English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Sachin Pilot case: Breather for warring factions: Verdict on Friday

Published

on

Sachin Pilot

On day 3, Pilot’s counsel says Article 226 gives high courts authority over a Speaker’s actions; ‘What has been done (by the Speaker) was in total violation of the principle of natural justice,” says Mukul Rohatgi; HC asks Speaker to take no action on Pilot and dissidents till Friday’s verdict.

Rajasthan’s 19 dissident MLAs, headed by Sachin Pilot have received a ‘breather’ from the Rajasthan High Court. To be frank, so have CP Joshi, the speaker of the Rajasthan Assembly, as well as Chief Minster Ashok Gehlot. They will have to wait till Friday, when the court will deliver its verdict. The speaker has been directed by the court to not take any action against the dissidents till the verdict is announced.

Three days of the hearings concluded this afternoon.

The third day’s hearing, today, was virtually taken over by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who argued that Article 226 gives high courts jurisdiction over Speaker’s actions. Also in the highlight was senior advocate Devdutt Kamat’s argument that voluntary giving up of membership does remain an issue for Sachin Pilot and his men.

On the third day of hearing of the submissions in the petition filed by dissident Congress MLAs, led by Sachin Pilot, Rohatgi today (July 21) argued for the petitioners and cited powers that high courts have under Article 226 of the constitution. As per that article, high courts can exercise jurisdiction over an Assembly Speaker’s actions.

Yesterday the Speaker’s counsel, Abhisekh Manu Singhvi, had stressed that the Speaker was beyond the purview of the High Court of Rajasthan.

As hearings began on the third day Rohatgi defined the powers of the high court as per Article 226 of the Constitution.  He said that under 226, the powers of the high court cannot be curtailed by the constitution or anything else. He said it was part of the basic structure. He said that this was wider than even article 32. Therefore, he said, that the Speaker’s argument that the court cannot act on his decisions is wrong.

What does Article 226 say?

“Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in appropriate cases), directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them.”

Judgment with facts

Rohatgi clarified that the Kihoto judgment, as referred to in court yesterday, be read according to the facts. “No judgment can be read in vacuum or without the facts,” he said. Reading the judgment, he said that the entire emphasis was on defection from one party to other party. “When you quote Aaya Ram Gaya Ram, you cross the floor.”

Rohatgi also cited the 2008 Deepak Bajaj judgment by Justice Katju.

“I am attacking the motive on several grounds,” he said. “Please note: Notice issued the day complaint is made, maybe even in a few hours same day. The legislative rules of Assembly derive their validity from the Constitution, they are not subordinate. They state that on receiving a complaint he (the Speaker) examines it and is prima facie satisfied. All this was thrown out of the ring. There is nothing on record to show that this was done.”

He added that a normal law under 226, a challenge to a show cause notice, will be entertained on well known factors, such as excess of jurisdiction, colourable exercise of power, etc. “I am saying what has been done was in total violation of the principle of natural justice.  Schedule 10 doesn’t allow a show cause on these facts.”

Citing the case of MLA Dilawar, Rohatgi said: “If there was a lockdown till July, what about Dilawar’s case? Was this more important than him? The proceedings reek of malafide. And this is done during a pandemic! We are amidst COVID. My question is, what was the tearing hurry?”

He added: “The rules say that within 7 days, or such extended period as there may be. The Speaker can, therefore, extend the time period.According to rules, the procedure is like in a court. there are arguments, cross examinations, evidence, etc. The court must ask the Speaker to file a better affidavit answering all the questions raised.”

He also said: “Historically. or ironically, the power should be vested in a neutral tribunal.” He cited the Manipur case that dealt with the fact that Speaker came from a political party.

Stress on membership

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, arguing for Congress and the Speaker, went through the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Rules of Procedure and said that those rules do not say that reasons need to be recorded in the notice, at this stage. He said: “A lot of things were said, but I’ll not respond to those. I’ll keep within my ‘maryada’.

Continuing from yesterday, Kamat said that there was no rebuttal from either counsels Salve or Rohatgi on the point that the action of Sachin Pilot-led MLAs amount to voluntary giving up of party membership. He said Parliamentary Committee reports with respect to the Tenth Schedule observed that those who wreck inner party discipline must pay the price with disqualification.

Entertainment

Bharti Singh, Haarsh Limbachiyaa welcome second child after she’s rushed to hospital mid-shoot

Comedian Bharti Singh and her husband Haarsh Limbachiyaa welcomed their second child after she was rushed to hospital during a television shoot.

Published

on

Bharti

Popular comedian and television personality Bharti Singh and her husband, writer-host Haarsh Limbachiyaa, have welcomed their second child. The baby was born on Friday after Bharti was taken to the hospital following a sudden medical emergency earlier in the day, according to media reports.

Emergency during television shoot led to hospitalisation

As per available information, Bharti Singh was scheduled to shoot for the television show Laughter Chefs on Friday morning when her water broke unexpectedly. She was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital, where she later delivered her second child. No further details about the baby have been shared publicly so far.

The news of the delivery comes weeks after the couple announced Bharti’s second pregnancy on social media.

