CC1981 Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Presidential pardon is completely different from what happened in the Shah Bano case as others have tried to point out. Supreme Court gave its verdict and a constitutional amendment was made to overturn the verdict, not a one off pardon on a case by case basis. Its pretty simple to see the difference in the two cases. And no, the Indian PM does not have the authority to issue pardons, only the President does. Thank you for pointing out the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Presidential pardon is completely different from what happened in the Shah Bano case as others have tried to point out. Supreme Court gave its verdict and a constitutional amendment was made to overturn the verdict, not a one off pardon on a case by case basis. Its pretty simple to see the difference in the two cases. And no, the Indian PM does not have the authority to issue pardons, only the President does. Wahin main kab se ise bata raha hun oar ye hai CC no matetr what even in face of completly idiotic points he must put his foot down. Now I see he has seen the light presidential pardon and shah-bano cases are not identical in anyway whatsoever.. I have been telling that presidential pardon means nothing other than the fact that President has this power to pardon anyone, pardon never decriminlaises the act for which pardoned individual was found guilty. Heck many murderer get presidential pardon that doesn't mean murder no longer remains a crime in court's eye. Shah-bano case otoh is a law whereby in future any muslim husband can do exactly what shah-bano's husband did and don't worry about being dragged to court.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Looks like it is relatively easy to amend Indian constitution. Not that easy KR, specially in the present geo-political scenario. Amendments require a two thirds majority in both houses and though amendments were fast a furious earlier when the Congress used to dominate the house, they have become much more rare and are likely to stay that way in the current and forseeable future scenario of a single party being nowhere close to having a majority forget a two thirds majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Not that easy KR' date=' specially in the present geo-political scenario. Amendments require a two thirds majority in both houses and though amendments were fast a furious earlier when the Congress used to dominate the house, they have become much more rare and are likely to stay that way in the current and forseeable future scenario of a single party being nowhere close to having a majority forget a two thirds majority.[/quote'] Thanks Shwetabh. Actually , in USA it is very difficult to change the constitution as I was mentioning earlier because , not only the US senate and house have to approve by 75 % , the state legislature of entire 50 states have to approve by 75 %. In fact , I believe in the last 230 years their has been only 27 amendments to the constitution. In the case of India , I don't think the state legislatures are involved in the amendment process . That makes it so much easier is my assumption. Also, the fact that since independence , their has been more than 100 amendments already. Please correct me if I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 In the case of India , I don't think the state legislatures are involved in the amendment process . I am not 100% sure on this but vaguely remember from my Civics classes that there is another way to amend the constitution when you have a simple majority in parliament AND a majority of the state legislatures support it. I might be wrong on this one. Will need to check. That makes it so much easier is my assumption. Also, the fact that since independence , their has been more than 100 amendments already. Please correct me if I am wrong. The flurry of amendments has been due to the fact that for most of our history, Congress has had a clear majority and on many occasions close to a two-thirds majority. It's very difficult to make an amendment these days for obvious geo-political reasons unless it happens to be on issue like reservation, SC, ST etc. which have made up around 80% of the total amendments in the last decade or so. Almost all of them introduced by NDA BTW who would like people to believe they don't play caste politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 I am not 100% sure on this but vaguely remember from my Civics classes that there is another way to amend the constitution when you have a simple majority in parliament AND a majority of the state legislatures support it. I might be wrong on this one. Will need to check. The flurry of amendments has been due to the fact that for most of our history, Congress has had a clear majority and on many occasions close to a two-thirds majority. It's very difficult to make an amendment these days for obvious geo-political reasons unless it happens to be on issue like reservation, SC, ST etc. which have made up around 80% of the total amendments in the last decade or so. Almost all of them introduced by NDA BTW who would like people to believe they don't play caste politics. State legislator have to be involved depending od whihc part of constitution is being amended. Please detail the amendments which NDA has done serving caste-politics. Mandal: V P singh I wonder which part of reservation was introduced by NDA which I missed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Since 1995, 16 constitutional amendments have been made, 14 of them by the NDA govt. Out of the 14, half were directly or indirectly pertaining to reservation, SC/ST. Here they are : 1. 79th amendment : To extend special privilege to SC/ST for another 10 years. http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend79.htm 2. 81st amendment : Pertaining to backlog vacancies in reservations. http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend81.htm 3. 82nd amendment : Relaxation of marks for SC/STs http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend82.htm 4. 84th amendment : Readjustment of SC/ST seats in parliament/assemblies : http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend84.htm 5. 85th amendment : Promotion to "any class" changed to promotion to "any class of seniority" : http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend85.htm 6. 