English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest Politics News

Rafale deal: Explain choice of offset partner, give us details of pricing in 10 days, SC tells govt

Published

on

Rafale Deal

The Narendra Modi government, which has so far focused on rhetoric rather than answer questions being raised about the controversial Indo-France Rafale deal, was told by the Supreme Court today (Wednesday, October 31) to submit within 10 days the details of pricing and the selection of Anil Ambani’s defence firm as Indian offset partner in a sealed cover.

It said these details should also be provided to the petitioners in the case. Otherwise, the Centre should file an affidavit – within these 10 days – to say that the pricing in the Rafale fighter jet deal between India and France is exclusive and cannot be shared with the court.

“Court would also like to be appraised about the pricing” of the aircraft, “particularly the advantages thereof”, a bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices UU Lalit and KM Joseph ordered.

“We would like the details of pricing and cost to be submitted to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover. This may be submitted in the next 10 days,” said the court.

The government argued that pricing was not revealed in Parliament and the earlier government had also not disclosed such details. Chief Justice Gogoi said the government could file an affidavit or legal document in court.

“If pricing is something exclusive and you are not sharing it with us, please file an affidavit and say so,” the bench told Attorney General KK Venugopal in its oral observations.

“Such details that may be considered strategic may not be furnished to the petitioners,” said the court.

Beginning the hearing, the judges made the observation that the suitability of the jet and its utility has not been questioned. “What had been questioned is the bonafide of the decision-making and price,” they said.

In the last hearing earlier this month, the court had asked the government to furnish details of the decision-making process that led to the deal which has Anil Ambani’s Reliance Defence as its offset partner, but had emphasized that it would not get into “pricing or suitability” of the jets. The bench had made clear that its direction to the Centre was issued to satisfy itself about the legitimacy of the decision-making process for procuring 36 Rafale fighter jets.

The directions were passed on October 10 on the two PILs filed by lawyers ML Sharma and Vineet Dhanda. The top court, however, had observed that the averments made in the two PILs were “grossly inadequate” and had said that it was not issuing the notice on them.

The Centre had, last week, filed the papers concerning the decision-making process with the Supreme Court’s registry in a sealed cover.

On Wednesday, as the SC bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and also comprising Justices UU Lalit and KM Joseph, began its proceedings in the two PILs filed over the Rafale Deal controversy – by petitioners ML Sharma, who has named Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the respondent in the case, and Vineet Dhanda – it noted that since the last date of hearing in the matter, two more litigations on the subject had been received by the court – one by former BJP leaders Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha and advocate Prashant Bhushan and the other by Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh.

Sinha and Shourie – both former Union ministers – and Bhushan have sought registration of an FIR into the fighter jet deal between India and France alleging “criminal misconduct” by high public functionaries. The trio has also sought a direction to CBI to investigate the offences mentioned in their complaint in a “time-bound” manner and submit periodic status reports to the apex court.

AAP MP Sanjay Singh, in his separate plea filed through lawyer Dheeraj Kumar Singh, has sought setting up of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of the apex court to probe the Rafale deal.

He has sought that the SIT should probe the reasons for cancellation of earlier deal entered into by the UPA government for the purchase of 126 fighter jets.

On October 10, the bench had sought from the Attorney General the details of the steps involved in the decision leading to the new deal. The CJI led bench had then clarified that the details so sought would not cover the pricing or the suitability of the equipment for the Indian Air Force, bearing in mind the sensitive nature of the matter.

The Court also directed the government to hand over the details of the decision-making process of the deal to the petitioners.

The Attorney General objected to sharing of details of the deal including its pricing, by stating that it would be covered under the Official Secrets Act. Considering the objection, the Court said that whatever documents that could be legitimately produced in public domain should be given to the petitioners and all other documents covered under the Official Secrets Act should be given to the Court in a sealed cover.

So far, the court had not sought this detail from the Centre.

When Bhushan pressed for CBI probe, the CJI replied: “For CBI probe, you have to wait.”

The top court, which has now fixed the matter for hearing on November 14, said documents considered strategic and confidential may not be shared.

The PIL alleges that in the Rafale deal there is prima facie evidence of the commission of cognizable offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act by public servants occupying the highest of public offices in the country. Though the petitioners had filed a complaint on October 4 before the CBI alleging foul play in Rafale deal, no action has been taken.

India News

Sonia Gandhi calls weakening of MGNREGA a collective moral failure, targets Centre in op-ed

Sonia Gandhi has accused the Centre of weakening MGNREGA, calling it a collective moral failure with serious consequences for crores of working people.

Published

on

Sonia Gandhi

Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi has sharply criticised the Central government over what she described as the steady dismantling of rights-based legislation, with a particular focus on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

In a recent opinion article published in a leading English daily, Sonia Gandhi argued that MGNREGA was envisioned as more than a welfare measure. She said the rural employment scheme gave legal backing to the constitutional right to work and was rooted in Mahatma Gandhi’s idea of Sarvodaya, or welfare for all.

Calling its weakening a serious failure, she wrote that the decline of MGNREGA represents a “collective moral failure” that will have lasting financial and human consequences for crores of working people across India. She stressed that safeguarding such rights-based frameworks is crucial at a time when, according to her, multiple protections are under strain.

Concerns raised over education, environment and land laws

Sonia Gandhi also flagged concerns beyond rural employment. Referring to education policy, she claimed that the Right to Education has been undermined following the National Education Policy 2020, alleging that it has led to the closure of around one lakh primary schools across the country.

On environmental and land-related legislation, she stated that the Forest Rights Act, 2006, was weakened through the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022. According to her, these changes removed the role of the gram sabha in decisions related to the diversion of forest land.

She further alleged that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act has been significantly diluted, while adding that the National Green Tribunal has seen its authority reduced over the years.

Warning on agriculture and food security laws

Touching upon agriculture reforms, Sonia Gandhi referred to the now-repealed three farm laws, claiming they were an attempt to deny farmers the right to a minimum support price. She also cautioned that the National Food Security Act, 2013, could face similar threats in the future.

Reiterating her central argument, she urged unity to protect statutory rights, stating that the erosion of such laws has implications that extend well beyond policy, affecting livelihoods and dignity on the ground.

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