To, Ms. Margaret Sekaggya

Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders

c/o Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Palais Wilson
United Nations Office at Geneva
CH 1211 Geneva 10 

Switzerland

Email: urgent-action@ohchr.org

Dear  Ma'am,

Sub: Urgent Appeal for action - RTI Activists Arrested for protesting non-transparent appt of Chief Info Commissioner - 

Sir/Madam,

I am representing a small organisation namely "Coimbatore Human Rights Forum"  dealing  with various activities  including monitoring of violation of  Human rights  from the  State of  Tamil Nadu in India.

We are now writing to express our grave concern over reports of arrest of RTI Activists Gopalakrishnan, Siva Elango (Makkal Sakthi Katchi) and Madhav Vishnubhatta (Association for India's Development) by Chennai Police at 11.20 a.m. on the 1^st of September, 2010

 Incident

According to the information we have received, the above mentioned RTI Activists were demonstrating against the unlawful swearing-in of the former Chief Secretary K.S. Sripathy as Chief Information Commissioner without an open and transparent process. The three activists stood at the entrance to the Raj Bhavan in Chennai and held placards that read "Save RTI", "No transparency in Appointments", "Non-transparent appointment to uphold transparency??

The DMK Government had convened a meeting of the Selection Committee under RTI on 23 August, 2010. RTI activists, including Madhav, met Ms. Jayalalithaa who is both leader of the opposition and a part of the 3-person selection committee to highlight the lack of transparency in the selection process. The selection process was not preceded by a call for applications from eligible candidates, and Mr. Sripathy's name was revealed even before the Committee could meet. Ms Jayalalithaa's request for information regarding the various candidates was also not honoured. Mr. Sripathy, who is known to be close to the Chief Minister Karunanidhi, is also known for his non-transparent stance on several occasions. On one occasion, he appealed a decision of the Tamilnadu Information Commission directing his office to reveal the details regarding names of IAS officers who had disclosed their assets and those who had not. During his tenure as Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Mr. Sripathy had facilitated the exemption of the Directorate of Vigilance and anti-Corruption from the purview of the RTI Act.

"How can there be a non-transparent process to appoint the keeper of the Right to Information Act. This is cronyism at its worst and spells ill for the RTI Act's implementation in Tamilnadu," said Madhav Vishnubhatta speaking from the police vehicle.

Right to information is undeniably a human right and therefore the State Information Commission too is essentially a human rights institution. And as long it is a human rights institution, it is bound by the Paris Principles - of Independence, Defined Jurisdiction, Accessibility, Cooperation, Operational Efficiency and Accountability - adopted by United Nations Human Rights Commission as Resolution 1992/54 of 1992 and Resolution 48/134 of 1993. The principle of appointments has been expanded further in the General Observations of the International Coordination Committee on National Human Rights Institutions. Its Sub Committee on Re-Accreditation emphasizes i) a transparent selection and appointment process, ii), broad consultation throughout the process, iii) maximizing the number of potential candidates from a wide range of societal groups and iv) selecting members to serve in their own individual capacity rather than on behalf of the organization they represent. International Law today prescribes for appointments to be an open process and one where diversity and pluralism maintained.

Appeal:

Therefore we from HRD Alert - India urge you to ensure that the authorities concerned,

• Release the 3 RTI Activists immediately and unconditionally
• Take measures to ensure the physical and psychological integrity of the 3 RTI Activists
• Put an end to such arbitrary appointments like that of Mr. Sripathy, and bring in transparency into the appointment of Information Commissioners without which the RTI Act would be rendered completely meaningless

·         Ensure that all such human rights defenders can freely conduct legitimate activities promoting and protecting human rights without fear of reprisals, in accordance with the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.

Looking forward to your immediate action in this regard.

V.P.SARATHI,CHAIRPERSON,COIMBATORE HUMAN RIGHTS FORUM,23-A,GOVT.ARTS COLLEGE ROAD,COIMBATORE-641018.PHONE:0422-4394101 /FAX:0422-4377127,Mobile:098422-49605 E-mail:chrfindia@hotmail.com,WEBSITE:www.coimbatorehumanrights.org

A right and wrongs

 V. VENKATESAN

 

The RTI Act needs strengthening, but activists oppose the government's proposals as they suspect its intentions.

 
SURVIVORS OF THE Bhopal gas tragedy outside the Prime Minister's Office in New Delhi to file right to information requests regarding the civil nuclear liability Bill, on May 4.

 

AN Act is usually amended to address certain concerns that come up during its implementation. However, the beneficiaries of the Right to Information Act, 2005, oppose any amendment to the Act, because they suspect the government's intentions.

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) admitted to considering 11 amendments to the Act in a letter to the RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal in April. Among these were some key amendments aimed at strengthening the Act. One such is a proposal to amend Section 2 (dealing with definitions) to remove the difficulty in ascertaining whether a particular non-governmental organisation should be treated as public authority or not.

Another is to amend Section 4 (dealing with obligations of public authorities) so as to enlarge the scope of suo motu disclosure of information by public authorities. Many public authorities are not forthcoming with their proactive disclosure documents on certain categories of information listed under the Act. Even in those instances where some efforts have been made to put together these documents, they are not easily available except on the Internet.

As a result of this lacuna in implementation, people are forced to seek this information in writing and wait for 30 days for a reply. Those who make the requisition are charged application fees for information that the public authorities are bound to disclose proactively. In some instances, they receive information after three or four weeks. Both actions of the public authorities are against the spirit of the Act. Information disclosed proactively must be made accessible to the person who seeks it without any delay.

The government is also examining an amendment to Section 19 (dealing with appeal) to enable the constitution of the benches in the Central Information Commission (CIC). This is a welcome move, as the DoPT has, in a circular, criticised the creation of benches by the CIC, as in its view they should decide appeals and complaints in a collegium. The Delhi High Court, in a recent case, erroneously upheld this position, which is now under appeal before the Supreme Court. Observers have pointed out that when the Central and State Information Commissions hear cases in benches, they can dispose of cases before them expeditiously, whereas if they hear cases in a collegium, it may lead to a backlog of cases.

