Saturday, 26 August 2017


In less than 3 months, WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA are going to celebrate the 1st anniversary of the demonetization of Rs.500/- & Rs.1000/- currency notes. Many mega claims of deposit of demonetized currency such as, “these much lakh crores” etc. were made by the Prime Minister, Finance Minister, etc. right from the day one of the demonetization. However, the erudite and efficient RBI Governor on 12-7-2017 made a statement to the Parliamentary Committee that the demonetised notes deposited after the demonetisation was still being counted. This revelation prima facie go against the huge claims of the Prime Minister and others about the deposit received on account of the demonetization. Whether it means, Government of India is running the business without any knowledge of the money in its account. These are the old currency already replaced either by new currency or by crediting the value in the accounts of the respective depositors. So there are two ways to calculate the amount, either what is received or what is paid. So who is telling lies to the Parliament, Governor of Reserve Bank of India or the Prime Minister/Finance Minister of India? If so for what purpose?

The main issue projected by RBI for not releasing the final figure of demonetization is non completion of counting of currency. It is only a lame excuse and with a purpose to divert attention. Money is already collected by the banks by counting and equal amount is also credited to the respective individual account or returned in cash. Here only a reconciliation problem may occur. But in this digital era, that much time is not required for reconciliation.

Therefore, the real issue could be to accommodate black money of big sharks. It can also be corroborated with the recent incidents of seizure of demonetized currency in bulk while in transit. What for these demonetized notes are being transported? To be sold as waste paper? It is being transported with a clear purpose. The more possible purpose could be to put it into the account through back door at higher level to avoid notice because at lower level it would be leaked out and the names of big sharks would be out. If the account is closed and final figure is out, this plan could not be executed. Therefore, there is possibility that this could be the biggest scam of India.

If the claim of the RBI that the money deposited till the end of December2016/March2017 is not yet counted is accepted, then the financial accuracy of the budget and appropriation is at risk similar to the fodder scam and security scam went on without notice for a long time due to lack of timely reconciliation of accounts.

A similar exercise done earlier was during the previous Government is elaborately described in chapter 4 of my book “A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION” of which a copy is available with the Finance Ministry : 

In this regard, my earlier blogs listed below may also be referred to:


Thursday, 24 August 2017


RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, IT IS INTRINSIC TO RIGHT TO LIFE. Government cannot peep into the bedrooms and toilets of individuals.
There are 6 judgments of the 9 member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India which was delivered on 24-8-2017. Below is the text of the order. Below order, main parts of the 6 seperate judgments as mentioned in the order is given for more clarity.

JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD.),  AND ANR.                          ..Petitioners
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                                    ..Respondents

1 The judgment on behalf of the Hon’ble Chief Justice Shri Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Shri Justice R K Agrawal, Shri Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Dr Justice D Y Chandrachud was delivered by Dr Justice D Y Chandrachud.  Shri Justice J Chelameswar, Shri Justice S A Bobde, Shri Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Shri Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Shri Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul delivered separate judgments. 
2 The reference is disposed of in the following terms: 
(i) The decision in M P Sharma which holds that the right to privacy is not  protected by the Constitution stands over-ruled;
(ii) The decision in Kharak Singh to the extent that it holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution stands over-ruled;
(iii) The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. 
 (iv) Decisions subsequent to Kharak Singh which have enunciated the position in (iii) above lay down the correct position in law.   
New Delhi; AUGUST 24, 2017  

1ST combined judgment of 4.

Our Conclusions
1.     The judgment in M P Sharma holds essentially that in the absence of a provision similar to the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, the right to privacy cannot be read into the provisions of Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution. The judgment does not specifically adjudicate on whether a right to privacy would arise from any of the other provisions of the rights guaranteed by Part III including Article 21 and Article 19. The observation that privacy is not a right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution is not reflective of the correct position. M P Sharma is overruled to theextent to which it indicates to the contrary.

2.     Kharak Singh has correctly held that the content of the expression ‘life’ under Article 21 means not merely the right to a person’s “animal existence” and that the expression ‘personal liberty’ is a guarantee against invasion into the sanctity of a person’s home or an intrusion into personal security. Kharak Singh also correctly laid down that the dignity of the individual must lend content to the meaning of ‘personal liberty’. The first part of the decision in Kharak Singh which invalidated domiciliary visits at night on the ground that they violated ordered liberty is an implicit recognition of the right to privacy. The second part of the decision, however, which holds that the right to privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution, is not reflective of the correct position. Similarly, Kharak Singh’s reliance upon the decision of the majority in Gopalan is not reflective of the correct position in view of the decisions in Cooper and in Maneka. Kharak Singh to the extent that it holds that the right to privacy is not protected under the Indian Constitution is overruled.

