The Narendra Modi thread

[Sachin=GOD]

BJP's prospects ? Really ? Since when was that any of your concern ? You are a pure kangressi . As pure as they come. Blatantly hypocritical and pseudo secular but must admit that you still have a bit of ethics left in you. All these years you have been harping about how Modi is that evil blood sucker and your basis for all that ranting and raving was based on human rights violation. I did the doodh-ka-doodh filteration of that on the hood. If you are truly really concerned about human rights and all of that fake liberal song and dance you would be up in arms about Kashmir and numerous other depressing tragedies orchestrated under Kaangress that would make Gujarat riots a walk in the park. You would also be up in arms about the train victims, numerous Islamic terror attacks. Your whole basis for attacking Modi fell flat that day because as I said earlier you are a pseudo secular. You need to fix your concepts of secularism first before you question anybody.

that, Sir, is an insult.

[FischerTal]

The relief materiel is not being sent by/financed by Modi. Its being sent by the Gujarat Govt so IMO it shouldn't have Modi's name.

and the article says the packets have gujarat govt sticker. Modi kit is a popular name as far as i know

[asterix]

Ermm media publicity for Namo in Uttarakhand?? Have you been following the news on how media outlets like TOI went out of their way to distort facts to present NaMo in a bad light? Also' date=' where in the article does it say his photo was on the Gujarat govt sticker?[/quote'] Yeah I know... But then NaMo/BJP initially did enjoyed that distorted news and didn't issued any clarification. It's only when things went out of the hand they started blamin TOI...

[FischerTal]

height of idiocy, Namo allegedly sends relief for only Gujarat pilgrims, bash him. Then, we find out the relief material is for all, and you still bash him.

[FischerTal]

Yeah I know... But then NaMo/BJP initially did enjoyed that distorted news and didn't issued any clarification. It's only when things went out of the hand they started blamin TOI...

lol, you think our leftist phseculars would spare an opportunity to bash Modi for anything.... any smart person in Modi's camp would know that such a news would backlash on them anyways because of the huge media pressure against them.

[The Outsider]

If Modi becomes PM, international aid from India will be called Modi kits? WTF!!

[FischerTal]

If Modi becomes PM' date=' international aid from India will be called Modi kits? WTF!! [/quote'] gyaani wapis aa gaye :clap:

[The Outsider]

Meanwhile, Supreme Court also joins in on the Modi b!tchslapping: http://m.firstpost.com/india/sc-dismisses-guj-govts-petition-for-re-examining-lokayukta-verdict-967565.html

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi's last hope for quashing of Justice (retd) R A Mehta's appointment as Lokayukta was dashed today with the Supreme Court dismissing the state government's curative petition for re-examining its verdict upholding the selection. A five-judge bench headed by outgoing Chief Justice Altamas Kabir did not find merit in the curative petition filed by the Modi government after dismissal of review petition and appeal against the Gujarat High Court's decision holding Justice Mehta's appointment by Governor Kamla Beniwal as valid and legal. Curative petition, which is decided generally in judges' chamber, by the three senior most judges and the judges who delivered the impugned judgement, is the last procedural resort for a party to seek redressal against the apex court verdict. The bench, also comprising justices P Sathasivam, G S Singhvi, B S Chauhan and F M Ibrahim Kalifulla dismissed the curative plea of Gujarat which was filed after its petition seeking review of the 2 January verdict was dismissed. A bench comprising justices B S Chauhan and F M Ibrahim Kalifulla had not found merit in the review petition filed by the state government. The petition had sought a re-look into the judgement which had dismissed the Modi government's plea that the appointment of Lokayukta was illegal as it was done without consulting it. The same bench in its verdict on 2 January had given primacy to the opinion of the High Court Chief Justice on the appointment issue by disagreeing with the state's contention that the governor could not appoint Lokayukta without its advice. In the review petition, the Gujarat government had cited another judgement of the apex court delivered on 11 January in which it said the chief minister, and not the chief justice of the high court, will have primacy in selecting a person for the post of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta if the state law includes the chief minister in the.... onsultation process carried out before the governor makes the appointment. Sharp differences over Mehta's appointment between Modi and the governor had triggered a constitutional crisis in the state. The governor had held her ground asserting that her decision was based on consultations with the Gujarat High Court Chief Justice. The apex court, which upheld the appointment, had also faulted the governor saying she "misjudged her role" for appointing Mehta without holding consultations with the state government.

[Sachin=GOD]

yaar Iam not the type to indulge in politically correct speak. I told you what my impression is of you based on your posting pattern. that said you must be one really odd BJP wala if that is what you are claiming.

not exactly. A lot of senior BJP leaders and workers do not like Modi and know that since Modi cannot attract any allies, victory in 2014 will be extremely difficult but right now they cannot come out in the open to criticize him (look what happened to the Delhi State Vice Prez who criticized Modi) but when the time is right they will certainly come out in support of someone else. As for BJP supporters, there are many who do not support him at all (and for many of them, Gujrat Riots is not the primary reason).

[FischerTal]

^ read the last line of that article and please tell us why its a b*tchslap.

[Sachin=GOD]

^ read the last line of that article and please tell us why its a b*tchslap. :popcorn:

because despite faulting the Governor, the Supreme Court agreed with her. Modi :hehe:

[FischerTal]

because despite faulting the Governor' date=' the Supreme Court agreed with her. Modi :hehe:[/quote'] on one hand, they say she misjudged her role in appointment of Lokayukta and on the other hand, they say Lokayukta appointment is valid. Oxymoronic SC :hehe:

[Sachin=GOD]

on one hand, they say she misjudged her role in appointment of Lokayukta and on the other hand, they say Lokayukta appointment is valid. Oxymoronic SC :hehe:

No :dontknow: when it said that she "misjudged her role" in appointing the Lokayukta without consulting the Govt, it meant that she should have consulted the Govt before making the appointment BUT this does not mean that the appointment is unconstitutional. The Governor was within her rights to appoint the Lokayukta by consulting only the Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court.

[Sachin=GOD]

Meanwhile Subramanian Swamy says this:

Rahul Kanwal ‏@rahulkanwal 'NDA's strategy is to divide Muslim vote between Shias & Sunnis & unite the Hindu vote' says @Swamy39 on Seedhi Baat at 8:30 PM @aajtak

Rahul Kanwal ‏@rahulkanwal No question of confusion on Ram Mandir. Once @narendramodi is made PM, we will ensure construction of Ram temple at Ayodhya: @Swamy39 8:30PM

development agenda gaya tel lene, ab yeh election wahi puraane communal/secualr topics par hoga.....

[FischerTal]

No :dontknow: when it said that she "misjudged her role" in appointing the Lokayukta without consulting the Govt' date='[b'] it meant that she should have consulted the Govt before making the appointment BUT this does not mean that the appointment is unconstitutional. The Governor was within her rights to appoint the Lokayukta by consulting only the Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court.

well then doesnt that raise questions as to why she didnt inform state government? Also, she has been Governor of Gujarat since 2009... interestingly she appoints Lokayukta in 2011.... For two years, she did nothing but as soon as elections came, she nominated Mehta's name. PS: She's a Kangressi from Rajasthan

[FischerTal]

Source: http://www.kartikeyatanna.com/index.php/2013/01/the-infirmities-in-sc-judgment-on-gujarat-lokayukta/ The infirmities in SC judgment on Gujarat Lokayukta

Yesterday’s SC judgment in the matter pertaining to the appointment of Gujarat Lokayukta goes against Gujarat Government’s stand. At the same time, the judgment holds Governor Kamala Beniwal’s actions in this entire matter as unconstitutional and “not in conformity with the Rule of Law”. The question that naturally arises is this – if SC held Governor’s actions in this appointment process as unconstitutional, why did Gujarat Government end up on the losing side? This is because the Chief Justice’s (CJ) opinion holds primacy over the opinion of the Chief Minister or the Leader of Opposition (LOP). Therefore, regardless of the Governor trying to impose her choice, as long as Justice R.A. Mehta was eligible in the opinion of the CJ, nothing else mattered. Because of this primacy, the requirement of ‘consultation’ under law was met. Section 3 of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, which is the premise of this judgment, states that: “For the purpose of conducting investigations in accordance with provisions of this Act, the Governor shall, by warrant under his hand and seal, appoint a person to be known as the Lokayukta. Provided that the Lokayukta shall be appointed after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and […] after consultation also with the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly …” [emphasis mine] How did SC conclude that the CJ has primacy? While the Lokayukta Act does not expressly state primacy of the CJ, the SC concluded primacy by interpreting this Section in light of the objects and purposes of the law. The CJ is the most appropriate person to judge the suitability of a retired Judge and his opinion would be entirely independent. So far so good. What is problematic is SC’s approach on the sufficiency of ‘consultation’ process. What does ‘consultation’ mean? In Para 9, SC states that “consultation requires the meeting of minds between parties that are involved in the consultative process, on the basis of material facts and points, in order to arrive at a correct, or at least a satisfactory solution … consultation must be conscious, effective, meaningful and purposeful.” By invalidating Governor’s actions and upholding Justice Mehta’s appointment at the same time, the SC has only created confusion. In cases where primacy of CJ has to be accepted, the SC held that ‘consultation’ means ‘concurrence’. Was there a consultation process? Let us look at the facts of this appointment process in brief: - Three years after the resignation of former Lokayukta in November 2003, Modi sent a letter to CJ recommending Justice K.R. Vyas. CJ approved Justice Vyas’ name and Modi sent the file to the Governor for issuing necessary appointment orders. - This file remained pending for 3 years. In the meanwhile, Justice Vyas took up another post as a result of which the Governor’s office requested CJ to suggest a panel of names. Modi did that too. - After receiving four suggested names, Modi made attempts to consult the LOP. The LOP responded back saying that the Governor had already initiated the process of consultation and that Modi and the Council of Ministers had no right to embark on this constitutional process. Moreover, the Governor, Kamala Beniwal, did not think it proper to consult any further with Modi. - In the meanwhile, the Council of Ministers approved one of the four names (Justice J.R. Vora) and sent the file to the Governor who refused to pass any orders. In fact, she sought the opinion of the Attorney General of India. She also asked the CJ on who would be a better choice between Justice R.P. Dholakia and Justice Vora. - The CJ wrote back stating that Justice Dholakia would be the more appropriate choice. However, the Governor still did not issue a letter of appointment and again requested the CJ to recommend only one name. To which the CJ recommended the name of Justice S.D. Dave. The CJ also wrote to Modi recommending Justice S.D. Dave. - As one shall observe, a parallel ‘consultation’ was going on between CJ and Modi and CJ and Governor who refused to engage with Modi. Modi wrote back to the CJ requesting appointment of Justice Vora since the consultation process concerning his name had already been gone through. - All of a sudden, in June 2011, the CJ recommended Justice R.A. Mehta to the Governor as well as Modi. This is the first time Justice Mehta’s name came up. The Governor, who otherwise took her own time in this process, requested Modi to expedite the process for appointing Justice Mehta on the same day. Modi wrote a letter objecting Justice Mehta’s recommendation on grounds of his age and bias against Modi government. - In August 2011, the Leader of Opposition told Modi that he approved Justice Mehta’s name and, soon thereafter, the Governor issued the requisite warrant appointing Justice Mehta as the Lokayukta notwithstanding Modi’s objections. - In yesterday’s judgment, Supreme Court holds that the consultative process was complete at this stage as there was “nothing left for the consultees to do/discuss”. The ‘consultation process’ on Justice Mehta’s recommendation was as little as two months. While it is true that Section 3 does not require unanimity in the consultative process – CJ’s opinion has primacy – SC’s conclusions on the adequacy of consultation raise problems. Throughout the judgment as well as in its conclusions in Para 74, SC holds that Beniwal “misjudged her role” by insisting that “the Council of Ministers has no role to play in the appointment of Lokayukta” and that she could therefore, fill it up in consultation with the CJ and LOP. Such attitude was “not in conformity or in consonance with the democratic set up of government envisaged in our Constitution” and that the appointment can be made by the Governor “only with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and not independently as a Statutory Authority.” Therefore, when the Governor consulted the A-G for legal advice and communicated with CJ directly without taking into confidence the Council of Ministers, she was “wrongly advised”. [emphasis mine] The question that arises is: if, by ignoring Council of Ministers in the consultative process, the Governor “misjudged her role”, isn’t the consultation process significantly vitiated? Can it be called truly conscious, effective, meaningful and purposeful so as to meet the requirement in Section 3? Sure, the CJ’s opinion has primacy. But does that mean that the vitiation of, or inadequacy in, the consultation process does not matter? It is important to recognize that the ‘consultation’ requirement is an express one in Section 3 whereas primacy of CJ’s opinion is an implied one. Should the operation of the latter completely negate the former that the legislature clearly intended? And then, there is the ‘floodgate’ ramification to this judgment as well. It seems that as long as there exists an opinion by the CJ, any ham-handed act by the Governor at any stage of the process would indirectly attain legitimacy. In a situation where the Centre tries to enforce its whims and fancies through Rajbhavans in opposition-ruled States, this is bound to have dangerous consequences. If SC had held that the Governor could have validly acted without the aid and advice of Council of Ministers, the judgment would have made sense although it would be legally incorrect. By invalidating Governor’s actions and upholding Justice Mehta’s appointment at the same time, it has only created confusion.

[asterix]

Meanwhile Subramanian Swamy says this: development agenda gaya tel lene, ab yeh election wahi puraane communal/secualr topics par hoga.....

The developement agenda was anyway hype by PR machinery... Can't go to electorate on the basis of hyped up, fake developement laurels.. That's why raking up Ram Mandir issue... :cantstop: Huge ant-incumbecy factor but chewtiyas are focussing on Ram Mandir.. Vinaash Kaaley Vipareet Buddhi... One of the main reason why BJP/NDA will never come to power.. I mean, why would people vote for stupid party and leaders... Sala can't even manage elections, dreaming of managing the country... :cantstop:

[Sachin=GOD]

well then doesnt that raise questions as to why she didnt inform state government? Also, she has been Governor of Gujarat since 2009... interestingly she appoints Lokayukta in 2011.... For two years, she did nothing but as soon as elections came, she nominated Mehta's name. PS: She's a Kangressi from Rajasthan

this case was not about the motives/timing of the appointment of the Lokayukta. It was about whether the appointment, done without consulting the state Govt, was constitutional or not. The Supreme Court, while finding fault with the fact that the Governor did not consult the State Govt, has upheld the appointment thereby confirming that it was constitutional. I know that.

[ravishingravi]

The developement agenda was anyway hype by PR machinery... Can't go to electorate on the basis of hyped up' date= fake developement laurels.. That's why raking up Ram Mandir issue... :cantstop: Huge ant-incumbecy factor but chewtiyas are focussing on Ram Mandir.. Vinaash Kaaley Vipareet Buddhi... One of the main reason why BJP/NDA will never come to power.. I mean, why would people vote for stupid party and leaders... Sala can't even manage elections, dreaming of managing the country... :cantstop:

Yeah amazingly co-ordinated stuff. Got all the people in Gujarat on the act as well.

[asterix]

When you are a so called 'progressive, developed' state, then why fear the Lokayukta? In that regards, even K'taka BJP was better. They had independant Lokayukta which worked against them but people will still accept them...