Indian Political Corner | General Election 2014, All Updates & Discussions.

[Jason bourne]

NAMO's rally at Trichi tamilnadu with rajnikanth

Didn't you read post 623.

Typical congressi tatu

He is behaving like rahul Gandhi sometimes i wonder Braggs and rahul Gandhi is actully a bjp NAMO supporter

 

[Jason bourne]

Rahul Gandhi says if Congress wins in Maharashtra, NCP not needed


Read more at: | Video | Rahul Gandhi says if Congress wins in Maharashtra, NCP not needed | India Videos | - India Today

Oh boy Sonia will send him on vacation till 2014

 

[sms]

Rahul Gandhi says if Congress wins in Maharashtra, NCP not needed


Read more at: | Video | Rahul Gandhi says if Congress wins in Maharashtra, NCP not needed | India Videos | - India Today
Oh boy Sonia will send him on vacation till 2014

Pappu Ka kuchh nahi ho sakta!! Why Congress party have to lick their arse..there are too many talented person/ leaders in Congress.

 

[Jason bourne]

Pappu Ka kuchh nahi ho sakta!! Why Congress party have to lick their arse..there are too many talented person/ leaders in Congress.

Kyu ki modi ke pass idea he or Pappu ke pas ma he

 

[Jason bourne]

# NamoInBhopal
Dear bloody paidmedia why don't u take a look at this pic n shut ur * ?

 

[Nair saab]

Today India Celebrated Indian PM Manmohan Singh's Birthday as Maun Diwas

2 Lakh People Attended Narendra Modi's Rally in Tirchy Tamilnadu

 

[Nair saab]

President approves bill on jailed lawmakers


Great! Looks like both Congress and BJP were on the same page and look at the audacity of that chimp saying courts can make mistake.Now corrupt netas can make any law just to safeguard them

BJP memorandum submitted to the President of India over ordinance on convicted MPs & MLAs
Thursday, 26 September 2013



Mananiya Rashtrapati ji,
Rashtrapati Bhavan,
New Delhi.

We encroach upon your busy schedule to bring to your notice an issue of public interest which deals with probity in public life and improving the quality of politics in India.

Criminalization of politics and politicization of criminals have been a matter of grave concern for the Indian democracy. India is still grappling with the problem of allowing politicians charge-sheeted with offences involving moral turpitude who contest elections and get elected to legislative bodies. The credibility of politics, public life and governance has suffered. The Judgement of the Supreme Court dated 10th July, 2013 striking down section 8(4) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 as ultra vires was an opportunity for political parties to take at least one step forward. The UPA Government, has suggested through an Ordinance an amendment to the Representation of Peoples Act and substituted the original ultra vires section 8(4) with a new formulation. The new formulation entails that the disqualification of a convicted member of a legislative body would be deferred and the member would continue to be a law-maker with a restriction that he cannot draw his salary or vote in the process of law making. A question has been asked – why should a convicted person be a law maker?

The moral dilemma

People expect a convicted person to be in prison. However, the original section 8(4) required that if a person is a Member of a legislative body his conviction would not take effect for a period of three months and if within that period such a person files an appeal or Revision then his current membership would continue till the appeal or revision application are disposed of. The contrary view is one based on probity, ethics and morality. If a person is convicted why should such a person be continued as a law-maker. Many in the past have questioned the rationale behind this principle. The presumption of innocence cannot apply once conviction has already taken place. This provision has been justified on the ground that an elected person is a class apart—a separate class from an ordinarily convicted person. The ordinarily convicted person’s rights would be governed by the appeal and the interim or final orders passed. However, an elected representative has been given a statutory protection so that during the pendency of the appeal there is no bye election which is necessitated. The Supreme Court has struck down this provision vide its judgement dated 10/7/2013 as ultra vires Article 102 and 191 of the Constitution. The Judgement of the Supreme Court is final. The Review Petition against the judgement has been dismissed. This Judgement lays down a law applicable to the whole country unless the Supreme Court on a future date take a contrary view. The moral question being asked is once a provision has been held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court should the Indian Parliament exercise its’ legislative jurisdiction to enable convicted persons to continue as a law maker. Even though he cannot vote , his participation in the debates certainly influences the course of law making. Should the Indian Parliament not have utilized this opportunity to allow a provision of this nature to be wiped from the statutes.

On Procedure

The Billl was introduced before the Parliament . It is pending before the Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha did not consider it appropriate to take up the matter for consideration. The Bill has been referred by the Chairman Rajya Sabha to the Standing Committee. Having been referred to the Standing Committee all stake holders and those holding contrary view will all get an opportunity to influence the opinion of the Standing Committee. What was the urgency that the Government was compelled to bring this legislation through the Ordinance route? The only compelling reason for bypassing parliament and taking the ordinance route is to help a class of tainted politicians who have been already convicted or are apprehensive of a court judgement in near future. That a government can be pressurized by the logic of the tainted speaks volume of the lack of integrity of this government. Procedurally it is improper to bring an ordinance in a matter which is already pending before the Standing Committee.