3.                (A) Life and personal liberty are inalienable rights. These are rights which are inseparable                     from a dignified human existence. The dignity of the individual, equality between human                     beings and the quest for liberty are the foundational pillars of the Indian Constitution;
(B)Life and personal liberty are not creations of the Constitution. These rights are recognised by the Constitution as inhering in each individual as an intrinsic and inseparable part of the human element which dwells within;
(C)Privacy is a constitutionally protected right which emerges primarily from the guarantee of life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution. Elements of privacy also arise in varying contexts from the other facets of freedom and dignity recognised and guaranteed by the fundamental rights contained in Part III;
(D)Judicial recognition of the existence of a constitutional right of privacy is not an exercise in the nature of amending the Constitution nor is the Court embarking on a constitutional function of that nature which is entrusted to Parliament;
(E)Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity. Privacy has both a normative and descriptive function. At a normative level privacy sub-serves those eternal values upon which the guarantees of life, liberty and freedom are founded. At a descriptive level, privacy postulates a bundle of entitlements and interests whichlie at the foundation of ordered liberty;
(F)         Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes a right to be left alone. Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognises the ability of the individual to control vital aspects of his or her life. Personal choices governing a way of life are intrinsic to privacy. Privacy protects heterogeneity and recognises the plurality and diversity of our culture. While the legitimate expectation of privacy may vary from the intimate zone to the private zone and from the private to the public arenas, it is important to underscore that privacy is not lost or surrendered merely because the individual is in a public place. Privacy attaches to the person since it is an essential facet of the dignity of the human being;
(G)         This Court has not embarked upon an exhaustive enumeration or a catalogue of entitlements or interests comprised in the right to privacy. The Constitution must evolve with the felt necessities of time to meet the challenges thrown up in a democratic order governed by the rule of law. The meaning of the Constitution cannot be frozen on the perspectives present when it was adopted. Technological change has given rise to concerns which were not present seven decades ago and the rapid growth of technology may render obsolescent many notions of the present. Hence the interpretation of the Constitution must be resilient and flexible to allow future generations to adapt its content bearing in mind its basic or essential features;
(H)          Like other rights which form part of the fundamental freedoms protected by Part III, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, privacy is not an absolute right. A law which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the touchstone of permissible restrictions on fundamental rights. In the context of Article 21 an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable. The law must also be valid with reference to the encroachment on life and personal liberty under Article 21. An invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the three-fold requirement of (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate state aim; and (iii) proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them; and
(I)           Privacy has both positive and negative content. The negative content restrains the state from committing an intrusion upon the life and personal liberty of a citizen. Its positive content imposes an obligation on the state to take all necessary measures to protect the privacy of the individual.
4.                   Decisions rendered by this Court subsequent to Kharak Singh, upholding the right to privacy would be read subject to the above principles.
5.                   Informational privacy is a facet of the right to privacy. The dangers to privacy in an age of information can originate not only from the state but from non-state actors as well. We commend to the Union Government the need to examine and put into place a robust regime for data protection. The creation of such a regime requires a careful and sensitive balance between individual interests and legitimate concerns of the state. The legitimate aims of the state would include for instance protecting national security, preventing and investigating crime, encouraging innovation and the spread of knowledge, and preventing the dissipation of social welfare benefits. These are matters of policy to be considered by the Union government while designing a carefully structured regime for the protection of the data. Since the Union government has informed the Court that it has constituted a Committee chaired by Hon’ble Shri Justice B N Srikrishna, former Judge of this Court, for that purpose, the matter shall be dealt with appropriately by the Union government having due regard to what has been set out in this judgment.
6.   The reference is answered in the above terms.
           CJI                                             J                                      J                                                  J

