Modi disrespects Russian national anthem

[[Bregs]]

no such news reported by any indian tv or newspaper online as yet

 

[mirage]

I fail to understand, why These Modi todies are so possessive about their less than honest PM Modi. They act like he is their God. They think he is infallible, unerring guy. Modi has already produced several gaffes. This is just one more...And certainly not the last one.

typical khangressi kejriwal type post , but you know modi will win next general elections too ( it will keep many retards earning bread and butter for their families working for anti national political parties like INC AND APP) . one more thing , doodh pete bhi agar bache rote hain to fir woh rote hi rahenge , kyonki onki kismnat me rona hi likha hai . bye for now

perhaps there were no cameramen around to take his photos that is why he left the place ..

you were on leave ? why ?

 

[jamahir]

Don't talk shit! I watched the arrival from beginning to end. Modi stood at attention throughout the national anthems of India and Russia. The only minor issue was that he was LED ahead towards the band by the Russian protocol officer himself who realized the mistake and requested PM Modi to step back a bit.

That's all. Why the fuk are you making such an issue out of it? Getting orgasms by this Modi bashing?

Read my post #3. You need to pipe down and stop rationalizing your crap by referring to some idiot reporter.

I SAW THE WHOLE CEREMONY ON TV! Now please STFU.

why are you getting so emotional in defending modi and his many mistakes and silences??'

on topic - this is why so many indians must learn that there are other societies in the world beside india.

 

[Pomegranate]

you were on leave ? why ?

you seem to be some one i know ............ ???

 

[jamahir]

This is how national and international media are reporting Modi's trip to Russia.

Modi Seeks Russian Crown Jewel in Decade's Biggest Defense Deal - Bloomberg Business

bloomberg??

as usual, sanghis and their western capitalist backers promoting news of weapons, war-mongering and blood-lust.

 

[Ragnar]

Bloomberg is trash, trust only presstv and jantakareporter

 

[Rangila]

CNN-IBN English Nation Wide TV18
IBN-7 Hindi Nation Wide TV18
CNBC TV18 Hindi Nation Wide TV18
CNBC Awaaz

And more are owned by Modi's friend Ambani so people should stay away from them?

Firstpost belongs to Modi friendly Ambani.
Shall we discard it?

Rely on all the news suggested by Modi todies?

 

[jamahir]

Bloomberg is trash, trust only presstv and jantakareporter

fine, "press tv" is a mouth-piece of iran government but often they have been careful to post credible news and include as guests credible journalists like lizzie phelan.

can't say the same about pro-sangh "zee news" whose reporter was trying to put words into the mouth of the brother of late farmer gajendra singh so that the blame for mr. singh's death goes to aap and the bjp at the center and in rajasthan is let off from its contribution to mr. singh's tragic death.

 

[dadeechi]

View attachment 281674

MPs, MLAs to be disqualified on date of criminal conviction

The Hindu
The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave a big relief to political parties.

Supreme Court strikes down law that allowed time for appeal
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that chargesheeted Members of Parliament and MLAs, on conviction for offences, will be immediately disqualified from holding membership of the House without being given three months’ time for appeal, as was the case before.
A Bench of Justices A.K. Patnaik and S.J. Mukhopadhaya struck down as unconstitutional Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act that allows convicted lawmakers a three-month period for filing appeal to the higher court and to get a stay of the conviction and sentence. The Bench, however, made it clear that the ruling will be prospective and those who had already filed appeals in various High Courts or the Supreme Court against their convictions would be exempt from it.
Section 8 of the RP Act deals with disqualification on conviction for certain offences: A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for varying terms under Sections 8 (1) (2) and (3) shall be disqualified from the date of conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. But Section 8 (4) of the RP Act gives protection to MPs and MLAs as they can continue in office even after conviction if an appeal is filed within three months.
The Bench found it unconstitutional that convicted persons could be disqualified from contesting elections but could continue to be Members of Parliament and State Legislatures once elected.
Allowing two writ petitions filed by advocate Lily Thomas and Lok Prahari, through its General Secretary S. N. Shukla, the Bench said: “A reading of the two provisions in Articles 102(1) (e) and 191(1) (e) of the Constitution would make it abundantly clear that Parliament is to make one law for a person to be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a Member of either House of Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State. Parliament thus does not have the power under Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution to make different laws for a person to be disqualified for being chosen as a member and for a person to be disqualified for continuing as a member of Parliament or the State Legislature.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Patnaik said: “ 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 and for a person to continue as a member of Parliament or the State Legislature has to be the same.”
The Bench said: “Section 8 (4) 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 Bench held: “Looking at the affirmative terms of Articles 102(1) (e) and 191(1) (e) of the Constitution, we hold that Parliament has been vested with the powers to make law laying down the same disqualifications for person to be chosen as a member of Parliament or a State Legislature and for a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of a State Legislature. We also hold that the provisions of Article 101(3) (a) and 190(3) (a) of the Constitution expressly prohibit Parliament to defer the date from which the disqualification will come into effect in case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature. Parliament, therefore, has exceeded its powers conferred by the Constitution in enacting sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act and accordingly sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.”
The Bench said: “Under Section 8 (1) (2) and (3) of the Act, the disqualification takes effect from the date of conviction. Thus, there may be several sitting members of Parliament and State Legislatures who have already incurred disqualification by virtue of a conviction covered under Section 8 (1) (2) or (3) of the Act. Sitting members of Parliament and State Legislature who have already been convicted of any of the offences mentioned in sub-section (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and who have filed appeals or revisions which are pending and are accordingly saved from the disqualifications by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act should not, in our considered opinion, be affected by the declaration now made by us in this judgment. This is because the knowledge that sitting members of Parliament or State Legislatures will no longer be protected by sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act will be acquired by all concerned only on the date this judgment is pronounced by this Court.”
However, the Bench said: “If any sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is convicted of any of the offences mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and by virtue of such conviction and/or sentence suffers the disqualifications mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act after the pronouncement of this judgment, his membership of Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, will not be saved by subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Act which we have by this judgment declared as ultra vires the Constitution notwithstanding that he files the appeal or revision against the conviction and /or sentence.”

