would mean mere 15 days.

On one hand, you have chosen to blame the Probe committee for
its no fault and on the other,going by the above diktat, you have
chosen to rush through the probe for reasons best known to you.

6) On your contention that the Committee has adopted a casual
approach failed to submit its report eight months after its
appointment, let me refresh your memory of various initiatives
taken by our committee to go ahead with its task: We had
scheduled inquiry hearings beginning from November 3, 2006,
and had formally intimated both the accused and witnesses vide
our letter dated October 26, 2006. However, we had
to defer the hearings a day before the scheduled start of hearings
as the Club administration failed to provide secretarial help – a fact
which we intimated to all the concerned vide our letter dated
November 2, 2006.

7) Another factor which came as a surprise for the committee was
that even before the start of the inquiry hearings, two of the three
accused raised objections to the charge-sheets issued against them.
You may kindly note that I as the Convenor of the Probe Committee
had to spend considerable time replying to letters from the accused.

8) You can realize from the above facts that the Committee did not
delay the probe as you are suggesting in your said letter. You
should realize that the assignment handed to the Probe Committee
is of honorary nature, which we in the committee are executing it
taking time out of our professional occupation, and that the
Committee does not stand to gain anything by delaying the Probe.

9) While appreciating your assurance to extend “all reasonable
requests for secretarial help” to the Probe Committee, I have to state
that there are several issues that still remain to be sorted out. For
instance, the time-frame set by you for the Committee to complete
the (within the month of May 2007) is inadequate considering the
sensitive nature of the probe and the unpleasant experience we had
in making initial preparations for the probe.

We would appreciate if you could extend the deadline for completion
of the probe, as our committee is yet to begin hearings. Also, it would
be befitting on your part to grant at least two to three months to
complete the probe in fair and just manner.

10) If we in the Committee had, right in the beginning, sought a
stenographer’s help to take the notes of the Inquiry proceedings,
it was because that neither we wanted to misrepresent the oral
evidence provided by the accused and witnesses during the hearings
nor did we expect a situation wherein any of those deposing before
the Committee going back subsequently on their statements made
during the hearings. I, as the convenor of the committee, had taken
this precaution of having a stenographer at hand, owing to the fact
that this inquiry of an unprecedented nature wherein the secretary
of the Club is one of the accused.

11) Let me bring it to your notice that I am still to receive a
clarification from the Club President as to whether one of the
Probe Committe members, Dr.G.C.Banik can continue in the
Committee, in view of the fact that he was an associate member of
the Club and that he retired from his service at VSNL on December 31,
2006. Now that the financial year 2007 is also over, I would like to get a
clarification from you as well: Does he (Dr Banik) still continue to be an
associate member of the Press Club and, if yes, on what grounds?

12) While I vehemently deny that the Committee has adopted a casual
approach in dealing with the probe, I would like to inform you that if the
Committee chose not to seek an extension of deadline for completing the
probe earlier, it was because I was keeping both the Club’s President and
Chairman – from time to time – abreast of what is going on with regard to
the Inquiry.

13) You are also aware that how difficult it would’ve been for the
Committee to conduct proceedings at the Press Club in the recent past
given that the entire portion of the Club except for the conference room
has been demolished. Besides, the Managing Committee and the
Membership Scrutiny committee used to have their meetings at the
Conference room during week-ends (Saturdays).

14) I hope I have clarified the matter succinctly as required at this
stage.

I am confident that the Managing Committee with you at the helm
would heed to the Probe Committee’s request for extending the probe
deadline by two to three months and providing a venue, where the
Committee could function without any hindrance. Simultaneously,
I also look forward to your clarification as to the status of Dr Banik
in the Probe Committee.

I remain,

Suresh Nandi

Convenor

3-member Probe Committee

CC: the President Pradip Vijayakar

And now we are posting another important letter on this blog which ,
intriguingly , is reportedly missing from the record of probe panel as
Jatin Desai told one of the 'witness' on December 8,2007 that he was
not aware of this letter.

