Home Blog Page 5554

Delhi High Court junks ‘comedian’ Kunal Kamra’s plea challenging his flying ban, says “Kamra’s in-flight behaviour unacceptable”

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Delhi High Court junks ‘comedian’ Kunal Kamra’s plea challenging his flying ban, says “Kamra’s in-flight behaviour unacceptable”

In a major setback to ‘comedian’ Kunal Kamra, the Delhi High Court has refused to consider a plea filed by him challenging the flying ban imposed on him by IndiGo, Air Vistara and other airlines after he heckled television journalist Arnab Goswami onboard an IndiaGo flight in January this year.

Disapproving of Kamra’s boorish conduct onboard a flight, the Delhi High Court said, “This kind of behaviour certainly can’t be permitted.”

The so-called comedian was banned by 5 airlines after he heckled Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami on an Indigo flight from Mumbai to Lucknow in January. He also recorded the video of his heckling Mr Goswami and later gloated on Twitter that he gave a ‘monologue’ to the Republic TV Editor-in-Chief by sharing the video on the microblogging website.

In an increasingly rancorous tone, Mr Kamra kept hectoring Mr Arnab Goswami while the plane was airborne, imperilling the lives of fellow co-passengers onboard. Despite Mr Goswami’s steadfast disregard of the badgering, the ‘comedian’ kept hurling abuses and expletives against the Republic TV Editor-in-Chief, deliberately flouting safety norms of the aircraft.

Following the incident, which many claims to be a propaganda stunt by Mr Kamra, Indigo banned him for flying for six months citing his unceremonious behaviour onboard. The Union Minister for Civil Aviation, Harshdeep Singh Puri lauded Indigo’s decision to put Kamra on the no-fly list and urged other airlines to follow the suit. Shortly thereafter, other airlines Spicejet, Air India and Go Air also banned Mr Kamra from flying on their airlines. Recently, Air Vistara too imposed the fly ban on the Mumbai-bases stand-up ‘comedian’.

Despite the ban from multiple airlines, Mr Kamra remained undeterred by the action initiated by the airlines and approached the Delhi High Court against the ban imposed against him. However, the court too refused to consider Mr Kamra’s plea saying his behaviour onboard was impermissible.

Barkha Dutt’s ‘sheroes’ support ‘journalist’ Rana Ayyub over her insensitive tweet on Indians dying of coronavirus

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Barkha Dutt’s ‘sheroes’ support ‘journalist’ Rana Ayyub over her insensitive tweet on Indians dying of coronavirus

Controversial ‘journalist’ Ayyub’s anti-India rant has finally found some traction in the country as Barkha Dutt ‘Sheroes’ Ladeeda Farzana and Aysha Renna have decided to support her. On March 16, Ayyub had tweeted an insensitive tweet where she had tweet wishing the death of Indian citizens during the coronavirus epidemic.

On 16th March, Ayyub took to Twitter to say out aloud that everyone in India is so ‘dead’ from inside because of being morally corrupt, what can a virus kill. Rana Ayyub’s hate-mongering had come at a time when as many as 126 people including foreign nationals were tested positive in India for the COVID-19 coronavirus. 

The number has now climbed to over 200 positive coronavirus cases and five Indians, including one in Iran has died.

Rana Ayyub’s absurd tweet on the coronavirus did not go well across social media, which was evident with the fact that even those who are part of the ecosystem attacked the Islamist Ayyub for hate-mongering and for wishing the death of citizens of the country.

However, Rana Ayyub’s death wishes were welcomed by Islamists as Jihad apologists like Aysha Renna and Ladeeda Farzana openly supported her.

On Tuesday, Islamist Aysha Renna, a known Jihad apologist, stood in support of Rana Ayyub and her death wish. Expressing solidarity with Rana Ayyub, Renna claimed that Rana Ayyub was one of the few journalists of the recent times who had threatened and continued to threaten those at power with brilliant investigative stories.

Soon, another Islamist Ladeeda Farzana, one of the two Barkha Dutt ‘Sheroes’, also joined Aysha Renna to express her admiration for Islamic troll Rana Ayyub. “In solidarity with Rana Ayyub. No threatenings can back out fighters,” tweeted Farzana.

Read: Barkha Dutt’s ‘Shero’ Ladeeda Farzana expresses her unconditional solidarity with Shaheen Bagh mastermind Sharjeel Imam, urges Muslims to express their Islamic identity

It is not really a surprise to see the ‘sheroes’ of Barkha Dutt standing in support of Rana Ayyub as lately the duo themselves have been espousing such vicious thoughts. The craving for violence and death was evident in the past as the ‘Sheroes’ had called for ‘Jihad’ ahead of the Jamia protests which eventually turned violent and led to mob violence across the national capital.