MPs, MLAs to be disqualified on date of criminal conviction - The Hindu

 

[INDIAISM]

Janta ka Reporter ya "Ghanta" Reporter...

 

[Rangila]

MPs, MLAs to be disqualified on date of criminal conviction

The Hindu
The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave a big relief to political parties.

Supreme Court strikes down law that allowed time for appeal
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that chargesheeted Members of Parliament and MLAs, on conviction for offences, will be immediately disqualified from holding membership of the House without being given three months’ time for appeal, as was the case before.
A Bench of Justices A.K. Patnaik and S.J. Mukhopadhaya struck down as unconstitutional Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act that allows convicted lawmakers a three-month period for filing appeal to the higher court and to get a stay of the conviction and sentence. The Bench, however, made it clear that the ruling will be prospective and those who had already filed appeals in various High Courts or the Supreme Court against their convictions would be exempt from it.
Section 8 of the RP Act deals with disqualification on conviction for certain offences: A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for varying terms under Sections 8 (1) (2) and (3) shall be disqualified from the date of conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. But Section 8 (4) of the RP Act gives protection to MPs and MLAs as they can continue in office even after conviction if an appeal is filed within three months.
The Bench found it unconstitutional that convicted persons could be disqualified from contesting elections but could continue to be Members of Parliament and State Legislatures once elected.
Allowing two writ petitions filed by advocate Lily Thomas and Lok Prahari, through its General Secretary S. N. Shukla, the Bench said: “A reading of the two provisions in Articles 102(1) (e) and 191(1) (e) of the Constitution would make it abundantly clear that Parliament is to make one law for a person to be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a Member of either House of Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State. Parliament thus does not have the power under Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution to make different laws for a person to be disqualified for being chosen as a member and for a person to be disqualified for continuing as a member of Parliament or the State Legislature.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Patnaik said: “ 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 and for a person to continue as a member of Parliament or the State Legislature has to be the same.”
The Bench said: “Section 8 (4) 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 Bench held: “Looking at the affirmative terms of Articles 102(1) (e) and 191(1) (e) of the Constitution, we hold that Parliament has been vested with the powers to make law laying down the same disqualifications for person to be chosen as a member of Parliament or a State Legislature and for a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of a State Legislature. We also hold that the provisions of Article 101(3) (a) and 190(3) (a) of the Constitution expressly prohibit Parliament to defer the date from which the disqualification will come into effect in case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature. Parliament, therefore, has exceeded its powers conferred by the Constitution in enacting sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act and accordingly sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.”
The Bench said: “Under Section 8 (1) (2) and (3) of the Act, the disqualification takes effect from the date of conviction. Thus, there may be several sitting members of Parliament and State Legislatures who have already incurred disqualification by virtue of a conviction covered under Section 8 (1) (2) or (3) of the Act. Sitting members of Parliament and State Legislature who have already been convicted of any of the offences mentioned in sub-section (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and who have filed appeals or revisions which are pending and are accordingly saved from the disqualifications by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act should not, in our considered opinion, be affected by the declaration now made by us in this judgment. This is because the knowledge that sitting members of Parliament or State Legislatures will no longer be protected by sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act will be acquired by all concerned only on the date this judgment is pronounced by this Court.”
However, the Bench said: “If any sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is convicted of any of the offences mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and by virtue of such conviction and/or sentence suffers the disqualifications mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act after the pronouncement of this judgment, his membership of Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, will not be saved by subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Act which we have by this judgment declared as ultra vires the Constitution notwithstanding that he files the appeal or revision against the conviction and /or sentence.”

MPs, MLAs to be disqualified on date of criminal conviction - The Hindu

What are you going to prove with this?

 

[Paranoid Android]

News reporter is better placed for me to rely upon.
You are just one of the Tom Dicken or Harry of the road.
What is your credibility?
No one knows.

Give me one reason, why I have to believe you and not the source as provided who was previously connected with BBC for 8 years?

I can see that you are emotionally charged.
But this is not how you can suppress the facts. On the contrary they can become counter productive to your desired goals.

So take it easy, wait for further news from around the world.

Get off your high horse man!
Or get a life pauper.

View attachment 281667

Besides, How are you defending your PM, as with the following misdeed:

View attachment 281674

What about tomar,bharati.Rajendra(has seven corruption charges against him?including ex naxalist ministers of #AAP?

 

[Rangila]

Janta ka Reporter ya "Ghanta" Reporter...

These Modi friendly Ambani owned following media outlets also "Ghanta" ?

CNN-IBNEnglishNation WideTV18
IBN-7HindiNation WideTV18
CNBC TV18HindiNation WideTV18
CNBC Awaaz

 

[Paranoid Android]

is that all? i was expecting Modi to punch Putin in the face or giving the middle finger to the whole lot of them russians. but this? what the heck is this? this is hardly an important issue. someone should close this flamebait thread asap.

Few people in India really would love to abuse not only pm but also whole India...

 

[Rangila]

What about tomar,bharati.Rajendra(has seven corruption charges against him?including ex naxalist ministers of #AAP?

AAP?
Why not 29 states and 6 UT of India?

We have job cut out to question the PM of India who is able to make or break India.

Why should I care about Diu & Daman administrator?
Or Dadra Nagar havelli?

Why compare AK with PM?
Who is CM AK against PM?
You are obfuscating the issue by drawing the parallels with AK.
AK? Against the PM of India?
Digressing?