40. I do not think that anybody in this country would like to have the officers of the State intruding into their homes or private property at will or soldiers quartered in their houses without their consent. I do not think that anybody would like to be told by the State as to what they should eat or how they should dress or whom they should be associated with either in their personal, social or political life. Freedom of social and political association is guaranteed to citizens under Article 19(1)(c). Personal association is still a doubtful area. The decision making process regarding the freedom of association, freedoms of travel and residence are purely private and fall within the realm of the right of privacy. It is one of the most intimate decisions. All liberal democracies believe that the State should not have unqualified authority to intrude into certain aspects of human life and that the authority should be limited by parameters constitutionally fixed. Fundamental rights are the only constitutional firewall to prevent State’s interference with those core freedoms constituting liberty of a human being. The right to privacy is certainly one of the core freedoms which is to be defended. It is part of liberty within the meaning of that expression in Article 21.
41. I am in complete agreement with the conclusions recorded by my learned brothers in this regard.
47. In view of the foregoing, I answer the reference before us in the following terms:
a. The ineluctable conclusion must be that an inalienable constitutional right to privacy inheres in Part III of the Constitution. M.P. Sharma and the majority opinion in Kharak Singh must stand overruled to the extent that they indicate to the contrary.
b. The right to privacy is inextricably bound up with all exercises of human liberty – both as it is specifically enumerated,across Part III, and as it is guaranteed in the residue under Article 21. It is distributed across the various articles in Part III and, mutatis mutandis, takes the form of whichever of their enjoyment its violation curtails.
c. Any interference with privacy by an entity covered by Article 12’s description of the ‘state’ must satisfy the tests
applicable to whichever one or more of the Part III freedoms the
interference affects.
94. This reference is answered by stating that the inalienable fundamental right to privacy resides in Article 21 and other fundamental freedoms contained in Part III of the Constitution of India. M.P. Sharma (supra) and the majority in Kharak Singh (supra), to the extent that they indicate to the contrary, stand overruled.
(R.F. Nariman)
35) In view of foregoing discussion, my answer to question No. 2 is that “right to privacy” is a part of fundamental right of a citizen guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. However, it is not an absolute right but is subject to certain reasonable restrictions, which the State is entitled to impose on the basis of social, moral and compelling public interest in accordance with law.
36) Similarly, I also hold that the “right to privacy” has multiple facets, and, therefore, the same has to go through a process of case-to-case development as and when any citizen raises his grievance complaining of infringement of his alleged right in accordance with law.
37) My esteemed learned brothers, Justice J. Chelameswar, Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud have extensively dealt with question No. 1 in the context of Indian and American Case law on the subject succinctly. They have also dealt with in detail the various submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for all the parties.
38) I entirely agree with their reasoning and the conclusion on question No. 1 and hence do not wish to add anything to what they have said in their respective scholarly opinions.
83. Let the right of privacy, an inherent right, be unequivocally a fundamental right embedded in part-III of the Constitution of India, but subject to the restrictions specified, relatable to that part. This is the call of today. The old order changeth yielding place to new.


Thursday, 20 July 2017

കേരള പോലീസിന്‍റെ ഇരട്ടത്താപ്പ് നയം അധവ എറണാകുളത്തെ വബന്‍ സ്രാവുകളും തൃശ്ശൂരിലെ (ഏങ്ങണ്ടിയൂര്‍) പൊടിമീനും

എറണാകുളത്തെ സിനിമാ നടിയെയും നടനെയും ചുറ്റിപറ്റിയിട്ടുള്ള കേസിന്‍റെ അന്വേഷണം പൊടിപൊടിച്ചു നടക്കുന്ന കാര്യം എല്ലാവര്‍ക്കും അറിയാം. ആ കേസില്‍ പ്രതിയെ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യാനും കേസ് രജിസ്റ്റര്‍ ചെയ്യാനും എത്ര കാലതാമസം ഉണ്ടായെന്നും മുഖ്യമന്ത്രി മുതല്‍ കീഴോട്ട് എത്ര ഇടപെടലുകള്‍ ഉണ്ടായെന്നും ഒരുവിധം കേരളീയര്‍ക്കെല്ലാം അറിയാം.

എന്നാല്‍ തൃശ്ശൂരിലെ പാവറട്ടി പോലീസ് സംശയത്തിന്‍റെ പേരില്‍ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യാന്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞ തിങ്കളാഴ്ച 17-07-2017 കസ്റ്റടിയില്‍ എടുത്ത ഏങ്ങണ്ടിയൂര്‍കാരന്‍ പയ്യന്‍റെ കാര്യം അധികമാരും അറിഞ്ഞിരിക്കാന്‍ വഴിയില്ല.  മൂന്നാം മുറയിലുള്ള ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യലിന്‍റെ കാഠിന്യം സഹിക്യ വയ്യാതെ ആത്മഹത്യ ചെയ്യേണ്ടി വന്നു. അന്വേഷണത്തില്‍ പോലിസുകാര്‍ക്ക് മരണവുമായി ബന്ധമുണ്ടെന്നു കണ്ടതിനാല്‍ രണ്ടു പോലീസുകാരെ സസ്പെന്റ് ചെയ്തെന്നാണ് അറിയുന്നത്. അത് എവിടെച്ചെന്നവസാനിക്കും എന്ന് കണ്ടറിയണം.