Ladeeda, in one of her posts, had openly called for ‘Jihad’ and had said that people should “learn about our ‘Jihad'”. In another post of hers from April 2018, she was found disrespecting the country by showing ‘middle fingers’ to India. Similarly, Aysha Renna, the face of anti-CAA riots at Jamia, had called India ‘fascist’ for hanging the terrorist Yakub Memon for his involvement in the Mumbai Blasts that killed hundreds of people.

Ram Navami Mela at Ayodhya to be called off due to Covid-19 threat, formal announcement soon

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Ram Navami Mela at Ayodhya to be called off due to Covid-19 threat, formal announcement soon

The grand Ram Navami Mela that was scheduled to be held in Ayodhya from 25th March to 2nd April, has been cancelled. VHP sources have confirmed to OpIndia that the mela will not be held on its scheduled dates, and a formal announcement will be made soon. The decision has been taken to avoid large gatherings in the view of coronavirus scare.

Grand Ram Navami celebrations in Ayodhya was planned this year as it is the first Ram Navami after the historic Supreme Court verdict that handed over the Ram Janmabhoomi site to Hindus, paving the way for constructions of a grand Ram Mandir at Lord Ram’s birthplace. But now those plans will be shelved due to the crisis posed by Covid-19.

It is expected that Sadhus in Ayodhya will announce that people need not come for Ram Navami rituals and will ask them to stay at home. Yesterday, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister had appealed people to celebrate Ram Navami at home and avoid going to temples and fairs. He requested people to hold any religious ceremony they want to hold in their houses and avoid any religious gathering as the country battles the spread of the Covid-19.

“Chaitra Navratri is imminent and many devotees visit temples especially on the first, second, eight and ninth day. Fairs are also organised in many areas that see mass participation of people. In light of special circumstances, I appeal to the public to perform any religious ceremony at their homes so that the spread of the infectious virus can be prevented,” Yogi Adityanath said in a government press release on Thursday. According to reports, the state government has directed the district and police authorities to hold talks with religious leaders to spread awareness about avoiding mass gatherings during the Navaratri period.

Even though the organisers and the state govt are yet to make any formal announcement on the Ram Navami mela, several media houses had reported that UP govt is going ahead with the mela despite the threat of Covid-19. It was reported that around 10 lakh devotees from across the country will arrive at Ayodhya for the celebrations.

The UP govt also clarified they does not organise the fair, and neither do they invite devotees for the same. The govt only provides necessary arrangements which are generally done by govts in such large gatherings. Govt officials told that they are appealing the religious leaders to appeal to people to stay at home.

Although the fair is expected to be called off, the Ram Navami rituals will be performed by the priests, and the transfer of the Ram Lala from the current place to a platform inside Ram Janmabhoomi will take place as scheduled on 25th March, as that is required to start construction of the Mandir. CM Adityanath will attend the ceremonies on that day.

Madhya Pradesh government collapses as Chief Minister Kamal Nath resigns

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Madhya Pradesh government collapses as Chief Minister Kamal Nath resigns

In a major political development, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath has resigned from the post as his government fell short of numbers. The Madhya Pradesh Congress government collapses with Kamal Nath stepping down as the Chief Minister.

Speaking at the press conference, Chief Minister Kamal Nath announced his resignation and stated that he will meet the state governor Lalaji Tandon to submit the same. His resignation comes ahead of the SC directed floor test by 5 PM today.

Addressing media, he said, “After today, comes tomorrow, and after tomorrow, another day. And that day will come.” He accused the BJP of trying to ‘destabilise’ his government and holding Congress MLAs captive in Karnataka to topple the state government.

The resignation comes after Supreme Court on Thursday had ordered Chief Minister Kamal Nath-led Congress government to face a floor test in the MP Vidhan Sabha by Friday. As per the apex court’s order, the trust vote was supposed to take place today at 2 pm. However, to save from another humiliation, Kamal Nath has now chosen to resign from the post of the Chief Minister.

The Congress-led government was pushed to the brink following of former Congress leader Jyotiraditya Scindia. The state assembly speaker Narmada Prasad Prajapati late Thursday night accepted the resignations of the remaining 16 rebel Congress MLAs who have been in Bengaluru since March 9.

Read: Madhya Pradesh Congress Twitter account has a prolonged meltdown after Scindia quits, gives a veiled death threat

The resignations of all 22 MLAs in Scindia’s camp had brought down the total strength of the assembly to 206 where the ruling Congress with 92 members and seven allied MLAs. The Congress was at least five short of a simple majority of 104. The opposition BJP with 107 MLAs is three more than the simple majority.

With the resignation of Kamal Nath, BJP is all set to form the government in Madhya Pradesh. Former Madhya Pradesh CM and BJP leader Shivraj Singh Chauhan will likely be elected as Chief Minister for his fourth term.

Justice delayed but not denied: After a long wait, Nirbhaya’s rapists finally hang from the noose

Dibakar Dutta
-
0
Justice delayed but not denied: After a long wait, Nirbhaya’s rapists finally hang from the noose

After a long wait of 7 years, Nirbhaya finally got justice. The four convicts, Mukesh Singh, Pawan Gupta, Akshay Kumar Singh, and Vinay Sharma involved in the brutal rape and murder of a 23-year-old medical student, named Nirbhaya by the media, were executed on Friday at 5:30 am at India’s high-security Tihar jail.

What happened after the execution?

Post their execution, their bodies were allowed to hang for 30 minutes. The bodies of the deceased rapists were then examined by a doctor as per protocol. They were then sent for post-mortem at the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. A panel of 5 doctors led by Dr BN Mishra performed the autopsies on camera. Their bodies would be handed over to the respective families after the post-mortem.

High Court Hearing

On Thursday night, the Delhi High Court began hearing a plea against the Trial Court’s refusal to stay the execution of the death warrant in the Nirbhaya rape case.

Advocate Shams Khawaja who appeared in Court on behalf of Pavan Gupta alleged that the President of India Ram Nath Kovind was “prejudiced” in rejection of the mercy plea. He claimed, “There is a glaring miscarriage of justice.”

The Court rebuked, “Once a judge signs a judgement, he cannot touch that case again. You want to carry on, go on! We will sit here till 5.30 am..”

Justice Manmohan said, “There is no annexure, no memo of parties, there is nothing in this matter, no affidavits, nothing. Do you have the permission to file this Petition?”

Advocate AP Singh gave a bizarre reply, “I have been so hopeless because of Coronavirus. The photocopies are not available. I have everything but was not able to give a copy because there is no means to get the photocopy done.”

Justice Manmohan emphasised, “We will not be able to help you at the eleventh … You have four-five hours. If you want to make use, tell us. If you have a point then come to that. We are close to the time where your client can meet God. Don’t waste time. We have no time.”

Singh demanded for an additional time which was rejected by the Delhi High Court. The Court observed, “Plea of juvenility has been dismissed by the three courts and cannot be raised at this stage.” As such, the petition was dismissed.

Supreme Court Hearing

A Bench of the Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna began hearing the petition filed by Advocate AP Singh at 2:30 am on Friday. When AP Singh made submissions on the claims of juvenility, Justice Bhushan said that the case cannot be reviewed whenever desired and that there were no sufficient grounds to challenge the rejection of the mercy plea by the President of India.

AP Singh claimed that Pawan Gupta’s FIR against Mandoli jail authorities for “alleged torture” was pending before the court. He alleged that Gupta had received 14 stitches due to the attack. Singh asked the Court to record the convict’s statement before he is hanged till death. Justice Banumathi dismissed these claims citing that they have been raised earlier as well.

The Court observed that the case of “alleged torture” against Pawan Gupta was not a sufficient ground to challenge President’s rejection of the mercy plea. Since AP Singh had no arguments, besides the rejected yet repeated claims of juvenility, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea. And thus the path to the execution was finally cleared.

The Reaction of Convicts’ Lawyer

The 46-year-old lawyer of Nirbhaya’s convicts, AP Singh, used delay tactics to prolong the death sentence handed out to them. On being asked about his vicious attempt at victim shaming and character assassination, he replied, “Should I not ask what the girl was doing with the boy so late at night? It is part of the evidence. I wasn’t saying they had a brother-sister relationship or they were out to celebrate rakhi. All I said was that they are friends. Now in their society, boyfriend-girlfriend relation must be laudable, but not in the culture I come from,” “

“If my daughter or sister engaged in pre-marital sex and disgraced herself and allowed herself to lose face and character by doing such things, I would most certainly take this sort of sister or daughter to my farmhouse, and in front of my entire family, I would put petrol on her and set her on fire”, AP Singh was heard saying in a controversial documentary titled India’s Daughter.

The Reaction of Nirbhaya’s Parents

After the Supreme Court rejected the plea filed by convict Pawan Gupta seeking a stay on his execution, a relieved Nirbhaya’s mother, Asha Devi, said, “I hugged the picture of my daughter and said today you got justice.”