89th amendment : Establishment and renaming of SC/ST commissions : http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend89.htm 7. 90th amendment : Representation of SC/STs in Bodoland : http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend90.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Wahin main kab se ise bata raha hun oar ye hai CC no matetr what even in face of completly idiotic points he must put his foot down. Now I see he has seen the light presidential pardon and shah-bano cases are not identical in anyway whatsoever.. I have been telling that presidential pardon means nothing other than the fact that President has this power to pardon anyone, pardon never decriminlaises the act for which pardoned individual was found guilty. Heck many murderer get presidential pardon that doesn't mean murder no longer remains a crime in court's eye. Shah-bano case otoh is a law whereby in future any muslim husband can do exactly what shah-bano's husband did and don't worry about being dragged to court.. When you can compose an explanation as relevant, to the point and concise as Swetabh, i'd credit you for 'clearing it up' like Swetabh did in this instance. Sometimes its hard to believe that you could possibly be anything more than a purchased-degree holder...one who is so ineloquoent is a rather surprising aspect in technology fields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Since 1995, 16 constitutional amendments have been made, 14 of them by the NDA govt. Out of the 14, half were directly or indirectly pertaining to reservation, SC/ST. Here they are : 1. 79th amendment : To extend special privilege to SC/ST for another 10 years. http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend79.htm 2. 81st amendment : Pertaining to backlog vacancies in reservations. http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend81.htm 3. 82nd amendment : Relaxation of marks for SC/STs http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend82.htm 4. 84th amendment : Readjustment of SC/ST seats in parliament/assemblies : http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend84.htm 5. 85th amendment : Promotion to "any class" changed to promotion to "any class of seniority" : http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend85.htm 6. 89th amendment : Establishment and renaming of SC/ST commissions : http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend89.htm 7. 90th amendment : Representation of SC/STs in Bodoland : http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend90.htm All of them are SC/ST reservation/continuation in one or another form and is routine amendment not introduced by NDA mind you , introduced by our great fore-fathers which noone has touched since indepednece. I asked for sthg which NDA introduced. Travesty of indian political system is nobody can afford to say a word against existing reservation they will have to nod lest they want political obituary. It most certainly is weakness but main lame lies with those who open these pandora's box be it VP Singh or Ambedkar saheb.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 When you can compose an explanation as relevant, to the point and concise as Swetabh, i'd credit you for 'clearing it up' like Swetabh did in this instance. Sometimes its hard to believe that you could possibly be anything more than a purchased-degree holder...one who is so ineloquoent is a rather surprising aspect in technology fields. :haha::haha::haha: Never mind suddenly aphasia crept in. I didn't see u complain in fact u were trying to argue against the point made.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 All of them are SC/ST reservation/continuation in one or another form and is routine amendment not introduced by NDA mind you ' date=' introduced by our great fore-fathers which noone has touched since indepednece. [b']I asked for sthg which NDA introduced. Travesty of indian political system is nobody can afford to say a word against existing reservation they will have to nod lest they want political obituary. It most certainly is weakness but main lame lies with those who open these pandora's box be it VP Singh or Ambedkar saheb.. Most constitutional amendments pointed out above were introductions. Where was the need to change cut off marks, or change SC/ST seats in Bodoland, or change description of seniority, or found new SC/ST establishments, or the backlog vacancy issue, or the readjustment of parliamentary/legislative seats. All these would count as introductions under any definition and I am not going to waste my time trying to convince you that they were introductions of new definitions and policies. Anyone reading the above can make up his mind as to what these new amendments were. The only amendment out of the list above which can be called a continuation and not an introduction was extending the SC/ST privilege for another 10 years and if the NDA had half the balls as you go on suggesting they do on reservation they could have stopped that as well. BTW, not that I am any supporter of the UPA govt. but they have made a grand total of one amendment related to SC/ST since gaining power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 U are being picky these to me are exissting reservation they keep doing these things.. redefinition. All party cried that seats are nto getting filled remaining vacant now if that seat they give to gc , they will burn bjp alive.... on bodo I will have to read the amendment ot pass further commenst becasue to me it sounds weird that there was no sc/st reservation there in first place...... Apan apna nazariya hai.. travesty ye hai ki bjp aur koi party kuchh nahin kar sakti sc/st reservation pe even asking question on these issues at the time of customary extension is political suicide.......... sc/st existing reservation amendment/redefenition is cosmetic, UPA has unleases another franksetein, opened up new fronts of reservation bogey as if existing ones were not enough and u saw the drama whivc unveiled over this. Then we have sachar committee runnig amock then andra govt. tactics.. What will this do is down the line another holy grail of reservation like sc/st and mandal commisison will come up which none will be able to touch....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts