English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest Politics News

Debate on anti-triple talaq Bill stalled in Rajya Sabha again amid Opposition uproar

Published

on

Debate on anti-triple talaq Bill stalled in Rajya Sabha again amid Opposition uproar

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Consensus evades on the passage of the Bill with just one day left before the winter session of Parliament concludes, Opposition presses for RS select panel

For a second day in a row and with just one sitting of Parliament’s winter session left, the Rajya Sabha failed to discuss the controversial Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill on Thursday.

With the Opposition demanding that the Bill, which was passed by the Lok Sabha last week, be sent to a select committee of the House for further discussions and the Centre insisting that it be passed, Rajya Sabha deputy chairman PJ Kurien was forced to adjourn the House proceedings.

The curtailed winter session of Parliament is scheduled to end on Friday. With no consensus between the Treasury and Opposition Benches on the fate of the Bill that seeks to make instant triple talaq a cognizable offence punishable with a three year jail term, it is now becoming increasingly evident that the legislation may not be enacted into a law within the winter session.

[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][vc_column_text]Sources said that the government, which finds itself in a minority in the Rajya Sabha, may finally be forced to concede to the Opposition’s demand for referring the Bill to a select committee of the House. In such an eventuality, the select committee will have to present its report on the Bill before the Budget Session of Parliament, thereby delaying the enactment of the Bill by at least another 3 months.[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][vc_column_text]

On Friday, the Bill had been listed for consideration and passage by the Rajya Sabha. However, sparring members of the House from the Treasury and Opposition Benches failed to end the continuing logjam over the legislation.

At around 5 pm Rajya Sabha deputy chairman PJ Kurien allowed Leader of the House Arun Jaitley to make a statement on the two motions moved by Opposition members Anand Sharma and SS Ray which had sought the Bill be referred to a select committee.

While Jaitley claimed that the motions had been moved in violation of parliamentary norms – arguing that a 24 hour notice for moving the motion had not been submitted by the members and that they had only partly listed the proposed members for the panel without naming anyone from the Treasury Benches, both Sharma and Ray refuted these charges.

Sharma and Ray asserted that they had been permitted by Rajya Sabha chairman Venkaiah Naidu to move the motion – a point accepted by Kurien – and that while they had not proposed names of members from the Treasury Benches for the panel, they had made it clear in the House while moving the motion on Wednesday that the government should propose names from its end. Ray even claimed that they he had asked the Centre to suggest names for the select committee but that his request was went unanswered. Trinamool Congress MP Derek O’Brien immediately got up to claim that Ray’s submission had exposed the BJP.

Kurien claimed that he has accepted the motion moved by Sharma and Ray while also taking into account the reservations expressed by Jaitley but since there was no consensus in the House on whether the two motions can be moved or not, parliamentary rules did not permit him to allow a discussion on the Bill.

The Rajya Sabha deputy chairman then tried to move to the next order of business – a resolution moved by Congress MP T Subbarami Reddy against the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Amendment Ordinance, 2017 – but the ruckus created by MPs from the ruling and Opposition camps over his decision to not allow a discussion on the Bill forced him to adjourn the proceedings till Friday.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

INDIA bloc likely to meet on September 30 over Gyanesh Kumar row

INDIA bloc parties are likely to meet in New Delhi on September 30 amid growing opposition to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Published

on

Rahul-Gandhi

Opposition parties belonging to the INDIA bloc are set to meet in New Delhi on September 30 to discuss concerns surrounding the Election Commission, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and a proposed removal motion against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The proposed meeting comes amid growing coordination among opposition parties over the functioning of the poll panel and demands for action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The parties are also discussing a possible joint response to the developments.

Why is the INDIA bloc meeting being planned?

The INDIA bloc meeting on September 30 comes amid reports of objections within the Election Commission over certain decisions and orders related to the SIR exercise. 

According to the report, Opposition leaders have been discussing a coordinated response to their concerns over the Election Commission and the electoral-roll revision process. 

The issue is also expected to be discussed at the Congress Working Committee meeting scheduled for September 29, a day before the proposed INDIA bloc meeting.

Gyanesh Kumar removal demand in focus

The demand for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has become a major point of contention between the Opposition and the Election Commission.

The CPI(M), CPI and CPI(ML)-Liberation have demanded Kumar’s removal and an immediate halt to the SIR exercise. Congress has also intensified its criticism of the CEC.

Opposition parties are also working on a fresh removal motion against Gyanesh Kumar. The September 30 meeting is expected to finalise the strategy for the motion, including the collection of signatures. According to the report, this would be the Opposition’s third such attempt. 

What is the SIR controversy?

The political dispute is linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, or SIR.

The controversy intensified following a report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on several occasions concerning decisions and orders related to the SIR process.

The Election Commission has said that differing views and observations are part of normal deliberations in a multi-member constitutional body. The poll panel has also maintained that its orders have legal sanction and follow statutory procedures, while stating that the final decisions on the SIR were taken unanimously. 

TMC and Left parties coordinate over the issue

The developments have also brought the Trinamool Congress and the CPI(M) together on the Election Commission issue, despite their political differences in West Bengal.

CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby proposed an immediate meeting to discuss a joint strategy. According to the report, Mamata Banerjee spoke with M A Baby and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, after which the leaders settled on September 30 for the meeting. 

What could be discussed at the September 30 meeting?

The proposed meeting is expected to focus on:

  • Concerns surrounding the Election Commission
  • The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls
  • Opposition demands concerning CEC Gyanesh Kumar
  • A possible fresh removal notice against the CEC
  • A coordinated response by INDIA bloc parties

The exact agenda and participation will depend on the discussions among the opposition parties before the proposed meeting.

Continue Reading

India News

Gandhi Parivar vs Sangh Parivar, Revanth Reddy’s remark sparks BJP attack

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks contrasting the Gandhi Parivar with the Sangh Parivar triggered a BJP response accusing Congress of prioritising the Gandhi family.

Published

on

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks comparing the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar have triggered a political exchange, with the BJP hitting back at the Congress leader.

Speaking in Kerala on Friday, Mr Reddy described the contest over India’s future as a fight between the two “parivars”. He said the Gandhi family had made sacrifices for the country while accusing the Sangh Parivar of attempting to divide India on the basis of religion, caste, region and language.

What Revanth Reddy said

Mr Reddy cited Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi while speaking about what he described as sacrifices made by the Gandhi family.

He also referred to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi, saying they had given up positions, power and high office.

The Telangana Chief Minister said he had no remaining personal political ambitions and described his objective as working towards a Congress-led government at the Centre with Rahul Gandhi as Prime Minister.

Mr Reddy also appealed to people to stand with the Gandhi Parivar and oppose the Sangh Parivar. He described the latter as a threat to India’s democracy.

BJP hits back

The BJP responded to Mr Reddy’s remarks on Saturday.

BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said the Telangana Chief Minister’s comments amounted to an admission that Congress’s objective was to bring the Gandhi family back to power.

He also linked Mr Reddy’s remarks to the ongoing political debate around “vote chori”, the Election Commission, the Constitution and democracy, arguing that the Congress’s focus was instead on the Gandhi family.

The exchange adds to the political confrontation between the BJP and Congress, with Mr Reddy presenting the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar as opposing forces in India’s political future, while the BJP has interpreted his remarks as evidence of Congress’s focus on the Gandhi family.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com