Speaking to the media, post the execution, she emphasised, “I am proud of my daughter. The whole world knows me because of her. It would have been better if I was known as the mother of a doctor but that dream was never fulfilled. I could not protect her but I was able to fight for her.” “

The Reaction of People

A large crowd gathered outside the Tihar jail premises in the wee hours of the morning and raised slogans of “Bharat Mata ki Jail”, “AP Singh Murdabad” and “Long Live Nirbhaya.” Many distributed sweets while some overjoyed by the final delivery of justice, waved the national flag. A woman who seen carrying a placard that read “Der Hui, Andher Nahin (Justice took time but it did not die in darkness).”

Ravinder Singh Bakshi, a resident of Delhi’s Hari Nagar, said, “My wife advised me not to step out amidst the coronavirus outbreak but I could not contain my happiness as justice is being given to my sister.”

Conclusion

While the trial court gave the death penalty to all the five adults, the juvenile (unnamed) was sent to probation home for 3 years. One of the convicts (Ram Singh) committed suicide in the jail, rest preferred appeal in the High court and subsequently to the Supreme Court. The court rejected the appeal and upheld the death penalty stating that it falls under the category of “rarest of rare” case.

The 4 convicts involved in the gang rape and murder of Nirbhaya exploited every loophole in the judicial system to delay justice. However, they could not escape the noose. Justice was delayed in this case but not denied. For Asha Devi, execution of the convicts would have finally brought closure to a 7-year-long legal battle.

Fact-check : Did The Hindu call COVID-19 coronavirus as ‘Indian virus’?

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Fact-check : Did The Hindu call COVID-19 coronavirus as ‘Indian virus’?

The Hindu, in its article on death toll in India due to Covid-19 coronavirus, referred to the virus as ‘Indian virus’.

Suhasini Haider’s tweet referring to coronavirus as “Indian virus”

After the tweet, netizens questioned Haider about the using “Indian virus” to describe COVID-19.

In the article shared by Suhasini Haider, National Editor and Diplomatic Affairs Editor, The Hindu, the article mentioned “Coronavirus| With one death in Iran, Indian virus toll touches five”. It would be surprising that The Hindu would refer to the virus as “Indian virus” when it originated in China’s Wuhan province. In fact, while it is well known now that the coronavirus infection had started and was spreading as early as November 2019, till January 14 2020, the Chinese authorities have claimed that the Covid-19 did not show human to human transmission.

Read: Wuhan coronavirus: A pandemic that was started in China, covered up by China but China thinks calling it Chinese is ‘racism’

Soon after, Haider deleted the tweet and posted another with text in her tweet edited. However, the headline of the article remained the same.

However, despite the badly worded headline, The Hindu article actually talks about the total death toll of the Indian citizens due to the deadly virus. To save themselves the embarrassment, what The Hindu could have written is “Coronavirus| With one death in Iran, India’s Covid-19 toll touches five”.

Journalist who exposed cartel of Wikipedia editors permanently banned from the platform for ‘offline harassment’

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Journalist who exposed cartel of Wikipedia editors permanently banned from the platform for ‘offline harassment’

Soumyadipta, a journalist who has reported from West Bengal in the past, today took to Twitter to say that Wikipedia admin “Newslinger” has permanently banned him from the platform for ‘offline harassment’. “Newslinger” is the same person who has been trying to ‘blacklist’ OpIndia on Wikipedia.

He said that ‘Newslinger’ is well-known for promoting vandals and found Soumyadipta as he was on Wikipedia with his real name. Earlier this month, Soumyadipta had taken to Twitter to expose how there is a cartel of admins and editors on Wikipedia who earn money by creating and editing Wikipedia pages.

Soumyadipta explained how he got in touch with an ‘agency’ by posing as a PR (public relation) agency of a relatively unknown actress. They emailed the ‘agency’ instructions regarding the edits required for the page along with payment details. Rs 10,000 was paid to the ‘agency’ to create a page of an actor. Total charges for creating and ‘maintaining’ the page for six months were Rs 50,000.

Soumyadipta further states that on Wikipedia, one cannot make edits as one likes as they would be ‘reversed’ if ‘they’ (the cartel) does not like them. “A gang of about 50 Indian editors are on top of a chain of editors and they have complete control over Wikipedia,” Soumyadipta said. “They are on top of a chain of command. A team consists of about 10 editors. A newbie proposes an edit and a chain of command approves it and further edits it,” he adds.

Google algorithm is such that the first search result is almost always the Wikipedia page. “Google changes its algorithm frequently but they used to heavily favour Wiki because it is an open-source, publicly edited charity platform,” Soumaydipta says.