Pregnancy announcement and maternity shoot

Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa had revealed the pregnancy during a family vacation in Switzerland. A few weeks ago, Bharti also shared pictures from her maternity photoshoot, where she was seen wearing a blue silk gown with white floral patterns.

Sharing the photos online, Bharti wrote, “2nd Baby Limbachiya coming soon,” along with a baby emoji.

Family background

Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa became parents for the first time in 2022, when they welcomed their son, Lakshya.

The couple is among the most well-known faces on Indian television. Bharti is widely recognised for her comic timing and distinctive on-screen persona, while Haarsh has made his mark as a writer and host. Apart from their television work, the two also co-host a podcast together.

Continue Reading

India News

Renaming MGNREGA removes core spirit of rural employment law, says Shashi Tharoor

Published

on

Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has strongly criticised the renaming of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), saying the move strips the rural employment programme of its core essence. His remarks came after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, also referred to as the VB-G RAM G Bill.

Speaking to media, Tharoor said the decision to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme “takes out the heart” of the rural employment programme that has been in place for years. He noted that the identity and philosophy associated with Mahatma Gandhi were central to the original law.

Tharoor also objected to the way the new name was framed, arguing that it unnecessarily combined multiple languages. He pointed out that the Constitution envisages the use of one language in legislation, while the Bill’s title mixes English and Hindi terms such as “Guarantee”, “Rozgar” and “Ajeevika”, along with the conjunction “and”.

‘Disrespect to both names’

The Congress leader said that inserting the word “Ram” while dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name amounted to disrespecting both. Referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas, Tharoor said that for Gandhi, the concepts of Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya were inseparable, and removing his name from a rural employment law went against that vision.

He added that the name of Lord Ram could be used in many contexts, but questioned the rationale behind excluding Mahatma Gandhi from a programme closely linked to his philosophy of village self-rule.

Protests over passage of the Bill

The VB-G RAM G Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 18 and cleared by the Rajya Sabha in the early hours of December 19 amid protests from Opposition members. Several MPs opposed the manner in which the legislation was pushed through, with scenes of sloganeering and tearing of papers in the House.

Outside Parliament, members of the Trinamool Congress staged a sit-in protest near Samvidhan Sadan against the passage of the Bill. Congress also announced nationwide protests earlier this week, accusing the government of weakening rights-based welfare schemes.

Despite opposition criticism, the government has maintained that the new law will strengthen rural employment and livelihood security. The Bill raises the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per rural household and outlines a 60:40 cost-sharing formula between the Centre and states, with a higher central share for northeastern, Himalayan states and certain Union Territories.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi attacks G RAM G bill, says move against villages and states

Rahul Gandhi has criticised the G RAM G bill cleared by Parliament, alleging it dilutes the rights-based structure of MGNREGA and centralises control over rural employment.

Published

on

Rahul Gandhi

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has launched a sharp attack on the Modi government after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, commonly referred to as the ‘G RAM G’ bill. He described the proposed law as “anti-state” and “anti-village”, arguing that it weakens the core spirit of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

The new legislation, which is positioned as an updated version of MGNREGA, was passed amid protests by opposition parties and is expected to replace the existing scheme once it receives presidential assent.

‘Bulldozed without scrutiny’, says Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi criticised the manner in which the bill was cleared, saying it was pushed through Parliament without adequate debate or examination. He pointed out that the opposition’s demand to refer the bill to a standing committee was rejected.

According to him, any law that fundamentally alters the rural employment framework and affects crores of workers should undergo detailed scrutiny, expert consultation and public hearings before approval.

Claim of dilution of rights-based guarantee

Targeting the central government, the Congress leader said the proposed law dismantles the rights-based and demand-driven nature of MGNREGA and replaces it with a rationed system controlled from Delhi. He argued that this shift undermines the autonomy of states and villages.

Rahul Gandhi alleged that the intent behind the move is to centralise power and weaken labour, particularly impacting rural communities such as Dalits, OBCs and Adivasis.

Defence of MGNREGA’s impact

Highlighting the role of MGNREGA, Gandhi said the scheme provided rural workers with bargaining power, reduced distress migration and improved wages and working conditions, while also contributing to rural infrastructure development.

He also recalled the role of MGNREGA during the Covid period, stating that it prevented crores of people from slipping into hunger and debt. According to him, any rationing of a jobs programme first affects women, landless workers and the poorest communities.

Opposition to name change and provisions

The Congress has also objected to the renaming of the scheme, accusing the government of attempting to erase the legacy associated with Mahatma Gandhi. Opposition MPs staged a dharna within the Parliament complex, questioning provisions of the bill that they claim dilute the “soul and spirit” of the original law enacted in 2005.

Under MGNREGA, the government guaranteed 100 days of work in rural areas along with an unemployment allowance if work was not provided. The ‘G RAM G’ bill proposes to raise the guaranteed workdays to 125, while retaining other provisions. However, critics have flagged concerns over employment being linked to pre-approved plans.

The bill was cleared after a midnight voice vote in the Rajya Sabha, following its passage in the Lok Sabha amid protests and walkouts. It will become law once approved by the President.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com