October 26, 2006

Sub: Inquiry into incident involving Mr Renni Abraham and
Secretary Gurbir Singh on 03, 2006

Dear concerned,

We, the 3-member Inquiry committee, “summon” you for deposition before
us in connection with the above mentioned Inquiry at the Conference Hall of
Press Club..

Here goes below the schedule of hearings involving all of you:

November 03, 2006 at 1300 hours : 1. Manager Ahmed Koya

2. Rajesh Mascarenhas

November 04, 2006 at 1300 hours : 1. Sai Prasan

2. Vispy Beheram
3.RambhauKamlakarChunekar(SecurityGuard

the Club gate on the night of August 03, 2006)

November 06, 2006 at 1300 hours :

1. C.P.Jha

2. Ommen Ninan

(Both desirous to depose before Inquiry Panel

strictly under its terms of reference.)

It is essential that all of you stick to the above mentioned schedule and to facilitate the
Inquiry panel to its task

While on the subject, both Mr Koya and Mr Beheram are requested to ensure that
the above summons are served to the persons concerned immediately. They are also
hereby directed to ensure the presence of Security Guard R.K.Chunekar before the
panel at the above mentioned date and time.

Please note that all the concerned, excepting those who have no email ids,
are being served summons through email simultaneously. The Club managers
should ensure delivery of these summons to the concerned persons at their
office or residence.

Yours truly,

Suresh Nandi

Convenor – Inquiry Committee

CCs : Manager Ahmed Koya

Rajesh Mascarenhas

Sai Prasan

Vispy Beheram

R K Chunekar (Security Guard)

C.P.Jha

Ommen Ninan

The President/Chairman of the Press Club

Gurbir-Renni Case file re-opens

To,
The President,
Press Club
MUMBAI.

&

The Chairman Press Club,
MUMBAI.

Sub: 1. Enquiry Proceedings regarding scuffle on August 3, 2006 at the Press Club premises.
2. Regarding Draft Minutes of AGM of July 27, 2007

Sir,

This is with reference to E-mail dated October 25, 2007 - “Draft Minutes of AGM of July 27, '07” - sent by Press Club, Mumbai.

I would like to draw your kind attention to the paragraph mentioned in the draft minutes:

“C P Jha raised the issue of enquiry, which was set up to look into the August 3, 2006 incident involving cross-allegations of violence by Gurbir Singh and Rennie Abraham. Treasure Rajesh said that the Enquiry committee had failed to complete its work despite several letters and offer of cooperation for providing extraordinary demands like stenographer, tape recorder, etc.. One of the enquiry committee members, Jatin Desai, who was present in the AGM, blamed the convenor Suresh Nandi for deliberately delaying the enquiry and displayed the correspondence with the other two members on the issue. C P Jha suggested Suresh Nandi be dropped from the enquiry committee and proposed the other two members complete the enquiry. After discussion in the house, it was decided that the convenor would be given time till July 31, 2007 to complete the enquiry process, failing which he should be dropped from the Committee, and the other two members should complete the process within two months thereafter.”

I would like to make following points in this context:

1. Mr CP Jha’s proposal of dropping Mr Suresh Nandi from the enquiry committee was only a suggestion. And, the open house has neither discussed the subject in detail nor it has formally taken any decision to drop Nandi from the committee.
2. The line “the other two members should complete the process within two months thereafter” is incorrect. The open house has not taken any such decision in this regard. So, I request you to ensure necessary correction in this regard in the draft minutes.

Having stated the above, without prejudice to the same, I request you to make sure that the due course of law should be followed in this case as I am also one of the main witness in this incident. And, Mr Nandi, through an E-mail dated October 26, 2006 called me to appear before the committee. Please, also ensure that I am contacted well in advance by the Committee and thedate and time acceptable to me is fixed for recording my statement which is crucial to establish the truth.

