BNN provides English-language US and world news, analysis and opinion from all over the Internet. We strive for high standards, ethical behavior, and the presentation of multiple responsible points of view.
|
Get More Traffic For Your Blog! Blog Explosion brings hundreds of interested visitors to your blog - without costing you a cent. BNN News Archive Page |
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Insulting 7-11 Mumbai Blast Victims Cabinet okays Office of Profit Bill Discarding President A P J Abdul Kalam's suggestion to junk the office-of-profit Bill for a comprehensive legislation on the controversial issue, the Indian Government and its Union Cabinet of ministers on Saturday decided to present the Bill in its original form again before Parliament during the Monsoon session. This is bound to leave the President with no option but to give his assent to the Bill according to the Indian Constitution if President Kalam were to go by accepted precedent on the matter. That at a time when the nation has witnessed its worst incident in terrorism that the Government has the gall to even spend a single waking minute on anything but service and protecting the public interest speaks volumes about the ethics and values of the Manmohan Singh Government and the CPI-M its partners in crime the lead by Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury. What is even more apalling is the rationale offered by unnamed cabinet sources in Indian news media reports for this shameful self serving act of the Union Cabinet. Rationale 1 - First of all, it felt that enacting a comprehensive/omnibus legislation, as desired by the President, was going to be a time-consuming exercise What is the goddam hurry. What public interest is being ill served by a delay that a Government at a time of war by terrorists should burn midnight oil to hastily approve bringing back a legislation of dubious constitutional validity. The answer is provided by these shameful sources in the second rationale. Rationale 2 - would render a significant 32 MPs supporting the UPA coalition vulnerable to the prospect of disqualification by Election Commission. There you go. So this is no longer about public interest but about keeping the allies happy so that this spineless government can survive another day. Rationale 3 - coming up with a unanimous definition of what constitutes 'profit' is not going to be easy. "How can you define 'profit'?" asked a source, adding, "it is as good as attempting to define what is 'negligence' or for that matter 'just and fair'." Reflecting the absolute laziness and bankruptcy of intellect, the Government has insulted the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution and India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. On 3rd April 2006 Offstumped http://o3.indiatimes.com/yossarin/archive/2006/04/03/587191.aspx based on an extensive analysis of the Constituent Assembly debates had shown specifically the founding father's intent in inserting this clause as well as specifically Nehru's views on how the legislature should define profit. That these lazy congress ministers and media hacks spent no time in either studying history or learning from the founding fathers is reflected in this inane and asinine attitude to legislating. For what express purpose does the legislature exist. It is to debate these issues rather than sweep all that is inconvenient under the carpet. Rationale 4 - Cabinet members also held that the idea of pan/Indian law, as suggested by President, wasn't feasible because whether the posts held by MLAs are offices of profit belong to province of state legislatures. Another completely irrelevant rationale. The president through his advisors had on more than one occassion clarified that his reference was to state specific offices that the Centre had legislated on such as the Wakf Board in Uttar Pradesh and the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, TTD, in Andhra Pradesh to save T. Subbirami Reddy who has reduced the holiest of temples in India to his personal fiefdom over the years having managed to secure the TTD Chairmanship whenever the Congress was in power. Rationale 5 - Legal eagles in the cabinet were also convinced that the President's suggestion for enaction of a new legislation was 'unimplementable'. So this is the first time we are lead to believe that there are indeed legal eagles in the Union Cabinet. These must be the same legal eagles who misled the government to begin with in trying to hasten an ordinance by adjourning parliament prematurely. If the Government's decisions were to be influenced by these legal eagles we can expect many such legal fiascos where the Supreme Court had to rebuke the Government for over stepping its bounds be it the Bofors case, be it reservations, be it president's rule in Bihar. The list goes on. So if Manmohan Singh allowing his judgement to be overruled by legal eagles in the Cabinet, doomed is his cabinet. At a time when the mood of the nation is angry and unforgiving that the Union Cabinet deemed it fit to push through a legislation which is about ZERO percent public interest and 100 percent public servant goes to show that this Government has no respect for the will of the people and all it cares about is self preservation. That it will go to the extent of diluting the constitution and insulting a sitting president to preserve itself is amazing. Never before in Indian Democracy has the will of the President so shamelessly been disregarded and the President forced to toe the line of a self serving cabinet. The Indian people have no more patience for this spineless government. It has done nothing to protect and secure the public interest in the area of terrorism while going out of its way to undermine the constituion. The BJP's Arun Jaitley has ratched up the rhetoric from the opposition benches on the issue. But the BJP does not have the numbers to make a difference. So does Dr. Kalam have any options. Kalam has powers under article 143 to refer the bill to the Supreme Court for its opinion on the constitutionality. POWER OF PRESIDENT TO CONSULT SUPREME COURT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Till now, the President has referred questions of constitutional validity matters to the Supreme Court on more than ten occasions. The nature of references has been the constitutionality of an