ഈ വൈരുധ്യങ്ങള്‍ കാണിക്കുന്നത് കേരള പൊലീസിന് താടിയുള്ളപ്പനെ പേടിയുണ്ട് എന്നല്ലെ? അല്ലെങ്കില്‍ കട്ടവനെ കിട്ടിയില്ലെങ്കില്‍ കിട്ടിയവനെ കട്ടവനാക്കും എന്നുമല്ലേ? ഇതില്‍ പണത്തിന്റെ പങ്കും ഏറെയില്ലെ?

കൂടുതല്‍ വിവരങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് : 

Wednesday, 12 July 2017


The RBI Governor Shri Urjit Patel on 12-7-2017 made a statement to the Parliamentary Committee that the demonetised notes deposited after the demonetisation was still being counted. From this it appears that the RBI Governor and his Deputy is counting all the notes personally by hand so that the counting last till the next Lok Sabha election. Till that time black money account will be open and can be added without any notice. The entire drama is a total failure and a promotion of black money without any doubt. I had already described a similar scam in chapter 4 of my autobiography covering my official life, namely “A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION”. It also confirms to my question in the last page of the book, “is it not amount to fooling the Parliament and thus the People of India?” and apply in this case too.

This also confirms, what I had stated in my earlier Blog dated titled “PM's ADDRESS TO THE NATION - TOTAL DISAPPOINTMENT” ( published on 12/31/16 immediately after the PM’s address to the nation on the subject.

[To read free part of my autobiography mentioned above, go to below link and click “Look inside”:-

For more details, visit my home page:- ]

Friday, 7 July 2017


The recent proposal to introduce the subsidy 'Give Up' option in railway fair, following the footsteps of the gas subsidy, is based on false propaganda and lack of proper calculation. In support of this, Government’s claim is that on each ticket, government subsidy is up to 43% of the cost.  As a matter of fact, lion’s share of the subsidy is consumed by the rich and the affluent in the society and not really benefiting the poor.

A simple calculation can prove it:

The 1st class AC fair in Rajdhani Express from Mumbai Central to New Delhi is Rs.4775/- as on today. So it is the 57% cost recovered. Then the balance 43% subsidy comes to Rs.3602/- making a total cost of Rs.8377/- per ticket. On the contrary, an ordinary sleeper class ticket for the same distance in Punjab Mail, the fare is Rs. 630/-. Therefore, the subsidy comes to Rs. 475/- making the total cost to Rs. 1105. In short, with the subsidy of Rs.3602/- given to a rich man, 6 persons can travel free of charge i.e., with 100% of subsidy in a sleeper class at the present rate of 43% of subsidy (Rs.475/-) per person.

So instead of the cheap propaganda ‘give up subsidy’ total subsidy should be withdrawn from all AC sleeper classes used by the rich.

Then, comes another false propaganda. If we recover full cost in AC sleeper classes, we will loose high class passengers who may opt to travel by air. Let them travel by air. What is the problem in their travelling by air? You reduce the AC coaches depending on the demand. Are you getting any benefit by giving such huge amount on subsidy to rich and the affluent? Why the Government should give alms to rich?

(N.B.:- Also read my autobiography “A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION” exposing corruption and scams illustrated with my own experiences during my official life. To read free part of the book, go to the following link and click ‘LOOK INSIDE’ button: . Also go to my web page: for more information)