Satyameva Jayate,

Yours faithfully,

Sai Prasan
Membership no. 401
Press Club,
Mumbai.

CC to: 1. Mr Suresh Nandi
2. All the office-bearers, Press Club.
3. All the committee members, Press Club.

Encl: Letter of Mr Suresh Nandi, dated October 26, 2006.


Place: Mumbai
Date: November 28, 2007

Mint on MidDay case

Clippings

From Mint

Why doesn't Indian media cover itself the way it scrutinizes others?

Media organizations refrain from giving credit or blaming each other, and critical issues plaguing the industry are often ignored

Sruthijith K.K. and Archna Shukla

New Delhi: For the past few weeks, Indian newspapers have seen a steady drumbeat of media stories on a case involving four employees of Mid-Day tabloid newspaper and their legal woes.

The fairly innocuous stories about a former chief justice of India and potential conflict of interests drew the wrath of the Delhi high court, which sentenced the employees, including three journalists, to jail terms because the stories, in the view of the court, impugned on the honesty of the Supreme Court. The Mid-Day employees are out on bail, pending an appeal.

While the stories are newsworthy, what is little noticed—and even less debated—is how unusual it is for Indian newspapers to talk about their own, and to name names.

That is because, industry observers note, there is often an unstated rule that prevails in most newspapers: media doesn't write on media and media organizations won't write about each other, either in praise or in criticism.

Indeed, almost all Indian newspapers simply ignore news that is first reported by another paper or, if the news is of such magnitude that they have to follow it, a few of them credit generic "media" reports, rather than name the paper that first reported the story. Most skip giving any credit—or blame—in cases where a reported story is wrong and a firm has come out and told a regulator, such as the Bombay Stock Exchange, about the incorrectness of the story.

To be sure, there are exceptions but, more often than not, such coverage is about freedom of press issues, such as the Mid-Day saga, where the print media is keen to protect one of its own from what it sees as judicial overreach. Or, in badmouthing television—either the entertainment end of it or the plethora of sting operations.

This general silence about its own is troubling to some observers, not just because of the traditional who is watching the watchdog issues, but also because the media industry, especially Indian print media, itself has become a huge business in recent years.

"Now that so much of public's money is flowing into the industry, media practices and organizations should be scrutinized like any other organization or sector," says Pramath Raj Sinha, until recently managing director and CEO of ABP Pvt. Ltd, which publishes The Telegraph newspaper and Businessworld magazine.

Many Indian media companies have been listed on the bourses as part of an advertising and circulation boom—especially in print—raising money from capital markets as well as through private equity and venture capital firms.

PCI for new media commission and media council

Clippings
Panaji, Oct 5
The Press Council of India (PCI) today pleaded with the Centre for immediate formation of a Media Council of India and a Media Commission, encompassing all types of media, to review their status and role in the explosively emerging information era.
Interacting with media persons after concluding the last sitting of the Council in its three-year term in this Goan capital city, the PCI Chairman Justice G N Ray also favoured giving more teeth to the council not to serve as a ''penal body'' but check aberrations in the media.
He said he had already recommended powers to direct the Centre for starving the delinquent newspaper of central advertisements for at least three months as a deterrent, particularly those who fail to relent and publish adjudications of the Council prominently.
With the emergence of the electronic media in a big way during the last 41 years of existence of the PCI, the country needs to bring to its jurisdiction the electronic media also by constituting the Media Council of India with immediate effect.
Otherwise, the Government can constitute a separate regulatory body for the electronic media. There cannot be a separate rule for one media and the other in a democratic society, he said.
Referring to tendencies to control the media and the journalists through appointments by way of contract jobs and other restrictions by the owners in this era of ''trivialisation, corporatisation and globalisation,'' the journalists themselves should raise their voice, he said.
The constitution of a media commission was a must to make an indepth study of the status of the media covering all types including the electronic. The last commission headed by Justice K M Mathew was constituted in 1982 which submitted its recommendations in 1984. The first was headed by Justice Rajadhyaksha in 1952.


