English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Appointment of Lokpal: Govt searching for a jurist for selection panel, SC told

Published

on

Section 377 hearings Day 4: Supreme court reserves judgment

Supreme Court had pulled up the Centre for delay in appointing Lokpal, asked DoPT to file an affidavit detailing steps taken to appoint the ombudsman

The Supreme Court was, on Tuesday (March 6), informed by the Centre that it was still searching for an eminent jurist who could be named as a member of the selection committee tasked with short-listing a Lokpal.

The submission by Attorney General KK Venugopal before a Supreme Court bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumati comes at a time when the Congress party has already declared its decision to boycott any meeting of the selection panel till such a time that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government gets an amendment to the Lokpal Act of 2013 passed. The said amendment, pending for nearly four years now, would replace the term Leader of Opposition with leader of the single largest Opposition party as one of the members of the Lokpal selection panel, the other three being the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and an eminent jurist.

On February 23, the apex court had pulled up the Centre for the delay in appointing a Lokpal. The bench of Justices Gogoi and Banumati had asked the secretary of the Centre’s Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to file an affidavit about the “steps taken and proposed” for appointing the ombudsman after Venugopal informed the court that ta meeting of the selection panel was due on March 1.

However, on March 1, Mallikarjun Kharge, leader of the Congress in the Lok Sabha declined an invitation by the Centre to attend the selection panel’s meeting as a “special invitee”. Kharge had written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi stating the “special invitee” status would not allow him to contribute to the discussion over the appointment of the anti-corruption watchdog.

With Kharge boycotting the meet and the Centre still struggling to find an eminent jurist who can be on the panel, the selection committee currently comprises of just two members – the Prime Minister and Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

The Modi government had earlier appointed legal luminary PP Rao as a member of the selection panel. However, following Rao’s demise in September last year, the slot of an eminent jurist on the panel has been lying vacant.

With the government showing no interest in getting the Lokpal Act 2013 amended to relax norms for the selection panel’s constitution, the law as it stands today, requires that the panel have the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and an eminent jurist as its members. Since the Congress’ tally in the Lok Sabha had been restricted to just 44 in the May 2014 general elections, it failed to get the office of the Leader of Opposition as this would have required the party to have a numerical strength of at least 10 per cent of the composition of the Lok Sabha. In the absence of a Leader of Opposition, the government had argued that the Lokpal selection committee cannot be constituted. It was later suggested that the Act be amended so that the selection committee could have as its members the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, leader of the single largest Opposition party in Lok Sabha and an eminent jurist. This amendment has, however, not been passed as yet by Parliament.

On Tuesday, Attorney General Venugopal told the Supreme Court that the vacancy of an eminent jurist in the Lokpal selection committee will be filled at the earliest but did not give an exact time frame for this. While the DoPT affidavit, filed with the apex court before the proceedings, mentioned that the meeting of the selection committee took place on March 1 and was not attended by “special invitee” Kharge, the Centre has not been able to answer the other critical question – what would it do if the Congress continues to boycott the selection panel meeting.

Assuming that the Centre does find an eminent jurist who it feels is worthy enough of being nominated to the selection panel – it hasn’t found anyone suitable in the six months since Rao’s demise – the question of the Opposition’s representation on the committee will still require resolution.

It may be recalled that the SC had, last year, ruled that there was no justification to keep the enforcement of Lokpal Act suspended till the proposed amendments, including on the issue of the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, were cleared by the Parliament. The court had said that the Lokpal Act of 2013 was an eminently workable piece of legislation and “does not create any bar to the enforcement of the provisions.” It had added: amendments proposed to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, and the views of the Parliamentary Standing Committee are attempts to streamline the working of the Act and does not constitute legal hindrances or bar its enforcement.

The SC’s ruling had come on a plea by NGO Common Cause and others seeking immediate appointment of Lokpal in the country.

The UPA-II government had been forced to enact the Lokpal Act in 2013 after massive countrywide agitations broke out over the need for setting up a new institutional mechanism to check corruption in the government. The agitations had been triggered by the hunger strikes and protests by activist Anna Hazare, his then protégé Arvind Kejriwal and a motley group of other “civil society” members who came together under the banner of India Against Corruption. While Kejriwal leveraged the publicity he received from the protests to launch his political career and the Aam Aadmi Party, Hazare was relegated to the shadows.

Ironically, after coming to power in Delhi with a historic mandate, Kejriwal has himself done little to appoint a Lokayukt – the provincial equivalent of the central Lokpal.

Now, even as the Supreme Court nudges the Centre to expedite the proves of appointing a Lokpal, Hazare is trying to get back into the limelight, threatening another stir fromMarch 23 at New Delhi’s Ramlila Grounds demanding that the ombudsman be appointed soon and that the institution of Lokpal be made operational.

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