The Ordinance is unconstitutional

Article 102 of the Constitution clearly provides that the disqualification applies to a person ‘for being chosen as or for being member of parliament’ if he is disqualified by a law made by the Parliament. Article 191 similarly deals with State legislatures. Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 disqualifies a category of convicted persons mentioned in section 8 (1), (2) and (3) of the Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Lily Thomas vs. Union of India in its’ judgement delivered on 10/7/2013 has clearly held as under:-

Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution, on the other hand, have conferred specific powers on Parliament to make law providing disqualifications for membership of either House of Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State other than those specified in Sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Clause (1) of Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution. We may note that no power is vested in the State Legislature to make law laying down disqualifications of membership of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State and power is vested in Parliament to make law laying down disqualifications also in respect of members of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State. For these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the legislative power of Parliament to enact any law relating to disqualification for membership of either House of Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State can be located only in Articles 102(1) (e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution and not in Articles 246(1) read with Entry 97 of List I of the Seventh Schedule and Article 248 of the Constitution. We do not, therefore, accept the contention of Mr. Luthra that the power to enact Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is vested in Parliament under Articles 246(1) read with Entry 97 of List I of the Seventh Schedule and 248 of the Constitution, if not in Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution

To put it differently, if because of a disqualification a person cannot be chosen as a member of Parliament or State Legislature, for the same disqualification, he cannot continue as a member of Parliament or the State Legislature. This is so because the language of Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution is such that the disqualification for both a person to be chosen as a member of a House of Parliament or the State Legislature or for a person to continue as a member of Parliament or the State Legislature has to be the same.

The result of our aforesaid discussion is that the affirmative words used in Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) confer power on Parliament to make one law laying down the same disqualifications for a person who is to be chosen as member of either House of Parliament or as a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State and for a person who is a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of the State Legislature and the words in Articles 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution put express limitations on such powers of the Parliament to defer the date on which the disqualifications would have effect. Accordingly, Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act which carves out a saving in the case of sitting members of Parliament or State Legislature from the disqualifications under Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act or which defers the date on which the disqualification will take effect in the case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is beyond the powers conferred on Parliament by the Constitution

The law declared by the Supreme Court thus clearly is that there is an express limit on the power of parliament which cannot wholly or partially allow the convicted legislator to continue to exercise any rights of a legislator. The right to attend and participate in the proceedings which the proposed Ordinance confers on a convicted legislator such a right.. The parliament in view of the express language of Article 102 and 191 cannot confer such a facility to an otherwise disqualified legislator. The proposed Ordinance amending section 8(4) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 is as unconstitutional as the original section 8(4).

We, therefore, request your Excellency to advise the Government that it ought not to legislate an Unconstitutional legislation. Your Excellency should, therefore refer this Ordinance back to the Government.



(L.K. ADVANI) (SUSHMA SWARAJ) (ARUN JAITLEY)


BJP memorandum submitted to the President of India over ordinance on convicted MPs & MLAs

 

[[Bregs]]

Modi remains cuplable for 2002 riots

Modi remains cuplable for 2002 riots at Firstpost YouSpeak Video Newsroom


'There's something fishy about the VK Singh controversy'

'There's something fishy about the VK Singh controversy' at Firstpost YouSpeak Video Newsroom

Adi Godrej: Modi has never been tested at Centre, not sure if he'll be good PM


http://www.firstpost.com/youspeak/india/modi-has-never-been-tested-at-centre-not-sure-if-hell-be-good-pm_3983.html

 

[Soumitra]

President unsure of compelling reasons for ordinance to protect convicted netas: sources

New Delhi: President Pranab Mukherjee today asked to be briefed by the government on the urgent need to bring an ordinance that protects convicted MPs and MLAs from disqualification.

Sources said Mr Mukherjee is believed to be "unsure of the compelling reasons" for the ordinance, which the union cabinet hurriedly approved this week. It overturns a Supreme Court order disqualifying lawmakers immediately after conviction and provides that MPs or MLAs convicted in a corruption case or sentenced to two years in jail can stay on without a salary or voting rights if they appeal to a higher court.

President Mukherjee, who received the ordinance yesterday for approval, was briefed by Law Minister Kapil Sibal, Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath this evening.

Top government sources after meeting said the Government explained to the President the need to ensure there is no vacuum in the law. Sources also said it is a misleading statement that the government is bringing back the disqualification clause. "We are not replicating the disqualification clause, we are honouring the Supreme Court's order... We are leaving it to the courts to decide whether to grant stay or not," the sources said, adding that the convicted MPs and MLAs will have no rights.

Earlier in the evening, the BJP met the president and requested him to return what party leader Sushma Swaraj described as an "illegal, immoral and unconstitutional" ordinance.

The party has alleged that the ordinance was timed to protect politicians like Lalu Yadav, a loyal ally of the minority Manmohan Singh government, who faces disqualification if a Jharkhand court convicts him on Monday in the multi-crore fodder scam.

Even some Congress leaders have questioned the ordinance, including union minister Milind Deora - known to be close to Congress number 2 Rahul Gandhi.