Panaji, Oct 5
The Press council of India (PCI) in its meeting held under the Chairmanship of Justice G N Ray, over the last two days in Goa, has extolled the strong pillar of the democracy to welcome critical evaluation of its functioning to strengthen the confidence of the public in the system.

The Council made these observations during the discussions on the issue of contempt proceedings against Mid-Day before High Court of Delhi.
The Council recalled that it had only recently supported before the Parliamentary Committee the proposal ''to accept truth as a defence in any contempt proceedings against the media.''
The Council observed that even though the specific issue of Mid-Day was now pending before the Supreme Court and thus sub-judice, without entering into the merits of the case, it felt that the courts are expected to be more sensitive to the duties and functions of the press.
''Before taking any view, it may be considered whether the criticism per se undermines the functioning of the Court in the estimation of the public by demeaning the judges presiding in the law courts,'' the PCI said.
In a democratic set up all institutions are open to bonafidecritical evaluation of their functioning and such bonafide criticism in public interest only strengthens the quality of the functioning. Dignity of the court is maintained more by restraint and magnanimity, truly forming the basis of the media information has now been protected under the amended provisions of the Contempt of Court Act.
Therefore, media information based on truth and published in public interest constitutes defence in contempt proceedings. The Council reasonably expects that proper justice will be meted out to the concerned media in the appeal stated to be pending before it.
However, such publications should not be accompanied by publicity which are excessive. At the sametime, the press exercising such powers must agree to subject itself to an effective system of self regulation and public accountability to ensure fairness of conduct.
The Council expressed confidence that the Supreme Court of India,which is now seized of the matter, would give due consideration toall such aspects and its decision would give added impetus to the guarantee enshrined in article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution.



Panaji, Oct 4
Disposing a case against the New Delhi-based national daily Pioneer, the Press Council of India (PCI) today asked the media to observe journalist conduct to protect its own
credibility.
It also observed that the readers have right to know all sides of any issue of public importance, which is a natural corollary of the freedom enjoyed by the press in a democracy.
Directing the Pioneer to publish gist of its adjudication in a case filed against the paper by the Union Ministry of Finance, the PCI observed ''It is, however, not just desirable but essential that to protect its own credibility, the press regulates and guides itself by the universally accepted most basic tenets of journalistic conduct.''
The PCI, which met here today under the chairmanship of Justice G N Ray, adjudicated 55 complaints of violation of norms of journalisttic ethics and threats to the freedom of the press. Of these, 11 cases were related to threats to the press freedom and the rest violation of journalistic ethics.
Referring to the Pioneer case, the PCI said the newapaper had faulted on two counts. First, its report lacked accuracy on some counts which were material to the story and the course of
investigation.
Second, when these errors were pointed out in the rejoinder, the omission deprived the complainant an opportunity to clarify the matter and establish its bonafide before the public.
''The press has to remember that it is not a prosecutor in any investigation and should be guided by the paramount principles of a person's innocence unless the alleged offence is proved beyond doubt by independent reliable evidence.
''And therefore, even within the constraint of space, the material facts should find space in the rejoinder so that the public, as the ultimate judge of any matter, is guided by the complete and accurate facts in forming its opinion,'' the PCI observed.
In another case, the PCI advised the Maharashtra government to constitute a Press Accreditation Committee in confirmity with the Moel Rules.
Adjudicating another complaint against two Madhya Pradesh-based newspapers, the PCI found that the ''writings against the complainant officer were motivated by business considerations.''

The Press Club, Mumbai SGM-2

Exactly after one month

Unofficial draft minutes of the SGM of The Press Club, Mumbai, held at its Conference room on July 27, 2007

At the stroke of 1.30 pm – the scheduled time for the start of the Special General Body Meeting (SGM) on July 27, 2007 – President Pradeep Vijayakar stood up and adjourned the meeting for half an hour on the ground that there was no quorum.

