“ creation of corruption is state function”- Maharashtra charity commissioner

Recently Social activist Anna Hazare and other trustees of his non-governmental organization (NGO), Bhrashtachar Virodhi Jan Andolan, have been suspended for not dropping the word “anti-corruption” from its name. A joint commissioner’s say  on this issue is “It’s the responsibility of the government to check corruption and it has a mechanism. The job of the NGOs is to carry out social work and they should stick to it,”

However the original circular on which joint commissioners’ action is relied , speaks otherwise. It  says “ THE CREATION OF CORRUPTION IS NOT CHARITABLE PURPOSE BUT IT IS A STATE FUNCTION. FOR THE SAID PURPOSE THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL LAWS AND GOVT MACHINERY ARE EXERCISING DIFFERENT POWERS”. How true, isn’t it?.It describes exact status of government functioning in India.  This circular was issued by then charity commissioner of Maharashtra in December 1999

Sixteen years later of said circular joint charity commissioner of Pune region, Shivkumar Dighe, had in June last year directed NGOs to drop ‘anti-corruption’ references from their names and threatened to suspend the trustees if they refused to comply with the order .Anna Hazare’s  Bhrashtachar Virodhi Jan Andolan didn’t comply with the order. And accordingly all the trustees were suspended.

However the original circular and the High court order on which said circular is based are highly debatable. After   denial from assistant charity commissioner to register a NGO “Mrugjal Bhrashtachar nirmulan samite” on the grounds that it had a word “ Bhrashtachar Nirmulan” ( eradication of corruption) it its name.The Applicant has filed the proposal for registration of the society.The name of the society revealed that society was formed for the purpose of removing the corruption but the objects of were different. Hence assistant charity commissioner refused the application. Then “Mrugjal” moved to Aurangabad bench of Mumbai High Court . High court however disposed of the petition on admission stage without any orders .

Now if NGO can use word anti- corruption or bhrashtachar nirmulan in their names or are they allowed do the said work as per act may be the point of  debate . However it is the fact that even after 1999 charity commission itself has registered several such societies. 

Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis

RTI KATTA

RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.

Vijay Kumbhar

RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist

Phone – 9923299199

Email – kvijay14@gmail.com

Website – http://surajya.org              

Facebook -  https://www.facebook.com/kvijay14

Twitter -  https://twitter.com/Vijaykumbhar62

YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/kvijay14

Narayanasamy’s definition of Substantial funding – One more threat for RTI ahead

If accepted,union minister of state for personnel public grievances and pensions V. Narayanasamy’s definition " Substantial funding means above 51 per cent’ "private sharks will grab the entire country in no time. All the Build Operate Transfer (BOT), Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects, Non Government Organisations (NGO) getting crores of rupees as a fund or aid in kind Co Operative societies, will automatically come out of the preview of RTI act.

There are 33.50 lakh NGO’s and around 6.5 lakh cooperative societies working since last decades for welfare of society in India. That means there are around 40 lakh organisation working for 120 crore population, i.e. there is one such organisation per 300 people. If we assume there are only 10 members in such organisations i.e. there is one person per 30 people working for welfare of society since last many decades. Major Job of these organisations is to take government policies, schemes to common person. However what we see the ground reality is, status of the common person is same as was several decades back. Each year government spends crores and crores rupees for welfare of common person , then where did all this money go?. Interesting part of this is , most of all these are directly or indirectly owned or controlled by political entities.  

There are projects like BOT, PPP where government’s major stake is involved in form of direct or indirect funding. In addition as the government has already allowed Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). We have to see the implications of definition of substantial funding keeping in the mind above mentioned factors .

I wonder how anybody can say that “I have taken your rupee but as my stakes are high, I don’t owe any responsibility towards your rupee because it is not substantial funding”.?. Definition of substantial funding can not be and should not be in terms percentage.