Saturday October 21, 2017
Home India Congress fail...

Congress failed to protect the constitution in Arunachal: Sudhanshu Trivedi

0
86

New Delhi: The BJP spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi on Monday accused the Congress of having failed to protect the constitution in Arunachal Pradesh and said the ruling party in the state has lost the constitutional authority to remain in power.

Politically, this is an internal matter of the Congress and constitutionally, in either of the way in which the decision is pending in the Supreme Court, they have lost the constitutional authority to be in the government in Arunachal Pradesh,

And morally, I would like to ask one question — Why are you (Congress) running away from calling the house and proving majority or going for a floor test?

“In fact, you are not able to convene your own legislative party meeting itself,” he added

The BJP leader also accused the Congress of misleading the nation over the issue.

They will reach the Supreme Court. They will reach the President but they will not convene the (assembly) session and not even the legislature party meeting. The Congress should refrain from making political statements as the case is pending before the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court,

 

Trivedi said that constitutionally, there was a provision that any government cannot remain in power if it is not able to conduct the next session of the assembly within six months after the conclusion of the previous session.

The previous session of the Arunachal Pradesh assembly ended on July 21, and a session must be convened before January 21,” he said.

(Inputs from IANS)

(Picture Courtesy: www.newsx.com)

Next Story

SC issues notice to Centre over Arunachal issue

0
22

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the central government and Arunachal Pradesh Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa on a plea challenging the imposition of President’s Rule in the north-eastern state on January 26.

An apex court constitution bench of Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghosh and Justice N.V. Ramana also ordered the centre to file its response, if any, by January 29 and directed further hearing in the matter on Monday (February 1).

The court recorded that senior counsel Satya Pal Jain, appearing for Governor Rajkhowa, “undertakes to furnish a copy of the governor’s report and other material recommending issuance of a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, to the court in a sealed cover”.

The court directed that the “original record be kept available by the attorney general during the hearing”.

The court gave liberty to the petitioner, Congress chief whip in Arunachal Pradesh Rajesh Tacho, to amend the plea to “assail the report of the governor, and the consequential (presidential) proclamation”.

The court directed that Tacho be provided, during the course of the day, the date on which Rajkhowa sent a report recommending the imposition of President’s Rule.

At the outset of the hearing, senior counsel Fali S. Nariman told the apex court that ever since the last hearing on February 22, Arunachal Pradesh had been put under President’s Rule and two advisors appointed to assist the governor in running the affairs of the state.

Seeking the date on which the governor recommended the imposition of President’s Rule, Nariman said senior counsel Harish Salve, who appeared for the governor, told the court on January 14 that nothing untoward would be done to precipitate the situation.

Describing as “crucial” the date on which President’s Rule recommendation was sent by Rajkhowa, senior counsel Kapil Sibal sought to know the grounds and material relied upon by the governor while making the recommendations.

Opposing the plea, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said that the governor’s report was confidential and could not be shared with petitioner Tacho. However, he said, it could be shared with the bench.

Nariman contested Rohatgi’s plea that the governor’s report was confidential as he cited an earlier seven-judge bench judgment in former Karnataka chief minister late S.R. Bommai’s case, wherein the court said that the governor’s report was not confidential.

Justice Lokur confronted the attorney general with the apex court judgment wherein the governor’s report was reproduced.

The presidential proclamation mentions “a” report by the governor, Justice Ramana pointed out as Rohatgi said there were a series of reports by Governor Rajkhowa.

“Whatever is the worth of this petition (by Rajesh Tacho), you reply. You may accept it or you may not accept it,” the court observed as the AG contested the maintainability of the plea challenging the cabinet decision to recommend President’s Rule.

Contending that the cabinet recommendation was immune from challenge, Rohatgi said that unless there is an order, decree or a crystallised situation, you can’t challenge it.

As the AG told the court that there was no challenge to the presidential proclamation in the matter before the court, Nariman said the attorney general could not be technical in his approach.

Rohatgi said it was not a question of his getting technical but every proceeding of the court is governed by rules and procedures.

The Congress on January 25 moved the Supreme Court challenging the cabinet decision to impose President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh on the recommendation of Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa.

The union cabinet on January 24 decided to impose President’s Rule. (IANS)

Next Story

Congress addresses Prez rule in Arunachal as “murder of democracy”

0
22

New Delhi: Congress spokesperson Tom Vadakkan on Tuesday hit out at Narendra Modi and slammed the government for rushing into the matter to impose President’s rule in party-ruled Arunachal Pradesh, calling it a “murder of democracy and the constitution on Republic Day”.

He also blamed the government for disrespecting the Supreme Court by bypassing it when the court was hearing the matter.

The constitution and democracy have been murdered on this Republic Day. It is an effort by the government to nail federalism. The matter is sub judice and yet the speed with which the cabinet moved and the final decision has been taken is a clear indication that they have no respect for the highest court of the land,

The party had moved the Supreme Court on Monday to challenge union cabinet’s recommendation to impose President’s rule in Arunachal.

They could have waited for the matter to be settled by the judiciary yet they moved with express speed to ensure President’s rule in a sensitive state. There is no indication of past or present breakdown of law and order. These are signals of imagination manufactured to fine-tune and legitimise horse-trading that was done by a certain sitting minister.

The matter should have been handled under the spirit of the SR Bommai case yet the argument being given that the house was not summoned for six months, but the ground reality is the matter was sub judice in the high court of the state and therefore that statutory requirement was met with,” said Vadakkan, adding the attempt to remove the speaker by the deputy speaker smacks of a larger conspiracy.

“We expect justice from the highest court of the land, therefore, we would not like to add any comment on a sub judice matter,” he added.

(Inputs from IANS)

(Picture Courtesy: www.siasat.com)

Next Story

President gives approval for central rule in Arunachal

0
27

New Delhi: President Pranab Mukherjee on Tuesday gave his approval to the cabinet recommendation to impose central rule in Arunachal Pradesh, official sources said.

It’s done,a Rashtrapati Bhawan official said this when asked if the president had given his nod to central rule following political turbulence in the Congress-ruled northeastern state.

The union cabinet had on Sunday recommended President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh, inviting strong criticism from the Congress and others.

The president, who had been urged by the Congress not to approve central rule in the state, is said to have discussed the Arunachal situation with Home Minister Rajnath Singh on Monday.

Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa had on December 9 advanced the date of the convening of the assembly session.

The move was criticized by the Congress, with its leader Kapil Sibal saying the governor should not have acted on a resolution by the Bharatiya Janata Party legislators and two independents.

On January 18, the Supreme Court said it would examine whether Rajkhowa’s decision of advancing the assembly session to December 16 to take up the resolution for the removal of Speaker Nabam Rebia was valid or not.

Rebia was removed as speaker by 14 rebel Congress legislators backed by BJP legislators on December 16 at an assembly session held in a community hall in Itanagar that was presided over by the deputy speaker.

The 14 rebel Congress lawmakers were earlier disqualified by Rebia. The deputy speaker, before moving the motion removing Rebia as speaker, restored the membership of the 14 legislators.

(Inputs from IANS)

(Picture Courtesy: www.financialprospect.com)