During the intervening period, senior member M J Pandey wanted to know from the chair under what rule the latter had adjourned the SGM for half an hour. Pandey went on to add that while there was a provision under the Club’s constitution to adjourn a requisitioned SGM, there was no provision under the constitution to an SGM called by the Managing Committee (MC).

Mr Vijayakar contended that even though he was not obliged to answer the query raised by Mr Pandey given that he had already adjourned the SGM and the meeting was on at that moment. The President, however, pointed out that he had adjourned the SGM under Article 33 of the Club’s constitution.

However, Mr Pandey contested the chair’s explanation saying that Article related to adjournment with regard to the SGMs called on requisition and it did not deal with SGMs called by the MC. The President, however, sought to clarify the query raised by Mr Pandey by saying that the said Article had also not barred the chair from adjourning the meeting for lack of quorum.

Member C P Jha wondered as to how the chair had adjourned the SGM suo moto, when the accepted practice in any democratic house is that it is prerogative of the floor (ordinary members) to point out lack of quoram to the chair, if there was, and presidium was not supposed to take cognizance of lack of quorum on it’s own. Mr Jha, however, said he shall abide by ruling of the President on the issue.

Mr Jha subsequently requested the chair that he be allowed to read out his letter dated July 23, 2007, duly submitted to the President, challenging constitutional validity of convening of the SGM on the very same day of the AGM, and the SGM agenda.

Referring to a few of the objections raised by Mr Jha, the President ruled that there was nothing wrong in holding the SGM and the AGM on the same day and the Press Club had a precedent way back in 1997, when both SGM and AGM were held on the same day.

Mr Jha sought the Chair’s permission to read out his letter dated July 23,2007 for the benefit of all other members and said there were several other constitutional improprieties in the notice issued to hold the SGM. After being allowed to do so by the Chair, Mr Jha said the notice calling for the SGM was not valid as it had been signed by Mr Gurbir Singh in the capacity of Hon. Secretary – a post that is not provided for in the Constitution of the Club. The prefix `honorary' was deleted from the post of secretary in the new constitution of the Club, which came into effect from June 30, 2006. The rationale behind the deletion of the prefix `honorary' was that all the posts in the managing committee of the club were honorary and there was no specific need to add this prefix to only the post of the Secretary.

Pointing out serious legal flaws in the said notice he said it states that "….the Managing Committee of the Club, in exercise of its powers under Article 31 of the Club's Bye-Laws and Rules and Regulations, has decided to call a Special General Meeting of ordinary members on Friday, July 27, 2007 at 1.30 PM at the Press Club Conference Hall to consider the following agenda".

He said there is nothing like "Special General Meeting of ordinary members" and it should be referred to as "a Special Body Meeting of the Club".

He also wanted to know the urgency behind convening an SGM on a day where there is already an AGM and why the MC kept aside mere one hour for the SGM , that in effect was reduced to just half an hour following the adjournment, to discuss issues, which are of paramount importance and that have a bearing on the long-term interests of the Club.

Pointing out that the first item on the July 27, 2007 SGM agenda was "to consider and pass the Minutes of the Special General Meeting held on June 30, 2006", Mr Jha said it was decided in the June 30, 2006 SGM that the Constitution adopted at that meeting would be implemented "with immediate effect and that the minutes of the SGM would only be read and taken as passed at the following SGM”.

"Now, I would like to know as to why the MC is seeking 'consideration and passing' of the June 30, 2007 minutes and that too after a gap of more than one year when the elections have already taken place under the new constitution,” Mr Jha said and asked, " are we going to undo the election held under the new constitution if we take the position that minutes of the constitution making exercise are yet to be confirmed .

He also asked a ruling on whether any one had a right to confirm the minutes of the last SGM in which he or she was not present. There were very few members present in the SGM of June 30,2006 when the current constitution was adopted after voting by hands.

