Prez poll threatens to split UPA

June 15, 2012

kalam


New Delhi, June 14: The ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) on Thursday appeared headed for an internal confrontation over the next month’s presidential election as Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee declared that former president A P J Abdul Kalam would be her candidate for the top post.

Mamata announced that she will field Kalam if the Congress went ahead with the nomination of either Union Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee or Vice-President Hamid Ansari.

The stage for the confrontation was set early during the day when the Congress rejected the possibility of nominating Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, or accepting Kalam or former Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee as the UPA candidate. The three names were jointly proposed by Mamata and Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav on Wednesday.

Congress general secretary in-charge of media affairs Janardhan Dwivedi came out publicly rejecting the three names, and objected to the Trinamool Congress’s announcement on Wednesday that Mukherjee and Ansari were the Congress’ first and second choice candidates respectively.

The Congress leadership held a series of meetings during the day to deliberate on the party’s nominee, with party chief Sonia Gandhi separately confabulating senior leaders like Mukherjee, Union Home Minister P Chidambaram and Defence Minister A K Antony separately and then together in the party’s core group.

The party leadership also held consultations with other UPA allies like the NCP chief Sharad Pawar and senior DMK leader T R Baalu. Both of them pledged support to the candidate the Congress would choose. The UPA leaders were expected to meet on Friday morning, to decide on a nominee.

While the Congress leadership rejected the three names proposed by Mamata, it scrupulously avoided naming either Pranab or Ansari as likely candidates. Indeed, the party clarified that Sonia had not mentioned to the Trimanool Congress leader during their meeting on Wednesday that Pranab and Ansari were its probable candidates in that order.

All that Sonia had told Mamata was that these two names had figured during the party’s consultations with its UPA allies.

Curiously, in the midst of all these, CPI leader A B Bhardhan, who was among the first to favour a woman candidate for the 2007 presidential election, proposed during the day that the next president should be a dalit woman. He did not take any names, but speculations were that he could be having Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar in mind.

And, with Mamata on a confrontation course, the Congress seemed intent on reaching out to the Left parties for support in the election. Mukherjee reportedly spoke over phone to former West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, who in 2008 was against the CPM leadership’s decision to withdraw support to the UPA-I government.

However, the CPM leadership in the national capital maintained silence, though it criticised the UPA’s handling of the presidential nomination.

But, Mamata was categorical about her choice. She asserted that she will contest the UPA choice with Kalam as her candidate, particularly if the Congress choice were to be either Mukherjee or Ansari. She met Mulayam late in the evening after throwing up a challenge to the Congress.

While Mulayam, who had earlier favoured a seasoned politician for the post of President, maintained silence, Mamata declared: “Kalam is our and Mulayam Singh Yadav's number one candidate. He will be the best candidate."

She will not be attending the Friday’s scheduled UPA meeting. But said she was not walking out of the UPA either. “As far as the Trinamool is concerned, we are in the UPA. We don’t want to topple the government. But if the Congress does not want us, it is left to them. The ball is in the Congress’ court.”

Mamata’s latest stand may be music to the ears of the opposition NDA and other parties like the Biju Janata Dal and the AIADMK. They may be willing to endorse Kalam.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 11,2024

birensingh.jpg

The Manipur Kuki MLAs have released a statement calling out Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's 'lies' in the Supreme Court. In a joint statement, the MLAs, including those from the Bharatiya Janata Party, said they had not had any meeting with the Chief Minister since May 3, 2023, nor did they intend to meet him in the future as “he was the mastermind behind the violence”.

As per the MLAs, the SG lied about state CM N Biren Singh speaking to Kuki MLAs to control the situation there, in order to halt a Supreme Court probe into the leaked tapes which allege that Singh has been complicit in the violence that broke out between Kukis and Meitis there.

"We...clarify that we have never had any meeting with Chief Minister, Shri N. Biren Singh since May 3, 2023, nor have any intention to meet him in future as he is the mastermind behind the violence and ethnic cleansing of our people from the Imphal valley, which is continuing till today, the latest being the brutal killing and burning of Mrs Zosangkim Hmar on November 7, 2024," the letter read, while condemning the recent 'barbaric' killing of the woman there, and noting the SG's assertion is 'tantamount' to misleading the top court.

“We, the undersigned ten MLAs, have come to know that during the Supreme Court hearing held on November 8, 2024, the Solicitor General of India submitted that ‘CM is meeting all Kuki MLAs and trying to bring the situation down to get peace’. In this connection, we hereby categorically state that this submission is a blatant lie and tantamount to misleading the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,” the statement said.

The Supreme Court, while hearing a petition by a Kuki organisation, asked that it submit audio tapes to substantiate its claim that the Chief Minister was instrumental in inciting and organising violence in the northeastern State.

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta orally informed the court that the Chief Minister was meeting all the Kuki-Zo MLAs and that peace in the State had come at a huge cost.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.