English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest Politics News

Yeddyurappa to take oath as CM, SC refuses to stay Governor’s decision

Published

on

Yeddyurappa to take oath as CM, SC refuses to stay Governor’s decision

As expected, BJP’s Karnataka chief ministerial candidate BS Yeddyurappa will take oath at 9 am on Thursday, May 17, just as he had claimed.

This was decided after a dramatic hearing at Supreme Court in the early hours of Thursday when the Congress challenged Karnataka Governor’s decision to invite BJP leader BS Yeddyurappa to take oath as chief minister later that day –at 9 am on Thursday, May 17.

The apex court, while refusing to stay the Governor’s order for Yeddyurappa’s swearing in, said the hearing of the case would continue and fixed the next hearing for 10.30 a.m. on Friday, May 18. It also asked for the list of MLAs supporting Yeddyurappa to be produced that day.

After Yeddyurappa’s claim that he would take oath as chief minister on May 17 was confirmed by Karnataka Governor VajubhaiVala’sinvitation to him to take oath as CM at 9 am that day, with only the night remaining for making their move, the Congress and JD(S)moved the Supreme Court.

A three-judge benchcomprising ofJustice AK Sikri, Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde, Justice Ashok Bhushan heard the case. Notably, the bench did not include the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra or any of the next senior four judges who had gone public with their complaint against him with complaints that included allocation of cases.

Former attorney general Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the BJP, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Centre while Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued for the Congress.

Rohatgi said the Governor could not be stopped from taking a decision, that the court could not stop him from having a government sworn in.

Singhvi enumerating numbers said the Congress and JD(S) had informed the Governor on May 15 about their alliance. The BJP does not have a majority.

As Attorney General KK Venugopal also arrived for the hearing, Singhvi said as per the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission …

The court interjected to say “…the single largest party is invited…”

Singhvi said, “No… the alliance hving a majority is invited.”

“The Supreme Court approved this decision in the case of Goa,” he said.

He pointed out that whereas in the case of Goa, Jharkhand and Jagdambika Pal, the SC brought down the 7-day time for floor test to prove majority to 48 hours, the Karnataka Governor has given a time of 15 days.

Singhvi said while BJP’s chief minister-designate had asked for seven days, the Governor has given him 15 days.

Giving so much time is allowing chance for the Constitutional sin of horsetrading.

Justice AK Sikri said the single largest party has been invited to form government and it claims it would prove its majority, and you are arguing that they do not have anyone else’s support.

Singhvi said the BJP has 104 MLAs and unless eight MLAs from Congress break away to back BJP, they cannot get a majority.

The court said: “But the defection of MLAs is against the law.”

Singhvi: “That is exactly what I’m saying.”

Justice SA Bobde said that if the court stayed the Governor’s order, no government would be formed. Under Article 361, the Governor has certain special powers, said Justice Bobde.

Singhvi, cited the example of Meghalaya, Manipur and Goa, where Congress was the largest party short of majority and the first chance to form a government was given to a post-poll alliance, in Delhi AamAadmi Party was given a chance to form government with Congress support when BJP was biggest single party, and in Jharkhand JMM-Congress got a chance even when BJP had more seats.

Justice Sikri said the Governor had used his discretion and how could the court interfere with this power.

Singhvi countered, saying that the decision to hold swearing in by tomorrow morning (actually just 5-6 hours later) was extremely problematic and the SC could not be a mute spectator to it.

He said the plea for staying the swearing in was not to check the Governor but to check Yeddyurappa. The Governor, he argued, had not given any reasons for his decision (to invite the BJP leader to take oath despite lacking majority).

Singhvi also argued that the Governor’s decision was open to judicial review.

As he concluded his arguments, Attorney General KK Venugopal, arguing on behalf of the Centre, said it wasn’t a question of legality nor was it known what facts the Governor took into consideration – that the entire case was based on conjectures.

Singhvi said the court should postpone the oath taking for two days and hear the case in detail.

Mukul Rohatgi chimed in to argue that the court should not have heard the case at all, that too so late at night, that such hearing was held only for Yakub Memon(the terrorist, Mumbai bomb blast accused) case.

NDTV reported that Justice Sikri said the court had not seen any letter from BJP to the Governor staking its claim so how could it take a position on BJP’s claim.

A curious argument from the AG was that if a person elected as MLA on one party’s ticket switched sides to another before taking oath, it could not be treated as defection.

Rohatgi argued that if the court deemed it necessary, Yeddyurappa could be removed from chief ministership, but how could the court stay Governor’s decision? He said the only question left was how many days should be allowed for the floor test. “Is this such an important/urgent question that has to be decided at four in the morning?” Rohatgi asked.

The SC bench finally decided not to interfere with the Governor’s decision to hold Yeddyurappa’s swearing-in ceremony, saying a final decision about whether one retains the post or not would come when the case was decided and there could be no interim order in this regard.

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