He also said that as per the norm, the SGM was held to consider one specific subject. But the purpose of the SGM of July 27,2007 not only violated this norm but was ridiculous and the MC deserved to be censured, since apart from the issue of minutes of deliberations of adoption of the new constitution in the SGM of June 2006, the agenda of the proposed SGM also included several items to bring out amendment in the same constitution.

How can we 'pass' the current constitution and change it too in one go?, Mr Jha asked, adding that the constitutional impropriety in calling this SGM might land us in trouble in any court of law. He said even as he had no intention to move to the court on this count, collective wisdom of the members should be utilized to initiate remedial measures.

After being asked by the President to reply to Mr Jha's objections, the Secretary claimed in the last SGM, that adopted the new constitution, no resolution was passed to delete the prefix `Honorary’ from the post of the Secretary. He did not reply at all to any of the other points raised by Mr Jha.

At a later stage, former chairman and member-secretary of the Constitutional Review Committee Mr T N Raghunatha explained that the prefix “Honorary” came to be deleted as part of the exercise to amend the Article 13(a),(b) and (c), after an elaborate discussion at the SGM held on June 30,2006. Apart from deleting prefix “honorary” to the post of Secretary, the amendments thus made to Article 13 brought about radical changes about the election process, tenure of the elected office bearers and members and imposed a restriction that the President and five other office bearers were not entitled to hold the same post for two consecutive terms. The 2006 elections were held as per the amended constitution of the Club.

Several senior members, including Mr G Vishwanath , Mr Pandey, Mr Raghunatha, Mr Ramaswamy Ommen Ninan and Sai Prasan, strongly contested the MC’s move to hold both SGM and AGM on the same day.

Taking serious exception to the chair’s contention that there was nothing wrong in holding both the meetings on the day and his citing a 1997 precedent when the club had held both SGM and AGM on the day, Mr Vishwanath said that just because there was a precedent in the Club, it did not mean that the club could commit a mistake once again. The club in the first place should not have held SGM and AGM on the same day in the past, as it amounted to impropriety.

Mr Vishwanath recalled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was faced with a similar situation some years ago. On its part, BCCI went by the book and chose not hold AGM and SGM on the same day. Considering that it was governed by the Societies Registration Act 1860, the Club could not do anything that violated the rules stipulated there in.

Members, including Pandey and Ramaswamy, also objected to the MC scheduling AGM – besides clubbing it with SGM – on a Friday instead of a Saturday during a non-election year. Work-wise, Saturday would have been a lean day, they said. Some members also alluded to the market crash on that day and said that the MC should have been prudent enough to bear in mind the interests of the professional journalists.

Alluding to the fact that SGM had been called to pass amendments and a resolution facilitating the MC to obtain a bank loan to the tune of Rs 50 lakh for club redevelopment purpose, Mr Ninan said that the FD's were the only cash reserves left with the club and mortgaging them to obtain loan would land the club in major problems in the years to come. Even as Mr Ninan was elaborating on his views, the President – apparently prompted by the Secretary seated next to him -- objected to certain made by the former and warned that the chair might debar him from taking part in the deliberations, if the former persisted in a similar manner. Mr Ninan, however, struck to his points and said the current elected body was not running the club democratically and it was making all-out efforts to choke the dissenting voices.

Mr Prasan wanted to know as to why the draft minutes of the last SGM were not circulated among the members within 90 days as per the norm, and why the members were not taken into confidence before the club building was demolished for undertaking the re-development work.

Suggesting an amendment in the draft minutes of the SGM held on June 30,2006, Mr Raghunatha called for incorporation of a major change made in the Article 13 of the Constitution that prohibited the President and five other office bearers from holding the same post for two consecutive terms, in the said minutes.