Tuesday, 27 June 2017

ദിശാബോധമില്ലാത്ത വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ നയം

കുറച്ചു ദിവസങ്ങൾക്കു മുൻപ് ഞാൻ സിനിമാനടനും പാര്ലമെന്റ് മെമ്പറുമായ ശ്രീ സുരേഷ് ഗോപി അവതാരകനായി സംപ്രേഷണം ചെയ്ത ഒരു ടിവി പരിപാടി കണ്ടുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുകയായിരുന്നു. പരിപാടിക്കിടയിൽ അവതാരകൻ അതിൽ പങ്കെടുത്ത CBSC സ്കൂളിൽ പഠിക്കുന്ന ഒരു കുട്ടിയോട് ഒരു ചോദ്യം ചോദിച്ചു: "നിങ്ങൾ പഠിച്ചു വലുതാകുമ്പോൾ എന്താകുവാനാണ് ഉദ്ദേശിക്കുന്നത്?" ഒരു സംശയവുമില്ലാതെ ഉത്തരവും പെട്ടെന്ന് വന്നു: "എനിക്ക് MBBS-നു പഠിക്കണം. അതിനു ശേഷം കാർഡിയോളജിയിൽ MD എടുക്കണം. അതിനു ശേഷം സിവിൽ സർവീസ് പരീക്ഷ പാസ്സായി കളക്ടർ ആകണം." അവസാനത്തെ ആഗ്രഹം കേട്ടപ്പോൾ ഞാനൊന്ന് ഞെട്ടി. സിനിമാതാരമായ അവതാരകനും ഞെട്ടൽ പുറത്തു കാണാതിരിക്കാനായി നന്നേ പാടുപെടുന്നുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. ഞാൻ വിചാരിച്ചത്നല്ലൊരു കാർഡിയോളജിസ്റ്റായി രോഗികൾക്കു നല്ല സേവനം ചെയ്യും എന്ന് പറയും എന്നായിരുന്നു. അവതാരകനും ഒരുപക്ഷെ അതുതന്നെയായിരിക്കണം വിചാരിച്ചത്. പക്ഷെ MBBS-നു ശേഷം കാർഡിയോളജിയിൽ MD എടുക്കാനുദ്ദേശിക്കുന്ന കുട്ടിക്ക് ആ ദിശയിൽ നല്ലൊരു ഡോക്ടറാകാനല്ല ആഗ്രഹം. മറിച് ജില്ലയിലെ ഗുമസ്തന്മാരുടെ തലവനായി കളക്ട്രേറ്റിൽ ഒതുങ്ങിക്കഴിയാനാണ്! ഇതൊരു ഉദാഹരണമായി എടുത്തെങ്കിലും ഇത് വെറും ഒറ്റപ്പെട്ട കാര്യമല്ല. ഇന്നത്തെ കാലഘട്ടത്തിലെ ഒരു നിത്യ സംഭവമാണ്.

ഞാനിത്രയും എഴുതിയത് ഒരു പ്രധാന വിഷയത്തിലേക്ക് വിരൽ ചൂണ്ടുവാനാണ്. അതായത് ദിശാബോധമില്ലാത്ത ഇന്നത്തെ വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ നയ ത്തെപ്പറ്റിത്തന്നെ. ഈ ദിശാബോധമില്ലായ്മ മാതാപിതാക്കളുടെ ഭാഗത്തുനിന്നും അതിലും കൂടുതലായി വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ നയം രൂപീകരിക്കുന്ന സർക്കാർ ഭാഗത്തുനിന്നും പ്രകടമാണ്.

ഒന്നാമതായി വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ നയത്തിൽനിന്നുതന്നെ തുടങ്ങാം. ഇന്ന് പ്രൊഫെഷണൽ വിഷയങ്ങൾക്കെല്ലാം പലതരം ടെസ്റ്റുകൾ നടത്തിയിട്ടാണ് വിദ്യാർത്ഥികളെ തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കുന്നത് - പുതിയ എല്ലാം ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തിയുള്ള  ടെസ്റ്റടക്കം. ഇതില്‍ ഏറ്റവും പ്രധാന ഘടകം മാര്‍ക്ക്‌ /റാങ്ക് ആണ്. അല്ലാതെ വിദ്യാര്‍ഥിയുടെ അഭിരുചിയോ ഇഷ്ടമോ അല്ല. ഒരുപക്ഷെ മുകളിലെ റാങ്കുകാരന് താഴേക് വരന്‍ പറ്റുമെങ്കിലും മറിച്ച് പറ്റില്ല. അങ്ങിനെ ഡോക്ടര്‍ ആകാന്‍ താല്‍പ്പര്യം ഉള്ളയാള്‍ എഞ്ചിനീയര്‍ ആവുകയും എഞ്ചിനീയര്‍ ആവാന്‍ താല്പര്യം ഉള്ളയാള്‍ ഫാര്‍മസിസ്റ്റ് ആകുന്നു.

