Ex-air hostess suicide case
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Monday granted interim bail to Aruna Chaddha, a co-accused along with former Haryana minister Gopal Kanda, in the case of suicide by a former Delhi-based air hostess.
Additional Sessions Judge M.C. Gupta granted interim bail to Chaddha, an official of Kanda’s now-defunct MDLR Airlines where the suicide victim, a Delhi resident, was employed.
Chaddha and Kanda were accused of abetting the suicide of a 23-year-old former air hostess. Both Kanda and Chaddha have denied the allegations.
Chaddha was arrested Aug 8 last year. In a note, the suicide victim accused Kanda and Chaddha of harassing her and forcing her to kill herself. She died on the intervening night of Aug 4-5 at her house in Delhi.
Kanda was charged with rape, abetment of rape, abetment of suicide, criminal conspiracy, forgery under the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act for hacking computers and sending offensive or false messages.
Police said in a charge sheet filed Oct 6, 2012, that Kanda was obsessed with the former air hostess and he and Chaddha had unleashed a series of wilful and malicious acts of mental torture, threat, blackmail and stress on her, which led her to take the extreme step. (IANS)
Food Bill a poll gimmick: BJP
New Delhi: The much-touted Food Security Bill was taken up in Rajya Sabha, with opposition terming it as a “gimmick” with an eye on elections and accusing government of violating constitutional norms by issuing an ordinance when Parliament session was less than a month away.
While supporting the Food Security Bill, Leader of the Opposition Arun Jaitley said it was “repackaging” of various existing schemes like PDS, mid-day meal and ICDS and there was nothing new in it.
Speaking on a statutory resolution for disapproval of the Food Security Ordinance, Jaitley who was joined by CPI-M, CPI and AIADMK in moving it, said it was issued in a hurry and less than a month of beginning of Parliament session.
“An Ordinance is brought if there is a matter of utmost urgency and it can’t await the Session of Parliament…What would have happened in 30 days that we couldn’t wait. The Constitution does not allow so…It is misuse of your right to issue an Ordinance,” Jaitley said.
Questioning the hurry in issuing the Food Ordinance, he said, “At best, it could be aimed at reaping political benefits.”
Terming it as a “repackaging” of existing food schemes, Jaitley said the total amount of subsidy provided under various food schemes like PDS, ICDS and Mid-Day meal scheme is Rs 1,24,844 crore and that provided in Food Security Bill is Rs 1,25,000 crore.
His party colleague Venakaiah Naidu said the Bill is a “gimmick” by the government as elections are a few months away and actually there will be no benefit for the people.
“For four and a half years you never thought of this. Suddenly a few months before elections you are rushing through this Bill…you suddenly bring it before elections,” he said.
Questioning the logic behind the Bill, Naidu said, “The Planning Commission says poverty has come down. If poverty has reduced, then why are you bringing this Bill? There is no satisfactory answer to this.”
“It protects whatever existing schemes states have,” Thomas said when asked by Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley as to what would be the fate of such programmes already being implemented in some states.
The Food Minister said all constructive suggestions made by members would be carefully considered. At the same time, he wondered whether the country could have more than 62 million tonnes of foodgrains.
“35 kg of rice will be given to each BPL family at the rate of Rs 3. We are giving much more than the Standing Committee had recommended,” he said, adding this was the “first step” towards universalisation of PDS.
Jaitley said his party supports the “concept of right to food” but the legislation brought by the government was “only repackaging of all existing schemes and not an effective right that is projected.”
“My party in favour of right to food… it is essential for everyone to survive… my party, therefore, supports the right to food. But are we substantially increasing on what already exists. Are we increasing the outlay? The answer is no… Are we making food nutritious? The answer is no,” he said. (PTI)