Meanwhile, at around 2.30 pm, the scheduled time for the start of the AGM that was to follow the SGM, the President announced that the AGM 'stands' adjourned and it shall now commence after half an hour of completion of the 'ongoing' SGM. Many members wondered as to how the President could “adjourn” the AGM when it had not even begun yet and that too in the midst of `ongoing’ SGM.

The chair’s sudden announcement to “adjourn” the AGM caused considerable confusion among the members present. Several members simultaneously sought clarifications from the chair in this regard. In the din that followed, not much was heard. However, on his part, the President made no effort – even after the din subsided – to clarify as to how he could “adjourn” an AGM when it was not in session and that too in midst of an ongoing SGM. This was despite serious objections taken by members to the chair “adjourning” AGM.

Subsequently, Mr Pandey wanted to know under what statue that the Press Club, Mumbai, had been registered – whether the Societies Registration Act or the Public Trusts Act, whether the amendments adopted in the Club’s constitution on June 30,2006 had been formally brought to the notice of the authorities concerned and whether the Secretary would take upon himself to say that legal provisions had been followed while convening both SGM and AGM on the same day.

The Secretary said that the Club had been registered under the Societies Registration Act and effort made in 1990s to register under the Public Trusts Act did not fructify and that he said that the club had not committed anything wrong by convening both SGM and AGM on the same day.

The Secretary was, however, evasive on whether the Club had formally brought to the notice of the authorities concerned the amendments carried out in the Club’s constitution on June 30,2006 and obtained a certified copy of the amended constitution.

Refusing to read out the draft minutes of the last SGM, the Secretary said that they be treated as read. While he agreed to carry out the amendments suggested by the members, the Secretary put to vote the said draft minutes and it was taken as passed by voice vote.

With the first item on the SGM i.e., passing the minutes of the SGM held on June 30,2006 over, the SGM moved to the next item on the agenda. Instead of sticking to the issues listed under item two of the SGM agenda, the Secretary chose to hit out at some forces “who were out to create road blocks for the club undertaking the club re-development work”. Without naming the forces/people behind the said blocking exercise, the Secretary charged that some people had written letters to the bankers requesting them against granting loans to the club. He went on to add:

"They even bribed a clerk of Mumbai Collector office to obtain a stop-work order , We had to run from pillar to post to obtain NOC's and counter as many as three RTI case", the Secretary claimed and expressed confidence that that re-developed club would be thrown open to members by Diwali this year.

Seeking to justify the need to bring about amendments in the Constitution and a sanction to pledge the Club’s Fixed Deposits (FDs) worth Rs 21.09 lakh, the Secretary said that the MC was seeking just a ' line of Credit ' to the tune of Rs 50 lakh from the bank against the FDs. He went on to explain that the club had already made provision for the expenditure that goes into the civil work involved in the redevelopment of the club and the money that was being borrowed was for interior works.

On a specific query from Mr Vishwanath and other members, the Treasurer clarified that so far no sponsorship had been received to fund the reconstruction works.

Meanwhile, veteran member and the club’s immediate past President Madhu Sathye intervened. Mr Shetye delivered a long speech, in which he resorted to emotional outburst by saying that he was recouping from s second surgery and he requested the members to support the amendments/resolution brought forth by the club’s MC so that the club was constructed in his life-time.

Senior member Suresh Nandi, who had earlier requested Mr Sathye to be precise and restrict himself to issues on the agenda, sought to know from the MC as to why 'financial closure' was not accomplished – which is a must as per established norms of any project and in the current case-- before demolishing major portion of the club building for its reconstruction. He said the Secretary Gurbir Singh being a knowledgeable business journalist should have kept this mind, while going in for reconstruction work of the club without readying the funds required for the project. He said that seeking sanction for raising funds through a bank loan at this late stage –when options are minimal – was avoidable.

Some other senior members, including Indra Kumar Jain, who is nominee of the Bombay Union Journalists (BUJ) in the MC of the Club, spoke against the haste with which the MC had chosen to demolish a major portion of the Club without being ready with necessary funds to undertake re-construction work. He, however, opined that some way had to be found to bail the club out of the mess it had landed itself in.