What makes RTI activists suspect these seemingly good proposals is that the government is examining them along with ominous ones. A discussion with the stakeholders on these proposals, whenever it is held, would suggest that the government may not, after all, clear the good proposals if there is no agreement on those that are likely to weaken the Act.

Thus, one of the proposals opposed by the activists is the amendment to Section 7 to avoid frivolous or vexatious requests. Section 7 deals with disposal of requests by the Public Information Officer. The definition of what constitutes frivolous or vexatious request will always be debatable.

Another proposal that has invited the wrath of the activists is the one to amend Section 8 (dealing with exemption from disclosure) to modify slightly the provision about disclosure of Cabinet papers "to ensure smooth functioning of the government and to take care of the sensitivity of the office of the Chief Justice of India". This is a sequel to the letter Justice K.G. Balakrishnan (currently Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission) wrote, before his retirement as the Chief Justice of India, to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh requesting exemption for the office of the CJI from the purview of the RTI Act. The activists questioned the propriety of the CJI in writing such a letter to the Prime Minister when the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against the Delhi High Court's judgment that the office of the CJI came under the RTI Act.

What has come as a big relief to the beneficiaries of the Act from this latest reply of the DoPT to an RTI applicant is that the government is no longer considering exempting file notings from its applicability. On October 14, 2009, at a national-level conference of Information Commissioners convened by the DoPT behind closed doors, the department sought their approval for amending the Act to exclude "information regarding discussions/consultations that take place before arriving at a decision in a public authority", a euphemism for "file notings".

MEMBERS OF THE National Campaign for People's Right to Information staging a dharna against amendments to the RTI Act. A file photograph.

 

Office procedure manuals require all government officers involved in the chain of decision-making on any matter to record their opinion, advice and words of caution in the file concerned. These are called file notings – essentially they are a record of the consultation and discussions that must necessarily be held before any decision is made or action is planned by a public authority.

As the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) has suggested in a study, citizens must have the right to hold public functionaries accountable for tendering ill-considered or unlawful advice or advice that is intended to benefit vested interests. This will be possible only if people have access to all information about the decision-making process. If the category of discussions and consultations is excluded, the primary objective of the RTI Act, namely, enabling citizens to hold the government and its instrumentalities accountable, will become impossible to attain. Transparency in the details of the decision-making process will ensure that officials tender only such opinion and recommendations that have a basis in law, are in tune with established norms, and are defensible when questioned.

Following intense opposition from the Information Commissioners, the CIC and civil society, the DoPT appears to have tentatively abandoned the proposal. The DoPT apparently thinks information regarding who gave what opinion or advice in a decision-making process has no relevance to the general public. It is claimed that disclosure of such information will hamper the free flow of thought among officers. Activists, therefore, wonder whether the DoPT's latest proposal to deny information to frivolous and vexatious petitioners is aimed at refusing disclosure of file notings without actually calling it so.

Another proposal under the government's consideration is to amend Section 24 to incorporate a provision about partial exemption of organisations possessing "sensitive information". Section 24, at present, only says the Act shall not apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule of the Constitution, and that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded. The expression "sensitive information", therefore, has given rise to misgivings about the government's intentions. The Second Schedule currently includes 22 organisations.

According to the CHRI, the DoPT has announced its intention to review this list and pull out the following organisations: the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Directorate of Enforcement, the Narcotics Control Bureau, the Special Frontier Force, the Border Security Force, the Central Reserve Police Force, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police, the Central Industrial Security Force and the Assam Rifles. The CHRI has welcomed the proposal to remove these entities from the Second Schedule, as this blanket exclusion is against the principle of maximum disclosure that underpins the Act. According to the CHRI, this withdrawal of names of organisations from the Second Schedule does not require an amendment of the RTI Act. It can be accomplished by a simple gazette notification, which the government can place before Parliament later for approval.

The CHRI has suggested that there is a strong case for removing all such organisations from the list. The sensitive information held by such organisations is adequately protected by the exemptions provided under Section 8(1) of the Act as is the case with any other public authority. There is no reason why non-sensitive information about their appointed functions must also be excluded from public authority, the CHRI says.

There are other lacunae in the Act, which have so far not caught the government's attention. The RTI Act and the Rules made under it do not specify a time limit for Information Commissioners to dispose of appeals and complaints. A time limit will ensure that there is no accumulation of cases.

The CHRI has proposed that all Information Commissioners should lay down for themselves a maximum time limit within which to dispose of appeals and complaints and this time limit must be disclosed proactively (for example, at least 90 per cent of the cases must be disposed of within three months).

Section 26 makes the government duty-bound to organise educational programmes with particular emphasis on disadvantaged communities. The CHRI has proposed that the Central and State governments must incorporate public education and training of officers with regard to the RTI as an important component of their regular work in all departments. It has urged all governments to allocate adequate resources for conducting public education programmes and training officers and employees of all public authorities.

A study has found that awareness about the Act in rural areas is much less than in urban areas; awareness among women is much less than among men; and the gap in implementation of the Act is because of the absence of accountability in respect of various functionaries. The CHRI has suggested that these are the result of non-compliance with the obligations under Section 26. The governments have not even allocated adequate resources for public education in their budgets even though Section 26 says disadvantaged communities must be the focus of the government's public education efforts, the CHRI has pointed out.

- courtesy: 'Frontline'

Damages for road deaths without deciding on guilty

In two judgments last week, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that in road accidents, insurance companies should pay compensation under the 'no-fault liability' clause in the Motor Vehicles Act irrespective of the circumstances of the deaths. In one appeal, Indra Devi vs Bagada Ram, the death was invited by the negligence of the deceased driver himself. The Rajasthan HC asked the recipients of the compensation to return the amount with interest to New India Assurance Co as the claimants were not entitled to the amount. The SC set aside the high court order and asserted the 'no-fault liability' under Section 140 of the Act did not depend upon the conduct of the driver or the victim. In the second case, Eshwarappa vs CS Gurushanthappa, the drunk driver and his four friends died while rashly driving to a temple without informing the car owner. The accidents tribunal denied any compensation. However, the SC ruled even in such cases, 'no-fault liability' cannot be avoided.

