Controversies The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2009)
[edit]
Falling Short of her Predecessor
Former Indian President Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam had set very high standards for his successor. Even before he was elected as President, Dr. Kalam was known for his illustrious past as a scientist, innovator and visionary. During his term as President, he endeared himself to people of all ages and came to be known as the 'People's President' or the humble 'President of the masses'. While in office, he constantly sought ways to transform India into a knowledge superpower using science and technology. His vision for India advocated an action plan to develop India into a knowledge superpower and into a developed nation by the year 2020.[23]
In comparison, there were several questions raised about Pratibha Patil's credibility even before she was elected as President, as her name and that of her family members figured in several financial scams and other crimes.[24][25][26][27] Even after being elected as President, Pratibha Patil is more in the news for her bungle ups and matters irrelevant to the country, than for her efficiency as Head of the Nation.
Forgetting to salute to the Indian flag at a ceremonial reception for her in Mexico,[28] having conversations with spirits of the dead,[29][30][31] insulting remarks on Indian culture and tradition,[32] and
regular, expensive, state sponsored holiday trips with more than a dozen family members.[33] At a holiday trip in the Andaman islands
, more than 400 trees were chopped to make way for a helipad for the President's chopper and another 60 trees were felled as they would block the President's view of the beach.[34]
Referring to her largely ceremonial post, President Pratibha Patil had stated that she will not be a 'rubber stamp' President[35][36] but her accomplishments so far, have not accorded her a stamp of approval from the people.[37][38]
[edit]
BJP's campaign
Since Pratibha Patil's nomination as a presidential candidate, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have highlighted her past activities and made comments as part of its political campaign against her.
BJP leader Arun Shourie authored two articles published as a booklet titled 'Does This Tainted Person Deserve to Become President of India?'.[39] Another BJP leader, Arun Jaitley, announced the launch of a website called Know Pratibha Patil, which contains various media reports and documents concerning the questionable financial dealings of both Patil and her family.[40] The campaign generated a lot of media attention on Pratibha Patil as a controversial and unworthy presidential candidate.[citation needed]
While the BJP has been trying to build a strong public opinion against her, it clarified that it was not challenging her nomination on legal grounds.[41]
[edit]
Legal challenges to candidature
An advocate Manohar Lal Sharma has filed a Public Interest Litigation before a bench of Supreme Court of India comprising Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice P K Balasubramanyan challenging her nomination for the presidential election 2007. The advocate has referred to the various allegations against Patil and her family members and sought the cancellation of her nomination papers on the ground of her being an undischarged insolvent. The petitioner raised legal and constitutional questions on whether a person declared to be an 'undischarged insolvent', for not clearing a debt to the public exchequer and others, was eligible to be elected president.[42][43]
The apex court however observed that it could not act on mere allegations, and rejected the petition at the admission stage[44] itself. The court said there was no merit in the petition as there was no document to substantiate the allegations[45] and raised doubts about the petitioners real intention adding it was more of a "private interest litigation".[46] The court ruled:“ This petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. We find no ground to interfere and exercise our jurisdiction. However, this will not prevent the petitioner from approaching appropriate authorities for redressal of his grievances.[46] ”
The advocate then approached the Election Commission of India seeking her disqualification. The Election Commission, through an order, replied:“ The question whether a person has become insolvent and whether he/she is still an undischarged insolvent has to be decided by the competent insolvency court under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, and not by the Commission. The Commission is not the appropriate forum. No action is called for on the part of the Commission on your representation.[44] ”
Following this, the advocate again approached the court and filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before a bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice R.V. Raveendran. He contended that the Election Commission had not applied its mind to the matter, and sought quashing of the commission's order.[44]
In another case a Delhi-based NGO has also filed a petition before the Delhi High Court alleging that Patil being Managing Trustee of Mumbai-based Shram Sadhana Bombay Trust, which is under the control of state government, was holding the office of profit making her ineligible to contest the President's election.[47] The High Court deferred the hearing until after election.