"Legalities aside allowing convicted MPs/MLAs to retain seats in the midst of an appeal can endanger already eroding public faith in democracy," Mr Deora tweeted today, in a major embarrassment to the government.

Digvijaya Singh had said yesterday, "...it would have been better if a consensus was arrived at. Maybe the government had its compulsion."

The Congress tried to downplay the criticism within. "We don't see this as indiscipline. What they have said is morally right but the government also has the responsibility to protect Constitutional rights," said party spokesperson Raj Babbar.

Several activists and people from different forums are planning to flood the President with messages asking him not to sign a measure they say tries to protect tainted lawmakers who have lost the right to decide on laws.

President unsure of compelling reasons for ordinance to protect convicted netas: sources | NDTV.com

 

[[Bregs]]

Former BJP minister from Karnataka quits, says can't accept Modi as PM


BANGALORE: Mumtaz Ali Khan, who was a minister in the previous BJP government, joined Congress on Thursday, saying he was saddened by the outfit's decision to project Narendra Modi as its prime ministerial candidate.


Khan, who had held the departments of minority affairs, haj and waqf during BJP rule, also resigned as a member of the state legislative council. Soft-spoken Khan, a sociology professor, who had taught at the University of Agricultural Sciences here, was hand-picked by former chief minister B S Yeddyurappa who also made him a minister.

In fact, he had identified with Yeddyurappa after the latter quit BJP and floated Karnataka Janata Paksha. "Modi did not express regrets for the 2002 tragedy. We have to work together and stop Modi from becoming Prime Minister", Khan told reporters at the office of Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee where KPCC president G Parameshwara welcomed him into the party.


Former BJP minister from Karnataka quits, says can't accept Modi as PM - The Times of India

 

[cloud_9]

For Bastar's tribals, Rahul Gandhi is just 'Indira Gandhi's grandson'

They cheered, clapped and climbed atop chairs to catch a glimpse of Rahul Gandhi, but at the end of it all, for the locals and tribals of Bastar, the Congress vice president was just a celebrity as he was “Indira Gandhi’s grandson”.

The Gandhi scion has arrived here for a rally to address issues related to tribals who dominate the region, with assembly elections due in the state in November.

The tribals of Bastar voted overwhelmingly for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2008 assembly elections with the party bagging 11 of the 12 seats from the region.

In his speech, Gandhi talked about how the tribals are being neglected with regard to land, health and education issues. But it seemed, the Congress vice-president failed to strike a chord with the tribals who were treating him more as a celebrity than a leader.

“I was told Indira Gandhi’s grandson is coming. She had visited us a long time back. So, I came to see him (Rahul Gandhi),” said Jheeni Devi, 62 one of the many tribals who arrived at the venue in dozens of trucks and buses.

Around 10,000 people came to hear Gandhi.

Similar views were shared by her neighbour, 34-year-old Raju who was happy to see the young Gandhi and cheered and clapped all through his speech, but only because he was “Indira Ji’s grandson”.

“He is from the Gandhi family. My father told me about Indira ji,” Raju said, though sheepishly admitting that he was not impressed by the young Gandhi’s speech.

“He is talking about our rights and issues, but we are happy with the present government as well,” he said.

Interestingly, there were many like Raju who came just because they heard that someone from the Gandhi family was coming to meet them,

When the IANS correspondent asked 22-year-old Briha why she decided to attend the rally, her answer was “Gandhi” as she pointed towards the stage where Rahul Gandhi was seated.

Many of them admitted that they came to the rally ground just because their family and friends were coming.

But some were willing to give the Congress party a chance.

“I will vote for the Congress if they seriously deliver what they are promising,” said Bhumir Singh, a tribal and a daily wage labourer.

This was the first rally after the Maoists’ May 25 ambush and killings of senior Congress leaders, including Vidya Charan Shukla, Nandkumar Patel and tribal leader Mahendra Karma who founded the Salwa Judum to combat the Maoists

 

[Jason bourne]

@seiko now even u can vote in this election supreme court ordered to add none of the above (negative) voting

 

[Jason bourne]

Modi to share ‘Brand India’ vision with advertisers and marketers - Livemint

Narendra Modi will attend a special dinner session at the global marketing summit of IAA on 30 Sept ...

 

[Soumitra]

Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates

NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgement on Friday, the Supreme Court for the first time allowed voters to cast negative vote by pressing a button saying none of the candidates is worthy of his vote.

The SC asked the Election Commission to provide None Of The Above (NOTA) button on EVMs and ballot papers.

The apex court said the right to vote and the right to say NOTA are both part of basic right of voters.

"When a large number of voters will press NOTA button, it will force political parties to choose better candidates. Negative voting would lead to systemic change in polls," the apex bench observed.

The bench also observed that implementation of NOTA option was akin to 'abstain option' given to MPs and MLAs during voting in respective houses.

The SC directed the EC to start implementing NOTA button on EVMs forthwith in a phased manner and asked the Centre to render all assistance.

Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates - The Times of India

 

[Jason bourne]

Pappus new kaboom yhe ordinance is complete nonsense it should be torn up and thrown out

he said it is his personal view ; ) aaj pappu ki g*** pe dande padenge mummy se