Pre-deposit of half the loan must before hearing appeal
Banks are trustees of public funds and they have a duty to recover debts by adopting all legally permissible methods, the SC stated while setting aside the judgment of the Madras high court in the case, Indian Bank vs Blue Jaggers Estates Ltd. According to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, the debtor must deposit half the amount claimed to be due before the tribunal hears his appeal against sale of securities. In this case, the securities were sold for Rs 5 crore. The debtor argued since the amount recovered by the sale was more than half the dues, there was no need to deposit more for moving the appeal before the tribunal. The high court agreed. However, the SC allowed the appeal of the bank stating the amount recovered by the sale would not absolve the debtor from depositing 50 per cent of the claim, especially when the tribunal had not determined the exact amount due from the debtor.

Criminal case quashed
The SC has set aside the judgment of the Karnataka high court and quashed criminal cases against a former director of RPS Benefit Fund Ltd, a company which invited deposits from the public and failed to return the money (MAA Annamalai vs State of Karnataka). The company was wound up by the court, following which cheating cases were filed against the directors and the company by the depositors. The high court allowed the prosecution of the ex-director to go on, though he had pleaded that he had resigned before the winding up of the company. The SC quashed the high court order.

Labour court to decide on 'worker'
The SC has overruled the Allahabad high court in the case, Triveni Engineering & Industries vs Jaswant Singh, and declared that the question whether a person was a worker should be decided by a labour court or industrial court and not by the labour commissioner. The employee was transferred to another unit, but he did not go, protesting that he could not be transferred under the standing orders. The company denied that he was its worker. The high court asked the labour commissioner to decide the issue. On appeal, the SC held that the high court order was wrong.

State to decide on trade unions
Deciding a dispute between two rival trade unions in Tata Memorial Hospital Centre for recognition, the SC has held that the state government was the appropriate authority under the Maharashtra Recognition of TUs and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act.

It overruled the Bombay high court which had held that the central government was the appropriate authority to take action in industrial disputes. The SC pointed out that the hospital and centre were independent of the central government, and therefore the state government was the proper authority.

Voltage stabilisers, electronic goods
The SC has held that voltage stabilisers are electronic items and therefore attracted lesser sales tax. Dismissing a batch of appeals from Uttar Pradesh, Commissioner of Trade Tax vs Parikh Gramodyog Sansthan, the court ruled that stabilisers are not electric goods. A voltage stabiliser might have many components some of which use electricity. That cannot be the sole reason for classifying it as an electrical item, the judgment said.

CREDIT CARD ONLINE LEGAL SERVICES IN INDIA

 

Many people think that the modern day economics makes one indispensable to use credit card services offered by the banking and other institutions. Well, the values of the yester-years have not withstood the challenges of modern era. From the notion that indebtedness is bad and should be avoided, many people have started displaying their credit cards as their social status!

 

Since the credit card system encourages one to borrow money or buy goods (whether it is a necessity or not) for loan without bothering about his ability to repay it, millions of people have fallen prey to the consumerist culture and into a debt-trap.

 

News reports show that hundreds of people have been driven to suicides because they could not withstand the ignominy of the filthy languages and strong-arm tactics adopted by the muscle men masquerading as "recovery agents" of these banks.

 

Well again, these unfortunate souls were not without any legal remedy. VPS LAW FIRM, has provided great mental relief and sense of security to hundreds of its clients by providing legal solutions to their credit card problems. It has obtained successful court orders against the illegal recovery procedures adopted by the banks in India.   

                                ARREST OF HR DEFENDERS IN TAMIL NADU

As part of a Human Rights Training program conducted by the Madurai-based NGO 'People's Watch', one of the fact finding teams consisting of Mr.Gnana Diraviam (40) S/o Saminathan of Poonganagar, Thirupuvanam, Sivagangai
District, (2) Mr. Anandan (25) S/o Palani of Anbu Nagar, Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District (3) Ms. Bharathi Pillai (26) D/o Thanu of 6, Vallabai
Road, Chockikulam, Madurai District, (4) Ms. Niharga Priya (28) D/o
Sitharamiah of Tumkur District, Karnataka State and (5) Ms. Sudha (22) D/o
Thamalammal of Davengere District, Karnataka State visited Veeravanallur on
the basis of information received about the tortured Suresh, a dalit youth
from Veeravanallur, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District by the police
officials of Veeravanallur Police Station. The above fact finding team then
proceeded  to Veeravanallur PS at about 06.30 PM to obtain the statement of
the police officials. At that time, the Sub Inspector of Police was not
available in the PS. This information was received through the writer in the
PS. The fact finding team then obtained the telephone number of  the Sub
Inspector and walking out of the PS. At that time, another woman  Sub
Inspector, Ms. Ms. P. Roswin Savimo, was coming towards the PS. She
immediately recognized Mr. Gnana Diraviam, one of the members of the fact
finding team who was known to her earlier during her tenure in the
Thirupavanam PS near Madurai but located in Sivagangai District where Mr.
Gnana Dirvaviam also works on the human rights field. So he went into the PS
accompanied by the other members of the fact finding team into the Sub
Inspector's room. The woman Sub Inspector immediately invited all the team
members - due to her acquaintance with Mr. Gnana Diraviam to also have a
coffee with her and ordered the Constable in the station to go and buy the
coffee. It took a long time for the Constable who went to return since the
coffee shop is located almost a kilometer away and while they were waiting
for the coffee to arrive the, Mr. T. Murugesan, the Inspector of Police of
Mukudal PS and in-charge of Veeravanallur PS at that time arrived to the PS.
On seeing the team sitting with the woman Sub Inspector of Police he called
the members of the fact finding team who exactly they were. The fact finding
team shared with them in detail and told them about their training program
and the fact that they were on a field visit to learn skills in human rights
fact finding and that they had visited the PS only to receive the versions
of the police in this case of torture of Suresh by the police constables,
Murugan and Kaliappan.  The Inspector of Police then started gradually
addressing  the fact finding team in the singular and threatened them to
produce their I. D. cards. The members of the fact finding team replied to
him politely and explained to him totally unaware of any hidden design in
the Inspector's statement. They told him about Dalit  Foundation and its
national level training program. They told him about the fact finding work
related to the training program and gave him the training manual that had
been used for the training program which was in two volumes and contained
pages in all. Incidentally the training manual also contained in each volume
at the back cover the details of Dalit Foundation and People's Watch - with
their complete addresses and communication details. A copy of the front
page, content page and the back cover page of both the volumes of the manual
have been enclosed along with this report as Appendix III.    