existing law, the constitutionality of a Bill presented for the President's assent, the implementation of an international agreement, the constitutionality and vires of a draft Bill to be moved in Parliament, the respective jurisdiction of the Legislature and the superior courts in relation to the power of the former to punish for contempt, interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to election of the President, powers of an inter-state water disputes tribunal and power of a State to legislate in regard to such tribunal, whether a Hindu temple or religious structure existed at a particular place , and consultation between Chief Justice of India and his brother judges in the matter of appointments of Supreme Court and High Courts judges and the transfer of the latter. The references made by the President to the apex court so far have been on the constitutionality of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912 , the Kerala Education Bill, 1959, Implementation of the Indo-Pakistan Agreement on Berubari, the Sea Customs Act, 1878, the Presidential Election, 1974, the Special Courts Bill, 1979, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, the Ayodhya matter , the Jammu & Kashmir Resettlement Bill, the Judges case and the Constitutionality of the Election Commission's Orders on the Gujarat Elections filed on August 19, 2002. Under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that court for consideration and the court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon. The President may, notwithstanding anything in the proviso to Article 131, refer a dispute of the kind mentioned in the said proviso to the Supreme Court for opinion and the Supreme Court shall, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon. This Article confers upon the President the power to consult the Supreme Court upon any question of public importance as the President may think fit, whether of law or of fact and whether or not such questions relate to the functions and duties of the President. The President's opinion as to the question being of public importance is not open to question. It is not necessary that the question on which the opinion of the court is sought must have arisen actually. It is competent for the President to make a reference at an anterior stage, namely when he is satisfied that such question ' is likely to arise'. Clause (1) of Article 143 empowers the President to refer to the Supreme Court a question of law or fact which has arisen or is likely to arise. In case, the court has already pronounced a judgement on a question of law then it can not be said that a doubt exist regarding that question. The President can refer a question of law only when the Supreme Court has not decided it. The advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 is not an appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over its own decisions. The Executive has no power to ask the Supreme Court to revise its decision. While under Clause (2), it is obligatory on the Supreme Court to entertain a reference and to report to the President its opinion thereon, the Court has, under Clause (1) a discretion in the matter and may, in a proper case, decline to express any opinion on the questions submitted to it. For example: Where the question referred to is a political one, as distinguished from the constitutional validity of a Bill or Act. Where it is incapable of being answered. Where the question is hypothetical or speculative or superfluous. But the mere possibility that a pending Bill may undergo changes in course of legislation, would not make the question of constitutionality of a pending Bill hypothetical. Where it is vague--unless the vagueness is cleared by the written briefs and submissions of the parties before the court. Where the court considers that the question does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is for the President to determine what question should be referred, including a pending Bill, on the other hand, the Supreme Court cannot go beyond the question referred and discuss other questions because any doubts may have arisen relating to them. A reference on the question of constitutionality of a pending Bill neither encroaches upon the functions and privileges of the legislature, nor supplants Article 31 of the Constitution. If the reference raises a question of law or fact which is justiciable. the court can not refuse to give its opinion on the mere ground of expedience or propriety. Offstumped Bottomline: While the embers of the funeral pyres in Mumbai have not yet cooled and the soil on the graves is still moist, the Union Cabinet has shamelessly promoted self preservation over the Indian Constitution. Offstumped calls upon President Kalam to redeem the faith that billions of Indians have reposed him by exercising his powers in ways not imagined before and stall the Office of Profit Bill from becoming law of the land. Even if this means staking his Presidency on it. Blogger News Network is advertiser-supported, and your visits to our advertisers help BNN to meet its expenses. Help keep us afloat! posted by Yossarin at 9:45 AM |
Subscribe to BNN and get a daily bulletin of all our news postings. Interested in writing for BNN? Want information on our news service? Contact The Editor Writing for BNN BNN Editorial Policies Previous Posts
|
1 Comments:
Hi
That was a nice post.
While
- Indian companies : Infosys, WIPRO, ... TATA motors, ....
- Indian Cities : Bangalore, Hyderabad, Mumbai ..... and
- Indian Citizens : right from our beloved president are of world class ,
are our policy and politicians up to the mark ?
are we, as CITIZENS being treated fairly by our police, judiciary, administration (including public works), the politicians and so on ??
I sincerely believe that the police have a long way to go in our country
Look at the way we are responding to terror
Terror being a worldwide phenomenon, do our POLICE have the strength and the INTELLIGENCE and the COMPETENCE to win ?
are our police up to the mark - THIS is not just a patriotic issue, it needs a lot of planning, preparedness and FOCUS above all to control terror
there is NO meaning in just crying about autonomy.
WE BADLY NEED COMPETENCE
more on the sad state of Indian police at
http://tinyurl.com/reo2a
regards
vinayak
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home