Mr Pandey wanted to know from the Secretary about the written agreement between the BUJ and the Club over sharing the Government leased land on which the Club stands. The Secretary affirmed that there was indeed such an agreement and the Club shall abide by it.

Mr Pandey then asked the Secretary the reason behind taking a loan at a much higher interest than the one being accrued on the FDs of the Club. He also wanted to know whether the issue had indeed been discussed by the MC, and if not, shall the Secretary put it in the minutes of the SGM being recorded by the treasurer that as the Secretary of the MC he had satisfied himself to agree to the suggestion given by the Chartered Accountant that the Club should take loan/ line of credit from the bank by amending relevant portion in the Constitution.

Amid big applause in the house, Mr. Pandey said this showed that the MC was 'inept' to tackle the situation and suggested that before deciding to take loan the club should exhaust all its options, including, judicious use of it's FDs in batches of Rs 5 lakh each. He sought to bring an amendment to the proposed amendments/resolution to the effect that the Club would first make use of the funds available to it by way of FDs, before going for a loan to be procured at a higher rate of interest.

Earlier, when the Secretary was seen raising 'point of order' during Mr Pandey's contention, Mr Jha asked a ruling from the Chair as to how the Secretary could raise or be allowed to raise a Point of Order. Mr President chose not to give any ruling on that and instead asked Mr Pandey not to 'pass strictures' against the MC by calling it inept. Mr Pandey, however, said it was his opinion and not a stricture.

After the Secretary said the MC would consider Mr. Pandey's suggestion, the President, did not allow Mr Pandey to press for his amendment. The President ruled that he had only one option and that was to put to vote the constitutional amendment and resolutions included in the agenda of the SGM.

At this stage, Mr Jha pressed for division of votes and sought a ruling from the Chair as to how would put the amendments to vote and how the votes are to be counted.

In his intervention, the Secretary remarked to Mr Jha: "You are threatening the President ". Mr Jha simply asked the President , " Mr President , am I threatening you". The President replied: "No". In his clarification, the Secretary remarked:" I meant you were approaching the President threateningly".

The President, meanwhile, asked the Secretary to out the constitution amendments to vote and directed the members to raise their hands in support of it. Then he asked those members to raise their hands who were against it.

However, even before votes against the motion could be counted, the treasurer shouted that the motion stood passed The Club manager, however , counted the hands both for and against the motion and apparently told the outcome only to the President. Even as it was claimed by the treasurer that 46 members had supported the motion and only 19 were against it, the President did not clarify the outcome.

Similarly, in voting for the resolutions contained in the agenda of the SGM, the President asked the members opposed to it to remain in the left side and those supporting it to go to right side facing the dais.

Mr Madhu Sethye , who was sitting on the first row of chairs on the left side along with Mr Jha and Mr Prasan , was seen being taken to the right side by Secretary Gurbir Singh.

At a suggestion by some members, the President asked the associate members present in the room not to vote. At least one associate member present in the House complied with the request.

However, no effort was taken to stop some 'non-bona fide' members to take part in the voting. Among those who belonged to this category was Mr. Gautam Chakraborty of the Adfactors PR who has ceased to be a journalist since May 2006.

The outcome of the voting this time was stated by the treasurer to be 50 for and 21 or 22 against the resolutions. As all of us know that under Article 40 of the Club’s constitution, any constitutional amendment can be adopted only with support of two-third majority of the members present.

On his part, the President chose not to clarify officially whether the motion amending constitutional amendments were adopted or not.

(In a lacuna of sorts, Mr Jaishankara of PTI was seen to be signing on the SGM attendance register at the Club main gate, after the actual completion of the meeting. He had signed at serial number 78. When Mr Jha asked him how could he vote without signing the quorum register, he casually said: "I could not sign earlier as the register had been taken inside")