          As the Inspector of Police was questioning the members of the fact
finding team and also reading in detail the training manual , he also went
out of his room no a few occasions to make and receive phone calls. But the
members of the fact finding team did not smell any trouble ahead for them
during this entire hour or so of his interaction with him. They did not even
suspect that this was a tactical delay effort on the part of the Inspector
of police and genuinely believed that he was only verifying their details .

          It was only about 9.30 PM that Mr. Ramu, the  Deputy
Superintendent of Police of Ambasamuthram arrived and then the team members
started feeling  that the attitude of the police was gradually changing.
They were asked to move into another room where there were chairs put for
each of them and without their immediate knowledge they found that there
were about three constables placed sitting outside  that room guarding them
from outside. It is at this stage that the women members of the team then
got up and told the DSP that they would prefer to leave now since they had
waited for a very long time for the information related to the case of
torture of Suresh and they were even willing to come the following day if
they were willing to give any information  to them. It is at this stage that
the DSP spoke rudely to them stating that this was a government office and
that they could come and go whenever they wanted and that they had to remain
there since they had to be enquired thoroughly. It is then that the members
of the team then started suspecting that there was something fishy taking
place and called Mr. Pandian one of the Program Assistants assisting in the
training program. Seeing Diraviam make this call, the Inspector of police
then started seizing the mobile phones from the fact finding team members.
The Inspector of Police then also started treating them indecently. They
kept all the women and men human rights defenders in the police station up
to 11.00 pm. while the police were engaged in taking each of them to a
separate room to get their identification marks.  

          The police then foisted a false cases under Crime No 161/2010 of
Veeravanallur PS Under Section 170, 353, 416 and  506(i) of the Indian Penal
Code.

Section 170. Personating a public servant

Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing
that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person
holding such office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do
any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine,
or with both.

Section 353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from
discharge of his duty

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant
in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to
prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public
servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such
person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 416. Cheating by personation

A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be
some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or
representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such
other person really is.

Explanation. -The offence is committed whether the individual personated is
a real or imaginary person.

Section 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation

Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.: -And if the threat be to
cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by
fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for
life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or
to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine,
or with both.

Having received information from Diraviam at about 9.45 PM that they were
being detained, the Program Assistant of the training Mr. Pandian
immediately informed this to Mr. Henri Tiphagne who was actually traveling
back in his car from Nagercoil after a meeting  of  Persons with
Disabilities that he had addressed there that evening and earlier in the day
a meeting on human rights at the St. Xavier's College, Palayamkottai. All
efforts that were made by Mr. Pandian and Mr. Henri Tiphagne and the staff
of the Tamilnadu unit of People's Watch to contact the Veeravanalur Police
station or the Inspector of  Police Veeravanallur or  the Superintendent of
Police of Tirunelveli turned totally useless with all of them either
refusing to pick up calls , or picking up calls and then shutting them off
abruptly. The team members in custody were never told that they were being
arrested, they were never shared at any time in the PS what was the case
that was being hoisted on them; they were never told who had preferred a
complaint against them etc. Thus the ' arrest' and their 'remand' were all
totally contrary to the provisions the DK Basu guidelines of the Supreme
Court of India which mandated that every person who was arrested was
informed at the time of his / her arrest the reason of the arrest etc.    

          It was only Mr. S. Ganesan the Regional Human Rights Co-ordinator
of People's Watch from Tirunelvei who then traveled to Veeravanallur only to
be informed that the accused had by then been transported to Cheranmahadevi,
to the house of the Judicial Magistrate for being remanded to judicial
custody.  As Mr. S. Ganesan was leaving Tirunelveli to Veeravanallur, he had
also asked one of the members of the CHRM unit of People's Watch in
Veravanallur, Mr. Chithirai Selvan  to go to the Veeravanallur PS  and meet
the fact finding team members in custody at the PS  to find out exactly what
had happened to them since there was no phone or mobile communication
possible with the PS or the team members or for that matter any superior
authority. When this CHRM member from Veeravanallur unit of the CHRM reached
the PS, the Inspector of Police immediately also took him inside  the PS but
did not allow him to meet the 'accused'. Instead the police made him sign
some papers in the PS without telling him what exactly they were and then
asked him to get out of the PS immediately.

          The team members were then taken by Inspector of Police,
accompanied by Sub Inspector Mr. Murugan ( one of the 'perpetrators' who had
allegedly tortured Suresh and remanded him to judicial custody - the case
that the team had actually come to enquire ) the Woman Sub Inspector of
Police in a TATA Sumo vehicle and produced before the Judicial Magistrate in
his house at about 11.45 PM. One of the 'accused', Bharathi Pillai then
explained in detail for over 20 minutes what exactly had happened to them
and also that they were totally unaware of what the case registered against
them was. It was only when the Judicial Magistrate read out to them the
complaint that had been registered against them and the provisions of the
IPC under which they were being remanded that did the 'accused' understand
that the complainant in the case was none other than the woman  Sub
Inspector of police who had initially ordered the coffee that they never
found the time after the arrival of the Inspector of Police to the PS. When
the Judicial Magistrate read the complaint  in the FIR, the Sub Inspector of
Police who was also  present there put her head down in shame indicating for
the first time to the 'accused' that she had been doing this totally against
her will and upon the instructions of her superior officers. From there they
were then taken to the hospital for medical examination and finally the
three women activists were sent to the Kokarakulam Women Sub Jail in
Tirunelveli while the two men were taken to the Ambasamuthram  Sub Jail.
They were remanded finally only  at about 2 AM or so.  

