1983-2011 Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court on Wednesday upheld the appointment of Lokayukta by the governor and dismissed the plea of the Narendra Modi government that had challenged it. In a majority decision, the court concluded that governor Dr Kamla Beniwal was right in appointing retired HC judge RA Mehta as Lokayukta and dismissed the state government's petition challenging the governor's act. The third judge, justice V M Sahai's opinion concurred with justice Akil Kureshi's. Justice Mehta, however, has not taken charge as Lokayukta of Gujarat since his appointment on August 25 last year. Immediately after justice Mehta's appointment, the state government moved the HC claiming that the governor had done it without considering the advice of council of ministers and hence it was illegal. The government appealed the warrant of appointment was quashed. The Narendra Modi government objected to justice Mehta's name by claiming that he had proximity with elements that were "anti-Gujarat". Modi even stated in his letter to CJ that the retired judge was not capable of managing the office of Lokayukta. After a marathon hearing, a division bench came up with a split verdict with justice Akil Kureshi concluding that the consultation process between the CM and the chief justice was over and the appointment was not illegal, particularly looking at the fact that the post was vacant for more than seven years. Justice Sonia Gokani in the bench had a dissenting view and quashed the appointment. Following this disagreement, the case was referred to a third judge - justice V M Sahai, who heard the case on points of disagreement between the two judges. The points formulated by the division bench were - 1. Looking at the nature of consultation required for appointment of Lokayukta under Section 3 of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, in the present case as a matter of fact, whether the consultative process between the Chief Justice and the Chief Minister had come to a close and there was a deadlock between the two dignitaries? 2. Whether the Governor of the State was authorized to act in a manner she did while issuing a notification appointing Justice R.A. Mehta as Lokayukta of the State without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers? 3. What final order? In other words, should the petitions be allowed or should the petitions be dismissed. Further if the petitions are to be allowed, should further direction for appointment of a new Lokayukta within time frame be given to the State Government? After hearing the case, justice Sahai agreed with justice Kureshi's view and held that the governor's decision was legal. With the third judge's opinion, the government's petition has been dismissed. However, the formal pronouncement may be made by the division bench, as the matter has been referred to the acting chief justice. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Gujarat-HC-upholds-appointment-of-Lokayukta-by-governor/articleshow/11537621.cms xWgBlbb_7D4
ravishingravi Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Wait!! So now Gujarat HC is unbiased again.
bulbul Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Wait!! So now Gujarat HC is unbiased again. :giggle:
adi B Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 it`ll take 20 years to get to a verdict, till then he might retire from politics , same case like what happened with sukhram, but modi will not get indicted,he should serve gujrat for 15 more years
1983-2011 Posted January 2, 2013 Author Posted January 2, 2013 New Delhi: The Supreme Court today rejected Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi's contention that the Lokayukta or ombudsman of his state was inappropriately selected and must therefore be removed. Retired judge RA Mehta was selected as the Lokayukta in August 2011 by Gujarat's Governor Kamla Beniwal - at the time, the post had been vacant for more than seven years. Mr Modi has argued that the Governor did not consult his cabinet for the appointment. The Supreme Court appeared to agree with that. It offered this severe feedback of the Governor. "The present Governor has misjudged her role and has insisted, that under the Act, 1986, the Council of Ministers has no role to play in the appointment of the Lokayukta, and that she could therefore, fill it up in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court and the Leader of Opposition. Such attitude is not in conformity, or in consonance with the democratic set up of government envisaged in our Constitution." But the judges today found that though the Governor excluded the cabinet from consultations, "it is evident that the Chief Minister had full information and was in receipt of all communications from the Chief Justice." The Supreme Court has also asked for comments made against Mr Modi by the Gujarat High Court to be expunged. While declaring the appointment of Justice Mehta as the Lokayukta in January 2012, the High Court had said, "The Chief Minister acted under a false impression that he could turn down the superiority and primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice which was binding. The spiteful and challenging action demonstrates a false sense of invincibility." http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/supreme-court-rules-against-narendra-modi-on-lokauykta-but-slams-governor-312225?pfrom=home-otherstories
surajmal Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Modi having reservations regarding intentions of a congress lackey? Right. the audacity. Hang him... :hysterical:
jairamesh Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Retired judge RA Mehta was selected as the Lokayukta in August 2011 by Gujarat's Governor Kamla Beniwal - at the time, the post had been vacant for more than seven years. Modi probably has good reason for this, must be too many skeletons in the closet to hide. The fishing scandal involving a prominent BJP minister has hardly been investigated.
surajmal Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Resident 50 center won't post the ndtv correction ItÃÔ a blow to mediaÃÔ credibility, not to Narendra Modi I am no legal luminary, nor am I a wannabe lawyer. I mostly rely on written articles available on the web/newspapers, to understand court judgements. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of India gave its ruling on the appointment of Lokayukta in Gujarat. The popular site DeshGujarat.com has a detailed timeline of this case. Immediately after the verdict, news media was out in full force. The celebrated ãlow to Modi headline was back! LetÃÔ take a look at the initial report on NDTV. HereÃÔ a snapshot (courtesy @ sharmarohitraj): To make it easier, I will zoom into the operative portion of this report: The image might not be clear, because I had to zoom into this a lot. So I will just paste below the text (emphasis mine): Å®r. Modi challenged the appointment on the grounds that the Governor has not consulted his cabinet. The Supreme Court disagreed. The judges said that the Governor must seek the advice of the Cabinet to select the Lokayukta, and this was done. Pretty plain English. Easy for any layman to understand. Essentially, according to the report, the Supreme Court was saying that the Gujarat Government had ÃÃied when it said it had not been consulted. I was wondering why such a simple factual case had to go all the way to the Supreme Court after all, all correspondence between the Governor and the Cabinet would have been documented well. Please note this report was filed moments after the verdict was given. And told us that the Supreme Court said that the Cabinet had beenconsulted. Guess what! NDTV changed its report by the evening. Let me present to you a zoomed-in version of the operative part: Å®r Modi has argued that the Governor did not consult his Cabinet for the appointment. The Supreme Court appeared to agree with that. Whoa! In the morning ŵhe Supreme Court disagreed. In the evening ŵhe Supreme Court appeared to agree with that. First, what does ÅÂppeared to agree even mean? Second, how is this possible that the Supreme Court disagreed in the morning and ÅÂppeared to agree in the evening? The only way this is possible is that NDTV was in a tearing hurry to put up an article without checking facts! The Supreme Court judgement can be found here. The staff at NDTV must really be some geniuses to have read all 82 pages and filed a report in no time! It details out the reasons for the delay so far in appointing a Lokayukta. (NDTV merely says: ŵhe post has been lying vacant since 2003.? On pages 55 and 56 of this exhaustive 82-page judgement, all three judges agree (and not ÅÂppear to agree? that the Governor has to take the advice of the Council of Ministers. There are other nuances in the judgement which I shall leave for legal experts to explain to all of us. The limited point I am trying to make here is the mediaÃÔ overzealousness in reporting anything remotely negative on Narendra Modi. Most NDTV scrolls referred to èovernor and îodi? If you donÃÕ believe me, look at NDTVÃÔ headline Å´upreme Court rules against Narendra Modi on Lokayukta, but slams Governor. Why not name the Governor if you are naming the Chief Minister? This was a case filed by the Gujarat Government, not by Narendra Modi in his personal capacity. So why is uniformity lacking in media while reporting such stuff? http://www.niticentral.com/2013/01/its-a-blow-to-medias-credibility-not-to-narendra-modi.html
Clarke Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Ismein setback kya hai ? The Supreme Court snaps the wrists of the central govt umpteen times on all kinds of issues.
Recommended Posts