English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Delhi HC quashes President’s order disqualifying AAP MLAs

Published

on

Delhi HC quashes President's order disqualifying AAP MLAs

The Delhi High Court on Friday, March 23, set aside Presidential notification disqualifying 20 Aam Aadmi Party MLAs from Delhi legislative assembly.

The President, on recommendation from the Election Commission (EC), had disqualified the MLAs for holding “office of profit”.

The High Court quashed the order, saying, “Opinion of the Election Commission of India is vitiated and bad in law for failure to comply with the principles of natural justice,” and referred the case back to EC for reconsideration.

The High Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar, was hearing a petition filed by all the 20 MLAs, who had challenged the order contending that “there was no communication to us (AAP MLAs) from the Election Commission (EC) about the hearing before it. It is in complete violation of natural justice.”

The petition added: “It is also that even a temporary government employer cannot be removed on the grounds of misconduct without holding a full-fledged inquiry. However, in the present case, the members of the legislative assembly were removed without holding a full-fledged inquiry and without giving them an opportunity to explain if they ever held any office of profit.”

The court said the poll panel ‘s recommendation on January 19 was vitiated because of the failure to give the MLAs an oral hearing or opportunity to address their argument on merits.

AAP convener and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal called the HC’s order a victory for the people of Delhi. “Satya ki jeet hui. Delhi ke logon dwara chune huye pratinidhi ko galat tareeke se barkhaast kia gaya tha. Delhi HC ne Delhi ke logon ko nyaay diya. Delhi ke logon ki badi jeet. Delhi ke logon ko badhai (Truth has won. Elected representatives of Delhi were wrongly dismissed. Delhi High Court has given justice to the people of Delhi. This is a big victory for the people of Delhi and I congratulate them),” he tweeted.

With their disqualification revoked, AAP MLAs can now join assembly proceedings. The party has a majority in the Delhi Assembly.

The High Court order also puts an end to speculation about the likelihood of by-elections to the constituencies of these MLAs following the President’s order. BJP was hoping to improve its tally in Delhi Assembly, where it has a total of merely three MLAs at present, banking on the projected image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the tactics of BJP president Amit Shah. The party will now have to wait longer.

The office of profit case pertains to the appointment of the MLAs as Parliamentary Secretaries in the Arvind Kejriwal cabinet. The appointment, however, was set aside by the Delhi High Court on September 8, 2016, on the basis that they were appointed without prior concurrence with the Delhi Lieutenant Governor.

They had been appointed parliamentary secretary by the Arvind Kejriwal government in 2015.

Soon after their appointment, a huge controversy erupted with complaints being registered with the Election Commission.

On January 19, the EC recommended the AAP MLAs be disqualified for holding offices of profit. On January 21, President Ram Nath Kovind approved the disqualification. The EC was referring to the fact the MLAs had been appointed parliamentary secretaries to ministers in the Delhi government in March 2015. The poll panel had submitted that the legislators cannot claim that they were not holding office-of-profit. It had also claimed that these MLAs’ pleas were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed.

The MLAs who had been axed were Alka Lamba, Adarsh Shastri, Sanjeev Jha, Rajesh Gupta, Kailash Gehlot, Vijendra Garg, Praveen Kumar, Sharad Kumar, Madan Lal Khufiya, Shiv Charan Goyal, Sarita Singh, Naresh Yadav, Rajesh Rishi, Anil Kumar, Som Dutt, Avtar Singh, Sukhvir Singh Dala, Manoj Kumar and Nitin Tyagi.

The 20 disqualified AAP MLAs had moved the High Court on January 23 against the presidential order disqualifying them for holding office of profit as ‘parliamentary secretaries’ in the Delhi government.

A single-judge bench of the High Court on January 24 had refused to stay the Centre s notification disqualifying the MLAs, but had directed the Election Commission to maintain status quo on the disqualification by withholding the announcement of bypoll dates for the Delhi Assembly seats that would have fallen vacant if the MLAs were disqualified.

After the case was transferred to the Delhi high court bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar it was heard on a day-to-day basis. The Bench wrapped up hearings in the case on February 28, and reserved its judgment after the legislators, the EC and other parties had concluded their arguments.

In response to a query from the bench during the hearings, AAP MLAs had agreed to have the case sent back to the poll panel so that the MLAs could be granted an oral hearing.

Senior advocates KV Vishwanathan and Mohan Parasaran appearing for the MLAs had challenged their disqualification on the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice.

It was further argued that the post of parliamentary secretary could not be considered as an ‘office of profit’ as there was no element of ‘profit’ or pecuniary benefit attached to it. The post was similar to that of an intern to a minister, it was submitted.

Amit Sharma, appearing for the Election Commission, submitted before the bench that the existence of pecuniary benefit was not the only requirement to establish an office of profit. It was argued that discharging executive duties and function as parliamentary secretaries also constituted an office of profit. It was further stated that principles of natural justice were sufficiently complied with by providing the MLAs an opportunity to file their written submissions in their defence.

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