The copy of the complaint in Crime No 161 / 2010 of Veeravanallur PS is as
follows :    

From

          Ms. P. Roswin Savimo

          Sub Inspector of Police

          Veeravanallur Police Station.

To

          The Inspector of Police

          Mukkoodal Police Station.

Sir,

          I am working as a Sub Inspector Police in Veeravanallur Police
Station (PS). At 08.00 PM on 15-08-2010 (Today) I was on duty. At that time,
the following persons whose names and addresses I have been obtained later,
entered into the PS without any government order or prior notice. They are
(1) Gnana Diraviam (40) S/o Saminathan of Poonganagar, Thirupuvanam,
Sivagangai District, (2) Anandan (25) S/o Palani of Anbu Nagar, Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District (3) Bharathi (26) D/o Thanu of Vallabai Road,
Chockikulam, Madurai District, (4) Niharga Priya (28) D/o Sitharamiah of
Tumkur District, Karnataka State and (5) Sudha (22) D/o Thamalammal of
Davengere District, Karnataka State. They told me that they were coming from
a human rights organization with a government order but came to the police
station without any order from the government or prior intimation and stated
that they wanted to enquire me. Moreover they told me that the police had
registered a case under the goondas act against Suresh of Kottai Vasal
Street, Veeravanallur. They also wanted the documents related to this
incident. They had not produced any I.D.cards, but they told me that they
were government employees. They demanded from me in a threatening voice to
produce the documents related to the cases in the police station. I asked
all of them to show me their I.D. cards. They told me that they were not
having I.D.cards. They did not allow me to carry on with duties and they
threatened me about my non-reply for their query. They continued
threatening me. When I asked them about their identity, they did not reply
to me correctly. They gave me their wrong addresses for  each person. It was
only then later that  they gave me their correct addresses. Hence, when I
was on duty in Veeravanallur PS, these five persons entered into the PS  and
came to my room without any prior notice. They obstructed me from doing my
duties. They did not show me their I.D.cards. Although they were not
government employees, they impersonated as government employees and
threatened me stating that we were arresting several persons under the
Preventive Detention Act and torturing them in the PS. I request you to take
suitable action against them. More over, they have told me that they had
come here only under the instructions of Mr. Henri Tiphagne of Madurai.

                                                Remand Report

As per the instructions of the absconding accused Henri Tiphagne, the five
accused came into the police station without any prior permission and not
obtaining permission from  the sentry, Naranayan, 552, Head Constable. They
entered into the room of lady sub inspector and told that they were
government employees. ........

Cr.161/10 of Veeravanallur Police Station

The Accused:

1.    Gnana Thiraviam, 40/10, S/o Saminathan, 1/5C, Poonganagar,
Thirupuvanam,

2.    Bharathi, 26/10, D/o Thanu, No.6, Vallabai Road,

Chockikulam, Madurai District.

3.    Anandan, 25/10, S/o Palani, 102, Anbu Nagar,

Manamadurai.

4.    Nisharkapriya, 23/10, D/o Sitharamiah, Tumkur District,

Karnataka.

5.    Sudha, 22/10, D/o Thamalammal, Davankere District,

Camp at Madurai.

          We wish further to state that a detailed statement of what exactly
happened in the Police station has been requested from the accused in
judicial custody and as soon as that is obtained shall also be forwarded.
Bail was moved on their behalf yesterday by advocates of People's Watch
before the Judicial Magistrate Cheranmadevi and notice has been issued to
the Police to respond since this is a non bailable case. It will come up
again for hearing on the 18th morning for hearing after which only we will
know if bail will be granted or not.  

          We wish to bring to your kind attention that this is clear case of
human rights defenders who were under going a human rights education
training as dalit human rights activists who were falsely charged and
illegally arrested and remanded to judicial custody for no fault  of  theirs
at all. The NHRC had issued guidelines on arrest and the same are enclosed
as Appendix IV.

          The guidelines clearly read as follows :

Ø Arrest in cognizable cases may be considered justified in one or other of
the following circumstances :

(i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape
etc. and it is necessary to arrest the suspect to prevent him from escaping
or evading the process of law.

(ii) The suspect is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit
further offences.

(iii) The suspect requires to be prevented from destroying evidence or
interfering with witnesses or warning other suspects who have not yet been
arrested.

(iv) The suspect is a habitual offender who, unless arrested, is likely to
commit similar or further offences. [3rd Report of National Police
Commission]

Ø Except in heinous offences, as mentioned above, an arrest must be avoided
if a police officer issues notice to the person to attend the police station
and not leave the station without permission. ( Joginder Kumar's case (1994)
SCC 260).

Ø The power to arrest must be avoided where the offences are bailable unless
there is a strong apprehension of the suspect absconding .

          We also wish to state the above guidelines have not been followed
in this case since there was no reason for arrest of the team members. This
is a clear case of the police arresting the human rights defenders  on a
totally false complaint from the woman SI of the PS only because they dared
enquire the case of torture by the serving Sub Inspector  of the same police
station, Mr. Murugan in a fact finding. The complaint of impersonation is
totally false because that did not take place at all. Arrest has not been
called for at all in this case, let alone any criminal act on the part of
the HRDs.          

          We also wish to state that the urgent appeal or action at your end
should be forwarded to the following authorities :  

1

 Justice Shri K.G. Balakrishnan

Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission,

Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001,India

Tel.No. 23384012 Fax No. 23384863   <mailto:covdnhrc@nic.in> covdnhrc@nic.in

 <mailto:ionhrc@nic.in> ionhrc@nic.in

2

The Chairperson, State Human Rights Commission,

"Thiruvarangam", 143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,

(Greenways Salai), Chennai 600 008

Phone : 91-44-2495 1484 Fax : 91-44-2495 1484

shrc@tn.nic.in  

3

Dr. Kalaignar M Karunanidhi,  Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu

Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009

91-44-25665566,  <mailto:cmcell@tn.gov.in> cmcell@tn.gov.in

4

Ms. Latika Saran I.P.S., Director General of Police

Office of the DGP, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore,

Chennai 600 004. letika@vsnl.com

Ph: 044-2844 7777, 2844 7755, Mobile : 9444077553

5

Mr. K.P. Shanmuga Rajeswaran IPS,

Deputy Inspector General of Police, O/o The DIG,

Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli. Tamilnadu

Phone: 0462-2568031, Mobile: 9442128584

6

Mr. Ashraf Garg IPS,

Superintendent of Police,

O/o The Superintendent of Police,

Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu

Phone: 0462-2568020, Mobile: 9445300002

                                            DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY IN INDIA IN THE YEAR 1975

April 28^th 1976 is remembered as a black day in the history of Indian democracy. The very foundations of democracy were murdered on this day when the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in A.D.M Jabalpur Vs Shukla .The decision of   Supreme Court in A.D.M.Jabalpuer Vs shukla had greatly disappointed the Indians who loved the pledges of justice and liberty incorporated in the preamble of our constitution.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The germs of this case were to be found in the election of Mrs Indira Gandhi (the then prime minster of India) which had been held to be invalid by the Allahabad High Court. In her desire to stick to the chair of prime minster she chose to declare a national emergency on 25^th June 1975 on the ground of 'internal threat' to the security of India. As a result of the emergency censorship was imposed on the press on 25^th June 1975 itself.  On 5^th August 1975, Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) was approved by the parliament and a number of opposition leaders were detained under this law. Any person who was considered to be a political threat or who could raise the voice of opposition was detained without trial under the MISA. According to Amnesty International, 1, 40,000 persons were arrested without trial during the emergency period. Many of the detained persons challenged their arrest through writs before the High Courts under Article 226 of the constitution of India. As a result of these writs the state governments in many of the High court's raised the issue that , whether such writs were maintainable on the ground that under the presidential order declaring emergency the right to file such writ was taken away. All the High court's declared that despite the suspension of fundamental right of a detained person , he could show that his detention was not in accordance with the law under which he was detained or that there was a mistake of identity.

The government being unsatisfied with this decision appealed to the Supreme Court and thus the most controversial case of A.D.M Jabalpur Vs Shukla came before the Supreme Court for hearing.

The then attorney general Niren De contended that the writ petitions would necessarily be dismissed since the right to move any court had been suspended and the detenue had no locus standi.

ISSUE

The main issue before the Supreme Court in this case was:-

Whether the high courts can entertain a writ of habeas corpus filed by a person challenging his detention, during the emergency period?

DECISION OF SUPREME COURT

"In view of the presidential order dated 27^th June 1975 no person has any locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a high court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention on the ground that the order is not under or in compliance with the Act or is illegal or is vitiated by mala fides factual or legal or is based on extraneous grounds".

This was the judgment delivered by four senior, most judges of the Supreme Court including chief justice A.N.Ray. The dissenting judgment was that of justice H.R.Khanna. His contentions were opposed to that of the majority judgment. Justice Khanna made a significant quote in his judgment which runs as follows:-

"As observed by C.J, Huges , judges were not there simply to decide cases , but to decide them as they think they should be decided , and while it may be regrettable that they cannot always agree , it is better that their independence should be maintained and recognized than that unanimity should be secured through its sacrifice. A dissent in a court of last resort, to use his words, is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed".

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The chief reason behind the filing of this writ petition was the political unrest during that period. Opponents had long made allegations that the congress party had taken recourse to electoral frauds to win the 1971 election. Cases of election fraud and misuse of state machinery for election purposes were lodged in the Allahabad High Court against Indira Gandhi by Raj Narain who had been defeated in the parliamentary election by Indira Gandhi. The Allahabad High Court in its judgment declared Indira Gandhi's election as void and also unseated her from the Lok Sabha. This decision in course of time became the primary reason for the imposition of the 1975 emergency.

On 26th sept.  1975, the 39th amendment to the constitution was made so as to place the election of prime minster beyond the judicial scrutiny. This was an intelligent step by Indira Gandhi to safeguard her seat.

A close study of the facts behind the filing of this writ petition reveals that it was in fact a case for assertion of political powers by one party over the other.

Further during 1975, another National emergency was also in operation on the ground of war with Pakistan. But before the imposition of national emergency on 1975 an amendment was made and a new provision was added in the constitution which provided for imposition of more than one national emergency under Article 352 at the same time. This was done to overcome any legal difficulty which may arise from the simultaneous operation of two national emergencies at the same time. This was in fact another intelligent step by Mrs  Indira Gandhi to legalize the imposition of 1975 emergency.  

As a matter of fact it is evident that the majority judgment of Supreme Court in A.D.M. Jabalpur Vs Shukla is to a great extent influenced by the political circumstances prevailing at that time. The supreme court even refused to follow the ruling in Makhan Singh Vs state of Punjab (1964) wherein the supreme court had pointed out that if a detenue challenged his detention on the ground that it violated statutory provision or the detention is vitiated by mala fides the challenge could not be barred because of the presidential order under Article 359(1),

However, the lone dissenting voice of justice Khanna was paid due respect in the year 1978 when the constitution 44^th amendment Act was passed. Justice Khanna had paid the price for his dissent .He was supposed to be the next chief justice of India but unfortunately he had to resign before he could become the chief justice of India.

Before the 44^th amendment the national emergency provision under Article 352(1) was as follows:-  'the president can proclaim emergency when he is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India or any part of the territory  thereof  is threatened by (a) war; or(b)  external aggression; or (c) internal disturbances'

The words "internal disturbances" was in fact responsible for the successful imposition of the 1975 emergency. The words "internal disturbance" is a vague one and it is difficult to ascertain the situations covered under this words. However the 44^th amendment to the constitution has substituted the words "armed rebellion" for the words "internal disturbances" and thereby narrowed the scope of emergency situations.

The constitution 44^th amendment Act has a great significance in the Indian legal history. It has made the proclamation of emergency under Article 352(1) so complex that after 1975 no emergency has been proclaimed till today under Article 352(1). The 44^th amendment has placed a number of significant safeguards to check the misuse of Article 352(1) in future.

Thus in conclusion it is clear that the 1975 national emergency was a pre-planned drama of the Indira Gandhi govt. in order to secure certain political objectives.

Handcuffing of under trials and convicts - Not permissible - The law laid down by Supreme Court of India

Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the police chiefs of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh to ensure that no undertrial is handcuffed without the prior permission of the court. The Bench also directed all judicial magistrates in the two states and the Union Territory to verify from each and every undertrial produced before them whether they had been handcuffed by the police or not.

Legal experts say in at least three oft-quoted judgments, the Supreme Court has ordered that handcuffing of undertrials is a strict no-no.

In its judgment dated August 30, 1978 in Sunil Batra versus Delhi Administration and others, a five-judge Bench of the apex court ruled that fetters, especially bar fetters, would be shunned as it violates human dignity, both within and outside prisons. "The indiscriminate resort to handcuffs when accused persons are taken to and from court and the expedient of forcing irons on prison inmates are illegal and shall be stopped forthwith save in a small category of cases where an undertrial has a credible tendency for violence and escape, a humanely graduated degree of iron restraint is permissible if other disciplinary alternative are unworkable," the court ruled.

In case the investigating agency feels that the undertrial has a credible tendency for violence and escape, it has to convince the court in this regard. In successive judgments, the courts have held that handcuffing and chaining in public degrades and puts to shame finer sensibilities and is a slur on Indian culture.

Going a step further, the SC in its 1995-judgment in Citizens for Democracy versus State of Assam and others ruled that in cases where the police or prison authorities are convinced that a particular prisoner is likely to jump bail or flee from custody, the prisoner has to be produced before the magistrate concerned and a prayer for permission to handcuff him has to be made.

The judgment says in rare cases where proof is available to establish the prisoner's tendency to escape or indulge in violence and on the finding that no practical way of forbidding escape is available, the magistrate may grant permission to handcuff the prisoner

What happens if the police officer doesn't follow the guidelines? Apart from disciplinary action by the department, he is liable to be hauled up for contempt of court.

In yet another judgment in Prem Shankar Shukla case (1980), the Supreme Court, while denouncing handcuffing of prisoners, observed: "Insurance against escape does not compulsorily require handcuffing."

1995-(SC2)-GJX -0574 -SC

Citizens For Democracy Through Its President Petitioner V. State Of Assam And Others,

Respondents.

DATE : 01-05-1995

EQUIVALENT CITATION(S) :

1995-(002)-SCJ -0308 -SC

1995-(002)-UJ -0431 -SC

1995-(003)-SCC -0743 -SC

1995-(003)-Scale -0098 -SC

1996-(083)-AIR -2193 -SC

1996-(102)-CRLJ -3247 -SC

CATCHNOTE :

HEADNOTE :

Catchnote Constitution of India - Arts. 14 19 & 21 - CrPC, 1973 - Secs. 46 & 49 -

Handcuffing of under trials and convicts - Not permissible - The law laid down by

Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla's case and Sunil Batra's case and the

directions issued the Supreme Court are binding on all concerned and any violation

or circumvention shall attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act apart

from other penal consequences under law - Magistrate may grant permission to

handcuff the prisoner in rare cases - Situation and relevant consideration when

police and jail authorities handcuffing or putting prisoner under fetters inside or

outside jail - Where a person is arrested by the police without warrant the police

officer concerned may if he is satisfied, on the basis of the guidelines given above,

that it is necessary to handcuff such a person, he may do so till the time he is taken

to the police station and thereafter his production before the Magistrate - Further use

of fetters thereafter can only be under the orders of the Magistrate - Directions

issued by the Supreme Court.

Held The law laid down by Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla Case and Sunil

Batra Case and the directions issued by the Supreme Court are binding on all

concerned and any violation or circumvention shall attract the provisions of the

Contempt of Courts Act apart from other penal consequences under law. The Court

took judicial notice of the fact that the police and the jail authorities are even now

using handcuffs and other fetters indiscriminately and without any justification. If

has, therefore, become necessary to give binding directions and enforce the same

meticulously. The Supreme Court has categorically held that the relevant

consideration for putting a prisoner in fetters are the character, antecedents and

propensities of the prisoner. the peculiar and special characteristics of each individual

prisoner have to be taken into consideration. The police and the jail authorities are

under a public duty to prevent the escape of prisoners and provide them with safe

custody but at the same time the rights of the prisoners guaranteed to them under

Arts. 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be infarcted. The authorities are

justified in taking suitable measures, legally permissible, to safeguard the custody of

the prisoners, but the use of fetters purely at the whims or subjective discretion of

the authorities is not permissible. Handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a

prisoner - convicted or under trial - while lodged in a jail anywhere in the country or

while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to Court and

back. The police and the jail authorities, on their own, shall have no authority to

direct the handcuffing of any inmate of a jail in the country or during transport from

one jail to another or from jail to Court and back. Where the police or the jail

authorities have well-grounded basis for drawing a strong inference that a particular

prisoner is likely to jump jail or break out of the custody then the said prisoner be

produced before the Magistrate concerned and a prayer for permission to handcuff

the prisoner be made before the said Magistrate. Save in rare cases of concrete proof

regarding proneness of the prisoner to violence, his tendency to escape, he being so

dangerous/desperate and the finding that no practical way of forbidding escape is

2

available, the Magistrate may grant permission to handcuff the prisoner. In all the

cases where a person arrested by police, is produced before the Magistrate and

remand - judicial or non-judicial - is given by the the Magistrate the person concern

of shall not be handcuffed unless special orders in that respect are obtained from the

Magistrate at the time of the grant of the remand. When the police arrests a person

in execution of a warrant of arrest obtained from a Magistrate, the person so

arrested shall not be handcuffed unless the police has also obtained orders from the