[edit]
Refutation
The leaders of Indian National Congress and Indian left say that these facts highlighted are a clever mixture of truth, half-truths and exaggerations.[48] They have also said that these issues have never been raised in the past while she was a deputy chairwoman of the Rajya Sabha, or during her tenure as a governor. They accused the BJP of launching a "malicious, unsubstantiated and deliberate" slanderous campaign just to damage her reputation.[49][50][51] Prime Minister Manmohan Singh defended Pratibha Patil and dismissed the charges as "mud-slinging".[52] On Monday 2 July 2007 breaking her long silence Pratibha Patil described the allegations leveled against her as "false, malicious and baseless".[53]
Prominent allegations against her that have been controversial are:
[edit]
Allegations of shielding her brother on a murder charge
Main article: Vishram Patil murder case
On June 22, 2007, Rajni Patil, a professor of Marathi in a Jalgaon college, and the widow of murdered Jalgaon congressman Vishram G Patil in a press conference claimed that her husband was murdered by Pratibha Patil's brother G.N.Patil. She accused Pratibha Patil of shielding her brother. She further said that she had written to Sonia Gandhi and President Dr A P J Abdul Kalam giving details about the allegations. Copies of her memorandum to the President on this issue were distributed to the press by Mr. Sudheendra Kulkarni, an aide of Leader of the Opposition L.K. Advani.[54][55]
On 13 July, 2007 Rajani Patil moved the Bombay High Court demanding that the CBI "interrogate" UPA's presidential candidate Pratibha Patil and her brother in connection with the case before the presidential poll. Rajni Patil's petition stated that the CBI, which was directed by the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court to probe the case in February, must question Pratibha before July 19, the date for the presidential election because she might get "presidential immunity" if she wins the poll.[56]
The lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani said that two CDs have surfaced which contain incriminating material against Patil's brother. The CDs contain footage of the elections for the district Congress presidentship in Jalgaon. Jethmalani offered to place both CDs on record, saying "These contain vital information showing the political link behind the murder." [1]
[edit]
Pratibha Women Cooperative Bank
Main article: Pratibha Mahila Sahakari Bank
Pratibha Mahila Sahakari Bank, a cooperative bank set up by Pratibha Patil in 1973 in her name, to empower women, had its license revoked in 2003 by the Reserve Bank of India for alleged financial irregularities. Among the reasons listed by the RBI for cancellation of the license was the faulty loan policy of the bank and loan interest waivers given, among others, to Pratibha Patil's relatives.[57] Pratibha Patil was one of the chairpersons of the Bank and along with a number of her relatives, was one of its directors. She is currently one of the 34 respondents in an ongoing case in the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on the subject of mismanagement of the bank and misappropriation of funds by its Managing Directors.[58][59]
In her defence, her supporters point out that she was not the founding president[60] of the bank, and that she held the job of the chairwoman for only a month and eight days.[61] They also point out that the RBI has never mentioned Patil's name in the report,[60] and the court has not charge-sheeted her.[62] Communist leader A.B. Bardhan cast doubts on the credibility of the official employees union of the bank, which has been highlighting the issue of the banks mismanagement since 2002, drawing attention to the fact that it is associated with the BMS union led by the BJP.[62]
[edit]
Sant Muktabai Cooperative Sugar Factory
Main article: Sant Muktabai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
A cooperative sugar factory - Sant Muktabai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana - of which Pratibha was a founder member, was found to be a drug trafficking ring, was declared a defaulter for failing to repay a Rs 17.5 crore (Rs 175 million) bank loan.[63] Pratibha Patil had been its chairwoman and director till she became the Governor of Rajasthan.[64] The loan was taken in 1994 when Pratibha was its chairwoman, but the factory has failed to repay the full amount. The bank sealed the factory on January 23, 2007 after issuing many reminders. This was the second occasion the mill had been sealed. Earlier, it was sealed in January 2006, but was reopened after the board of directors headed by G. N. Patil - younger brother of Pratibha Patil - requested for an opportunity to improve the performance of the mill.[65]
In 2002 the chief commissioner of central excise and customs, Pune, issued notice to the factory for evading excise duty resulting from diversion of export-oriented sugar by the factory into domestic market.
Dubbing as "malign campaign" the allegations, Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, defended Pratibha and noted that there was never any enquiry under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act against her. He also pointed out that as many as 74 mills were issued notices in December 2006, and it was "unfortunate that only one particular case has been brought up in the media". Pawar said most of the mills had failed to repay the loans because of persistent drought affecting sugarcane production, leading these mills to go sick.[66]
Nevertheless in 2007, Manohar Lal Sharma, an independent advocate, filed a public interest litigation petition in the Supreme Court alleging that Mrs Pratibha Patil was an undischarged insolvent relating to the Sant Muktabai Sugar Factory and hence disqualified to remain in the office of the presidency
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Changing of Morality ? 
Reply With Quote