       രണ്ടാമത്തെ പ്രശ്നമാണ് ഇതിലും ഗുരുതരം. അത് രക്ഷിതാക്കളുടെ ഭാഗത്ത്‌നിന്നുള്ളതാണ്. ഒരുവിധം എല്ലാ മാതാപിതാക്കല്കും തങ്ങളുടെ മക്കള്‍ ഡോക്ടര്‍ ആകണം എന്നാണ്. അതിനു കഴിഞ്ഞില്ലെങ്കില്‍ ചുരുങ്ങിയപക്ഷം ഒരു എഞ്ചിനീയര്‍ എങ്കിലും ആകണം. അതിന്‍റെ അപ്പുറത്ത് മറ്റൊന്ന് ചിന്തിക്കാന്‍ അവര്‍ക്ക് സാദ്ധ്യമല്ല. അതിനുവേണ്ടി എന്തും ചെയ്യാന്‍ അവര്‍ തയ്യാറാണ്. ഈ പ്രവണതയെ ചൂഷണം ചെയ്യാനായി മുഴത്തിനു മുഴത്തിനു മെഡിക്കല്‍/എഞ്ചിനീയറിംഗ് കോളേജുകള്‍ പൊങ്ങി വന്നിട്ടുണ്ട്. മെരിറ്റില്‍ അഡ്മിഷന്‍ കിട്ടാത്തവര്‍ക്ക് ഇത്തരം കോളേജുകള്‍ ആണ് ആശ്രയം. എന്ത് വില കൊടുത്തും അവിടെ സീറ്റ്‌ വാങ്ങാന്‍ അവര്‍ക്ക് ഒരു മടിയുമില്ല. അത് വിദേശത്ത് ആണെങ്കില്‍ പറയുകയും വേണ്ട. സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ ജോലിക്കാരുടെ കൈക്കൂലിയുമായി ഇതിനു അടുത്ത ബന്ധമുണ്ട്. മിഡില്‍ ക്ലാസ്സ്‌ / അപ്പര്‍ മിഡില്‍ ക്ലാസ്സ്‌ ശ്രേണിയില്‍ പെട്ടവര്‍ക്കാണ് ഈ പ്രവണത കൂടുതല്‍ കാണുന്നത്. താഴെക്കിടയിലും മെലേക്കിടയിലും പെട്ടവര്‍ക്ക് ഈ പ്രവണത താരതമ്യേന കുറവാണ്. പ്രധാനമായും സോഷ്യല്‍സ്റ്റാറ്റ്സ്സിനു വേണ്ടിയുള്ള പരക്കം പാച്ചിലാണ്  അവരെ ഇതിനു പ്രേരിപ്പിക്കുന്നത്.

ഇങ്ങിനെ ലക്ഷ്യബോധമില്ലാതെ, അല്ലെങ്കില്‍ വഴിതെറ്റി വരുന്നവരും പിന്നെ സ്ഥാനമാനവും കൈകൂലിയും ലക്ഷ്യമിട്ടു വരുന്നവരും മാത്രമേ സേവനത്തിനു ഏറ്റവും യോജിച്ച പ്രൊഫഷന്‍ വിട്ട്‌ സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ “ബാബു“ ആയിത്തീരാന്‍ ആഗ്രഹിക്കു. സര്‍ക്കാരില്‍ തന്നെ മെഡിക്കല്‍/എഞ്ചിനീയറിംഗ് സര്‍വ്വിസ് വേറെയുണ്ട് എന്ന കാര്യവും വിസ്മരിക്കാവുന്നതല്ല.

            ഇതില്‍ UPSC യുടെ കഴിവുകേടും കൂടിയുണ്ട്. അതിനെപ്പറ്റി വിശദമായി മറ്റൊരു സന്ദര്‍ഭത്തില്‍ വിശദീകരിക്കാം.

           [N.B.:- എന്തുകൊണ്ട് 2 ജി അഴിമതി കൽക്കരിപ്പാടം അഴിമതി സിഎ ജി ഓഡിറ്റ് റിപ്പോർട്ട് അതിന്റെ 20 വർഷം കഴിഞ്ഞ് ? വർഷങ്ങളായി സിഎജി എന്തു ചെയ്യുകയായിരുന്നു? കൂടുതൽ വിവരങ്ങൾക്ക് വായിക്കുക :

My home page: ]