Magistrate for the handcuffing of the person to be so arrested. Where a person is

arrested by the police without warrant the police officer concerned may if he is

satisfied, on the basis of the guidelines given above, that it is necessary to handcuff

such a person, he may do so till the time he is taken to the police station and

thereafter his production before the Magistrate. Further use of fetters thereafter can

only be under the orders of the Magistrate. Conclusion The law laid down by

Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla's Case and Sunil Batra's Case and the

directions issued by the Supreme Court are binding on all concerned and any

violation or circumvention shall attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act

apart from other penal consequences under law. Where a person is arrested by the

police without warrant the police officer concerned may if he is satisfied, on the basis

of the guidelines given above, that it is necessary to handcuff such a person, he may

do so till the time he is taken to the police station and thereafter his production

before the Magistrate. Further use of fetters thereafter can only be under the orders

of the Magistrate. Catchnote Constitution of India - Arts. 14, 19 & 21 - Handcuffing

and in addition tying with ropes of the patient-prisoners who are lodged in the

hospital is, inhuman and in utter violation of human rights guaranteed to an

individual under the international law and the law of the land - The Court directed

that the detenus in case they are still in hospital - Be relieved from the fetters and

the ropes with immediate effect.

 Copy of this judgment be sent to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs

and to all the State and Union Territory Governments through Home Secretaries.

40 Bizarre Statistics That Reveal The Horrifying Truth 
About The Collapse Of The U.S. Economy

By The Truth

15 August, 2010
Thetruthwins.com

Most Americans still appear to be operating under the delusion that the "recession" will soon pass and that things will get back to "normal" very soon. Unfortunately, that is not anywhere close to the truth. What we are now witnessing are the early stages of the complete and total breakdown of the U.S. economic system. The U.S. government, state governments, local governments, businesses and American consumers have collectively piled up debt that is equivalent to approximately 360 percent of GDP. At no point during the Great Depression (or at any other time during our history) did we ever come close to such a figure. We have piled up the biggest mountain of debt that the world has ever seen, and now that gigantic debt bubble is beginning to pop. As this house of cards comes crashing down, the economic pain is going to become almost unimaginable.

Already, things are really, really, really bad out there. Unemployment is at shockingly high levels. Foreclosures and personal bankruptcies continue to set new all-time records. Businesses are being shut down at a staggering rate, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. government continues to pile up debt at blinding speed.

There is no use sugar-coating it.  The U.S. economy is collapsing.

The following are 40 bizarre statistics that reveal the truth about the collapse of the U.S. economy....

1 - According to one shocking new survey, 28% of U.S. households have at least one member that is looking for a full-time job.

2 - A recent Pew Research survey found that 55 percent of the U.S. labor force has experienced either unemployment, a pay decrease, a reduction in hours or an involuntary move to part-time work since the recession began.

3 - There are 9.2 million Americans that are unemployed but that are not receiving an unemployment insurance check.

4 - In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.

5 - According to one analysis, the United States has lost 10.5 million jobs since 2007.

6 - China's trade surplus (much of it with the United States) climbed 140 percent in June compared to a year earlier.

7 - This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.

8 - According to a poll taken in 2009, 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck. That was up significantly from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.

9 - According to a recent poll conducted by Bloomberg, 71% of Americans say that it still feels like the economy is in a recession.

10 - Banks repossessed 269,962 U.S. homes during the second quarter of 2010, which was a new all-time record.

11 - Banks repossessed an average of 4,000 South Florida properties a month in the first half of 2010, up 83 percent from the first half of 2009.

12 - According to RealtyTrac, a total of 1.65 million U.S. properties received foreclosure filings during the first half of 2010.

13 - The Mortgage Bankers Association recently announced that demand for loans to purchase U.S. homes has sunk to a 13-year low.

14 - Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.

15 - 1.41 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009 - a 32 percent increase over 2008.

16 - Back in 1950 each retiree's Social Security benefit was paid for by 16 workers. Today, each retiree's Social Security benefit is paid for by approximately 3.3 workers. By 2025 it is projected that there will be approximately two workers for each retiree.

17 - According to a new poll, six of 10 non-retirees believe that Social Security won't be able to pay them benefits when they stop working.

18 - 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement.

19 - According to one survey, 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.

20 - According to one recent survey, 24% of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.

21 - The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index declined sharply to 52.9 in June. Most economists had expected that the figure for June would be somewhere around 62.

22 - Retail sales in the U.S. fell in June for a second month in a row.

23 - Vacancies and lease rates at U.S. shopping centers continued to get worse during the second quarter of 2010.

24 - Consumer credit in the United States has contracted during 15 of the past 16 months.

25 - During the first quarter of 2010, the total number of loans that are at least three months past due in the United States increased for the 16th consecutive quarter.

26 - Things are now so bad in California that in the region around the state capital, Sacramento, there is now one closed business for every six that are still open.

27 - The state of Illinois now ranks eighth in the world in possible bond-holder default. The state of California is ninth.

28 - More than 25 percent of Americans now have a credit score below 599, which means that they are a very bad credit risk.

29 - On Friday, U.S. regulators closed down three banks in Florida, two in South Carolina and one in Michigan, bringing to 96 the number of U.S. banks to be shut down so far in 2010.

30 - The FDIC's deposit insurance fund now has negative 20.7 billion dollars in it, which represents a slight improvement from the end of 2009.

31 - The U.S. federal budget deficit has topped $1 trillion with three months still to goin the current budget year.

32 - According to a U.S. Treasury Department report to Congress, the U.S. national debt will top $13.6 trillion this year and climb to an estimated $19.6 trillion by 2015.

33 - The M3 money supply plunged at a 9.6 percent annual rate during the first quarter of 2010.

34 - According to a new poll of Americans between the ages of 44 and 75, 61% said that running out money was their biggest fear. The remaining 39% thought death was scarier.

35 - One study found that as of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.

36 - The bottom 40 percent of all income earners in the United States now collectivelyown less than 1 percent of the nation's wealth.

37 - The number of Americans with incomes below the official poverty line rose by about 15% between 2000 and 2006, and by 2008 over 30 million U.S. workers were earning less than $10 per hour.

38 - According to one recent study, approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.

39 - For the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.

40 - A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey has found that just 23% of American voters nationwide believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed.