Sachin=GOD Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 Nothing is guaranteed ' date=' Con party can bring pressure thru his mother.But if Telangana seperated, con party will be introuble in AP.[/quote'] there's a very important meeting regarding Telengana tomorrow. Been hearing that the issue will be decided this month...
bulbul Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 there's a very important meeting regarding Telengana tomorrow. Been hearing that the issue will be decided this month... It may depend upon the General election date. Con party won't go down without a fight though.
adi B Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 Hindustan Times @htTweets Supreme Court bars those in jail from contesting elections: TV reports #ht wow now that is a sweet news
Sachin=GOD Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 It may depend upon the General election date. Con party won't go down without a fight though. on this issue Cong will lose on either side - form Telengana, lose in AP ; don't form it, lose in Telengana badly.
bulbul Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 on this issue Cong will lose on either side - form Telengana' date=' lose in AP ; don't form it, lose in Telengana badly.[/quote'] In telangana they can tie up with TRS & in AP they can use Jagan.
Sachin=GOD Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 In telangana they can tie up with TRS & in AP they can use Jagan. All these would be post poll..
Raghav_12 Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 Raghav_12 is correct - you can even be in jail without being convicted AFAIK Yes. 60 to 70% of those are in jails are without any charges proven on them. Not to say that there should not be a process to bar criminals from political process but without police or judicial reforms these rulings would not provide desired results. Biggest issue is slowness of judiciary process. A person remains undertrial for ages. You can't take him as declared criminal. For few people you don't need court to declare if they are criminal or not but then you have to go by the system.
Crookbond Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 The 85-Year-Old Cleaning Up Indian Politics http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/07/12/the-85-year-old-cleaning-up-indian-politics/ :hatsoff:
Raghav_12 Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 I believe this judgement of Supreme Court is to be challenged at various platforms. Samajwadi Party has come out openly against this judgement to start with. Former SC judge Katju also spoke about judiciary giving extra-judicial judgement. I hope, this judgement is not thrown away in toto. They come up with some modified version which may prevent blatant misuse or wrong precedences.
Sachin=GOD Posted July 21, 2013 Posted July 21, 2013 Error in judgment? Karan Thapar July 21, 2013 First Published: 00:15 IST(21/7/2013) | Last Updated: 03:49 IST(21/7/2013) The recent spate of judgments by the Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court suggests a determined attempt by the judiciary to cleanse Indian politics. The popular response is one of welcome. But do we need to consider the judgments more carefully? If you do, you might have reason to think again. Let’s start with the three Supreme Court judgments. First, a direction to the Election Commission to frame guidelines to regulate election manifesto ‘freebies’ as well as a call for legislation to this effect. Was this a case of the Supreme Court overreaching itself? After admitting it cannot rule “on what kind of promise can or cannot be made” it chose to direct the Election Commission to push through what it could not do itself. That, itself, is odd. More importantly, the Supreme Court’s raison d’etre that election promises damage a level playing field essential for free and fair elections isn’t true. Promises are free and anyone can make them. And a small party can be as extravagant as a large one in any competitive offering of promises. Finally, whether they are mixer-grinders or mangalsutras, colour TVs or cattle, it’s demeaning to assume the electorate will be tempted to the extent of determining how it votes. Of course, freebies should be discouraged, if not dispensed with altogether, but that’s not for the Election Commission or legislation to do. It’s best left to the pressure of public opinion and concerns of moral propriety. Second, the Supreme Court’s ruling that subsection 4 of Section 8 of the Representation of People Act is unconstitutional and sitting legislators must be disqualified from the moment of their conviction. Prima facie this sounds right. It strikes the moral note we want to hear. But think more carefully and you might have doubts. What happens if the conviction is overturned on appeal? The punishment will have been meted out but the recipient is innocent! And, if the government has a razor-thin majority this could affect its stability. This is why a constitutional bench in 2005 upheld subsection 4 of Section 8. Was a smaller bench right in overturning that 8 years later? Third, the Supreme Court judgment declaring that any one in lawful custody, including under-trials, is disqualified from contesting elections. The court’s argument is if you can’t vote you can’t contest. However, these people are innocent. Not only are they not convicted many may not even be charged! This also means another George Fernandes, who fought and won in July 1977 from jail, is impossible. That, alone, diminishes our democracy. Beyond moral concerns, this judgment can be used to foist false cases to disqualify those you may not be able to electorally defeat. This is, possibly, an invitation for vendetta. Finally, the Allahabad High Court order banning caste rallies in Uttar Pradesh. Again, this sounds right. But, once again, think carefully and you could disagree. A rally is part of freedom of expression as well as freedom of assembly. Under our constitution these freedoms can be curbed only for specific reasons. The one that could apply is law and order. But if a rally is intended to promote the welfare of specific castes, rather than provoke violence, that can’t be the case. Mayawati and Mulayam may have rushed to comply but is the ban strictly constitutional? In fact, that question applies to the three Supreme Court judgments as well. Clean our politics we must but these judgments might not be the best way of doing so. http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorial-views-on/KaranThapar/Error-in-judgment/Article1-1095790.aspx
Sachin=GOD Posted August 1, 2013 Posted August 1, 2013 bhupendra chaubey @bhupendrachaube Govt also decides to challenge the SC verdict barring convicted politicians from contesting polls. No to RTI, yes to criminals #netas
asterix Posted August 1, 2013 Posted August 1, 2013 Central Govt. will contest it... Don't be so happy guys.... :bow:
Sachin=GOD Posted August 3, 2013 Posted August 3, 2013 Rahul Kanwal @rahulkanwal Kamal Nath: Govt to move amendment in Parl, barring convicted netas from contesting until higher court gives stay on conviction #SeedhiBaat
adi B Posted August 3, 2013 Posted August 3, 2013 Top 10 states ranked by MLA's criminally char oh phack,delhi!!! :((
Crookbond Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Parliament passes bill to allow those in jail to contest polls New Delhi: Negating a Supreme Court order, Parliament today passed a bill that maintains the right of those in jail to contest polls, with the government saying the court verdict was wrong and the Legislature has Constitutional duty to correct it. The Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013 was rushed through in the Lok Sabha and passed within about 15 minutes after a brief discussion Some members wanted an elaborate debate on the bill but the overwhelming majority of the House, including Leader of Opposition Sushma Swaraj, pushed for its passage even without discussion. The Bill negates the 10 July order of the Supreme Court which held that those in jail cannot vote as per RP Act and hence cannot qualify for contesting elections to Parliament or state legislatures. The Bill was passed by Rajya Sabha on 27 August. Moving the bill for consideration and passage, Law Minister Kapil Sibal said, “The Supreme Court is right because it is final, it is not right because it is right.” Talking about the apprehensions caused by the apex court verdict, he said, “If an SHO decides to detain you on the eve of elections, then you cannot file nominations.” He said, “It is our constitutional duty to correct it (the verdict).” Sibal’s views were on the lines of some of the members, including Kirti Azad (BJP) and Dara Singh Chouhan (BSP). The Amendment Bill seeks to add a proviso to sub-section (2) of section 62 of the RP Act to state that a person cannot cease to be a voter while in detention as his or her right is only temporarily suspended. One of the amendments states that as the name of the jailed person continues to be on the electoral rolls, he or she also continues to be an elector and can file nomination for an election. “Provided further that by reason of the prohibition to vote under this sub-section, a person whose name has been entered in the electoral roll shall not cease to be an elector,” the proviso reads. The amendment shall come into effect from 10 July, 2013, the day the Supreme Court gave the judgement. After examining the Supreme Court order, government had filed a review petition, but instead of waiting for the outcome, it felt the need to “suitably” address the situation, the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill states. The apex court had on Wednesday agreed to review the judgement. In its verdict the apex court had ruled that only an “elector” can contest the polls and he/she ceases the right to cast vote due to confinement in prison or being in custody of police. The court had, however, made it clear that disqualification would not be applicable to persons subjected to preventive detention under any law. Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/parliament-passes-bill-to-allow-those-in-jail-to-contest-polls-1091169.html?utm_source=ref_article
Raghav_12 Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 Cong. jumping to save convited politicians, voiding Supreme Courts ruling. Disgusting. Cabinet clears ordinance to shield convicted netas, negates top court order http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/cabinet-clears-ordinance-to-shield-convicted-netas-negates-top-court-order-423243 New Delhi: The Union Cabinet has hurriedly approved an ordinance to protect convicted MPs and MLAs from immediate disqualification if they appeal in a higher court against the verdict. It overturns a July order of the Supreme Court that elected members would be disqualified immediately if convicted by a court and sentenced to two years of imprisonment or more. On Monday next, a Jharkhand court will give verdict on Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad Yadav's alleged role in the fodder scam case. The ordinance cleared today will prevent Mr Yadav from being disqualified as a Lok Sabha member of Parliament if the court convicts him. Mr Yadav has repeatedly proved a loyal ally for the minority Manmohan Singh government. Congress MP Rashid Masood, convicted last week in a corruption case, will benefit too. The CBI court will announce quantum of punishment next month and even if he is handed a jail term of more than two years, he will now not face immediate disqualification form the Rajya Sabha. Law Minister Kapil Sibal has clarified to NDTV that under the ordinance, protection from disqualification will apply only when the convicted MP or MLA has appealed in a higher court and the higher court has stayed the lower court's conviction. While it brings huge relief for politicians, the ordinance also does provide that till the elected representatives convicted are not acquitted by a higher court, they will not have voting rights or a salary. And it does not interfere with the Supreme Court ruling that the convicted legislator cannot context elections the next time around unless permitted by a higher court. So if he is convicted on Monday, Lalu Yadav cannot contest the 2014 Lok Sabha elections unless a higher court allows him to. In July, the Supreme Court had passed two important judgments - that a convicted lawmaker must be immediately disqualified and jailed persons must be barred from contesting elections. In the Monsoon Session of Parliament the government changed the law to allow a jailed person the right to contest elections. It also introduced a bill to allow convicted lawmakers to continue in office pending an appeal, but the Opposition did not agree to push it through in a rush. The BJP said today, "The government must answer why this haste. Why can't they wait until the Winter Session of Parliament." Though I was not in full agreement with Supreme Court judgement as can be seen from my previous posts in this thread, but the shameless manner which UPA govt took to negate Apex court orders is utter disgrace. They had all opportunities to discuss this order in just concluded monsoon session of parliament, yet they chose this Ordinance route. This govt is absolutely dangerous for democratic values of the country. They have tried to manipulate every single constitutional body in abhorent manner in last few years. Through this current move, they have undermined importance of both SC and Parliament in a single move. They keep bringing down the level of politics in country.
Crookbond Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 Cong. jumping to save convited politicians, voiding Supreme Courts ruling. Disgusting. Cabinet clears ordinance to shield convicted netas, negates top court order http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/cabinet-clears-ordinance-to-shield-convicted-netas-negates-top-court-order-423243 Though I was not in full agreement with Supreme Court judgement as can be seen from my previous posts in this thread, but the shameless manner which UPA govt took to negate Apex court orders is utter disgrace. They had all opportunities to discuss this order in just concluded monsoon session of parliament, yet they chose this Ordinance route. This govt is absolutely dangerous for democratic values of the country. They have tried to manipulate every single constitutional body in abhorent manner in last few years. Through this current move, they have undermined importance of both SC and Parliament in a single move. They keep bringing down the level of politics in country. The BJP is as much in this as the Congress is. Same goes for other parties.
Raghav_12 Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 The BJP is as much in this as the Congress is. Same goes for other parties. please familiarize yourself on topic before commenting. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/bjp-asks-president-not-to-sign-unconstitutional-ordinance-to-shield-convicted-netas-423277 BJP asks President not to sign 'unconstitutional' ordinance to shield convicted netas New Delhi: An ordinance hurriedly approved by the cabinet on Tuesday, to protect convicted MPs and MLAs from disqualification, has sparked off another political confrontation between the government and the opposition. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has asked President Pranab Mukherjee not to sign the ordinance, which skirts around a Supreme Court order that had said lawmakers will stand disqualified immediately after conviction. "The President is not obliged to sign an ordinance that is unconstitutional. We oppose this ordinance," tweeted BJP's Sushma Swaraj, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. In response, Union Information and Broadcasting Minister Manish Tewari tweeted this morning that the BJP leader's advice was "amusing, surprising." "The Constitutionality or otherwise of legal enactments are tested in Constitutional courts and not in the BJP's moat. Unsolicited advice is neither appreciated nor taken seriously," Mr Tewari said cuttingly. The ordinance, which allows convicted MPs and MLAs to stay on, but without voting rights or salary, comes just ahead of a possible verdict by a Jharkhand court on the multi-crore fodder scam allegedly involving Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Yadav, a loyal ally of the minority Manmohan Singh government. If convicted, Mr Yadav faces disqualification from the Lok Sabha under the Supreme Court order of July, which said lawmakers could not stay on even if they appealed to a higher court against their conviction. The ordinance is also likely to benefit Congress MP Rashid Masood, who was convicted last week in a corruption case. The CBI court will announce quantum of punishment next month and even if he is handed a jail term of more than two years, he will now not face immediate disqualification from the Rajya Sabha. Law Minister Kapil Sibal has however clarified to NDTV that under the ordinance, protection from disqualification will apply only when the convicted MP or MLA has appealed in a higher court and the higher court has stayed the lower court's conviction. The ordinance also does not interfere with the Supreme Court ruling that the convicted legislator cannot contest elections unless permitted by a higher court.
Crookbond Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 please familiarize yourself on topic before commenting. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/bjp-asks-president-not-to-sign-unconstitutional-ordinance-to-shield-convicted-netas-423277 BJP asks President not to sign 'unconstitutional' ordinance to shield convicted netas UPA not first to take ordinance route to overturn SC, NDA did it in 2002 Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/upa-not-first-to-take-ordinance-route-to-overturn-sc-nda-did-it-in-2002-1133093.html?utm_source=ref_article We will only see "tweets", "media bytes" from the BJP but when push comes to shove (read RTI amendments, food security bill, lokpal bill etc.) you will all the brothers up in arms against each others. Oh and btw - lets see BJP does to act against such an ordinance when it comes to power. Here's my bet - they will let it be as it is.
Recommended Posts