Tag: 上海七宝老街50块

Journalist released by the army

first_img News December 26, 2004 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Journalist released by the army May 29, 2019 Find out more June 8, 2020 Find out more Receive email alerts Organisation Finally, Hari Prasad Koirala, correspondent in Dharan, eastern Nepal for government daily Gorakhapatra, has received constant death threats in the past two weeks from a local criminal figure, Basudev Baral. Local sources said that Baral could be linked to the security forces, the Maoists or other criminals. The reasons for the threats were not clear. Nepal: RSF’s recommendations to amend controversial Media Council Bill Nepalese journalists threatened, attacked and censored over Covid-19 coverage May 17, 2019 Find out more RSF_en Help by sharing this information Follow the news on Nepal Under Chinese pressure, Nepal sanctions three journalists over Dalai Lama story to go further News News The army released journalist Raj Kumar Budhathoki on 24 December after 24 days of secret detention. The journalist who works for the weekly Sanjeevani Patra told Reporters Without Borders that the soldiers had threatened him with reprisals if he made any statements about his detention in the Shivapuri barracks in Katmandu. “I am afraid to stay in the city,” he said.________________________________________________________________10 December 2004A fourth journalist abducted, three still held by MaoistsReporters Without Borders urged the government to do everything possible to track down Nepal’s latest journalist kidnap victim, Raj Kumar Budhathoki, of the weekly Sanjeevani Patra, snatched from his home on 30 November.The Nepalese press is still caught in the crossfire between Maoist rebels and government forces, said the worldwide press freedom organisation, strongly condemning the range of threats journalists are forced to contend with. “The battle against impunity should be the first priority of your government” said the organisation in a letter to the Prime Minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, repeating an appeal it made on 25 November.One of the kidnapped journalist’s colleagues, Hari Prasad Koirala has been receiving constant death threats, while the bi-monthly Samishran has been forced to close under threat from Maoists, who are also still holding three other journalists hostage.Budhathoki was snatched from his home in the town of Banepa, east of Katmandu along with his father and three friends. The gang entered the house and then bundled all five into their car. The journalist’s neighbours told Reporters Without Borders that the car belonged to security agents.It is not known who the kidnappers are, where they are holding their five hostages or why they were seized.Meanwhile Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist (CPN-M) rebels on 6 December released journalist hostage Tulasi Thapa Kshitija after holding him for 46 hours in the Panchthar region in the east of the country. The Maoists abducted the reporter for weeklies Panchthar Times and Aakha, because he had been reporting in the region without asking their permission. They forced him to join the CPN-M to be able to continue to work freely.The three journalists still held by rebels are: Dhana Bahadur Rokka Magar, presenter on Radio Nepal, kidnapped in August 2002 in the west of the country; Kul Bahadur Malla, of the newspaper Karnali Sandesh in the west, seized in June 2003; and Shakti Kumar Pun, correspondent for the national daily Rajdhani, snatched last November in Rukkum district in the west.Reporters Without Borders called on the leadership of the CPN-M to release these three journalists in line with a promise made by Maoist leader Krishna Bahadur Mahara, who in September 2004 publicly ordered the release of all journalists held by his forces.The bi-monthly Samishran in Parbat district in the west of the country was forced to shut down in the first week of December under a barrage of constant threats from Maoist rebels. NepalAsia – Pacific News NepalAsia – Pacific last_img read more

read more

Every Incident/Accident In Country Of 1.3 Billion Indians Need Not Be Taken To PMO For Redressal: CIC

first_imgNews UpdatesEvery Incident/Accident In Country Of 1.3 Billion Indians Need Not Be Taken To PMO For Redressal: CIC Sparsh Upadhyay16 Dec 2020 3:04 AMShare This – x”There is complete Government machinery at Central and State levels to address other issues of varying importance so that every single incident or accident in this country of more than 1.3 billion Indians need not be taken to the PMO for redressal”, remarked the Central Information Commission in a matter on Friday (11th December). The Chief Information Commissioner Y. K. Sinha…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?Login”There is complete Government machinery at Central and State levels to address other issues of varying importance so that every single incident or accident in this country of more than 1.3 billion Indians need not be taken to the PMO for redressal”, remarked the Central Information Commission in a matter on Friday (11th December). The Chief Information Commissioner Y. K. Sinha was hearing the grievance of an appellant who was aggrieved by the damage to her vehicle by a bus driver of the State Government run bus service. The matter before the Commission The appellant stated that her vehicle met with an accident on 19.12.2017 and when she approached the Police to file an FIR against the errant driver of the Pune State Bus service – viz. PMPML Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Limited, the police refused to register the same. Thereafter, she was advised to file an online complaint and even after filing the same, no action was taken by the police. Thus aggrieved, she sought redressal of her grievance through the RTI application. It may be noted that appellant had filed RTI application dated 04.07.2018 seeking information on the following 5 points: Copy of the FIR filed by the Prime Minister of India against the PMPML Driver.Copy of the FIR filed against the MAFIA Police of Maharashtra, by the PM. Copy of the orders passed by the PM for dismissal of the MAFIA police of Maharashtra. Copy of the orders passed by the PM for sending the MAFIA police to jail. She submitted before the Commission that the Pune Transport Department as well as local police harassed her by not taking action against the errant bus driver. Lastly, she submitted that since the State public authorities were not taking action, she approached the PMO, holding the Prime Minister vicariously liable for failure of State Government authorities. Commission’s observations After examining the records of the case, the Commission observed that the Appellant had unnecessarily used derogatory and un-parliamentary language in all her submissions. The Commission said that the language used by her “does not add any value to the merits of a case, while restraint and composure helps in establishing one’s contention.” Appellant was strongly advised by the Commission to refrain from using abusive, disparaging and disrespectful language and scathing remarks and focus more on the facts of her case. While noting that the Appellant sought the PM of the country to file FIRs on her behalf, the Commission remarked, “The Prime Minister or his office is not vicariously liable for acts/omission of a State Government-run Transport service nor does the local police of every state in India fall within the jurisdiction of the PMO. There are specific subject matters, Ministries and functions which require the attention of the Prime Minister of India.” The Commission said that appropriate legal recourse for the Appellant lay in her home state. The Commission also observed. “This is not a case where the Appellant is not educated enough to know the actual authority which can redress her grievance and yet she filed the RTI application before an authority where the power to resolve her grievance does not lie at all. As a result, the information sought by her neither exists nor could be provided to her.” Lastly, the Commission said that no onus lies on the Respondent public authority, to whom the RTI applications are incorrectly addressed and that the matters could not be adjudicated by the Respondent, not out of intention to withhold information, but because no such information exists with them that can be provided. Click Here To Download CIC OrderRead OrderNext Storylast_img read more

read more