Unfazed BJP bracing for a fight

June 17, 2012

Kalam_Sangma17
New Delhi, June 17: Ahead of the NDA's crucial meeting on the Presidential election, the BJP is veering round to the view that it should not allow the post to go uncontested.

There are indications that at the NDA meeting, scheduled here for Sunday morning, the party will vigorously advocate the candidature of the former Lok Sabha Speaker, P.A. Sangma, who has already secured the backing of the AIADMK and the BJD.

Ideally, the BJP would have liked the former President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, to enter the fray. Since the NDA leaders have not got his nod so far, it is inclined to throw its weight behind Mr. Sangma.

According to NDA leaders, efforts are still on to persuade Mr. Kalam to contest the election. Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy called on the former President and conveyed the strong desire of the NDA and other parties to see him once again at Rashtrapathi Bhavan.

The BJP is conscious of the reservations of the NDA constituents, like the JD (U), about entering the contest, in which the numbers are heavily stacked in favour of the UPA nominee and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee.

Senior BJP leaders are talking to Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar to convince him of the need for putting up a fight against Mr. Mukherjee.

The BJP's ‘Core Group,' which met at the residence of president Nitin Gadkari here, took stock of the developments and decided to leave the final decision to the NDA.

The dominant view at the two-hour meeting — attended by L.K. Advani and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj — was that it would be in the larger interest of the party to back Mr. Sangma's candidature.

Three factors influenced the outcome of the meeting. At a juncture when the UPA has become very unpopular, the BJP would not like to be seen on the same side as the ruling alliance. In the assessment of the party leaders, backing Mr. Sangma — who says he is contesting in his capacity as a tribal leader — would send a positive signal.

Most important, the party would not like to go against the wishes of the AIADMK and the BJD, which could be potential allies in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

The BJP leaders concede that they have their work cut out in view of the clear signal from one of the main constituents of the NDA — JD(U) — that it is in favour of Mr. Mukherjee's candidature.

Shivanand Tiwari, a JD (U) leader considered a confidant of Mr. Nitish Kumar, said that personally he felt “a senior and respected leader like Pranab Mukherjee, who is going into retirement [from active politics], should be given a graceful send-off.”

In another development, Rajya Sabha MP Ram Jethmalani was quoted by a news agency as saying he would contest in the Presidential poll. Though Mr. Mukherjee was his friend, he said, he would oppose his candidature. “I may lose, but I will stand in the election,” he said. “Pranab hasn't revealed the names of black money holders.” He would fight and expose the truth. The BJP leaders said it was his personal view.

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.
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.