Adding on their investigation into the ‘business’ of Wikipedia editors, Soumyadipta says that for two months, they kept adding the favourable edits like turning flop film into semi-hit at the box office and obscure awards. “Every time the top editors approved the edits and they were never reversed. Even if somebody reversed it, they were brought back,” he adds. Soumyadipta says that the top Wikipedia editor would make up to Rs 5 lakh per month as ‘consultants’. Except, they do not mention Wikipedia on any documents. The ‘consultancy’ fees are usually for IT-related or PR agency work. Even income tax is paid on the ‘consultancy charges’.

Read: Delhi riots: How leftists are using Wikipedia to write the first draft of biased history

Revealing how the hierarchy on the platform works, Soumyadipta says, “Here most editors mask their identity. So, it’s difficult to figure who’s attacking you. You might be a professor with a PhD on the subject but a first-year student will reverse your edits if he’s higher in the hierarchy.” It takes years to ‘climb’ the ladder on Wikipedia. Wikipedia gives you badges, stars etc in recognition of your work and you won’t them unless you have the tacit support of the “gang”.

Soumyadipta explains that to climb the ‘hierarchy’ your edits on Wikipedia should not be reversed. That is possible only with the support of the editors who are higher-ups. “Backed with data, you edit the article on Wikipedia only to find that it has been reversed the next day. Imagine this happening to you frequently. Day after day,” Soumyadipta says.

On the bullying on Wikipedia platform, Soumyadipta says, “There are these “Talk” pages where you can ask why your edits have been deleted. These pages are public and the language is monitored. It is here that the senior editors will bully you by clever usage of words. They’ll tell you that your edits were “pretty pointless” or “vague”. You have the liberty of re-editing or seeking help from someone else but the bullies who are trying to block your edits will patrol your Talk pages to figure out who you are talking to and what are you saying. If they find you intimidating, they will try to block you permanently.”

Wikipedia relies heavily on external citations for your edits. “These editors ensure by one method or the other that their narrative on a particular page does not change. This is mainly the case with political pages. It’s interesting to note that there are many Bengali and Malayali senior editors on Wikipedia who have been editing Wikipedia pages for years. They’re staunch Leftists and their job is to ensure that Wikipedia doesn’t say nice things about non-left personalities and media,” he says.

Explaining how the leftist ‘editors’ vilify pages, Soumyadipta explains that for individuals, they highlight their flaws. “For example, create a separate section for an unverified allegation levelled against him just by citing a newspaper report. But for others, they would ignore it. For people who are known to have anti-left views, the attacks get more vicious. They scour the internet for publicly available articles that show you in bad light. Once they get such an article, a new editor will edit and the senior editors will ensure that it sticks to the page,” he explains.

Apparently, such malicious edits take place through secret chat rooms outside of Wikipedia. “They will ensure that the edits come from different locations. So it’s impossible to figure out that it’s a coordinated attack. If seniors from Virginia, Kolkata, Vietnam, Karachi & Mumbai are saying the same thing about an article, then the edit sticks. No matter how much you try, you will not be able to modify it. Every time new senior editors will come and block you from editing or will reverse the edit,” he explains.

Read: Who is DBigXray, the man who has been altering history using Wikipedia, including the recent article on Delhi Riots: An investigation

Coming back to the actor whose profile they got published on Wikipedia, Soumyadipta says that the actor now has positive media coverage and even has verified Twitter account as Twitter considers Wikipedia, which is open to editing for the general public, as a legit source.

Soumyadipta reiterates that most Wikipedia editors have a strong bias against anti-left narrative and hence often approve derogatory edits.

Madhya Pradesh crisis: Power and functions of the Governor as Supreme Court orders floor test for Kamal Nath government

Shubhendu Anand
-
0
Madhya Pradesh crisis: Power and functions of the Governor as Supreme Court orders floor test for Kamal Nath government

In a dramatic sequence of events 22 Members of the Madhya Pradesh legislative Assembly, who were Congress MLAs, tendered their resignation to the Speaker of the House after Jyotiraditya Scindia joined the Bharatiya Janata Party. The Speaker NP Prajapati accepted the resignation of 6 of the 22 rebel MLAs who formed the part of Madhya Pradesh Cabinet while not accepting the resignation of the remaining 16 MLAs, reducing the strength of the house to 222 and the halfway mark to 112, thereby keeping the Kamal Nath led Congress Government safe in the state. This, however, became a crisis situation in the State pushing the BJP to claim that the Kamal Nath government was indeed in minority.

Under such circumstances, the Governor of the State Lalji Tandon, who is entrusted with the task of making sure that the Constitutional machinery in the state doesn’t break down, wrote to the Chief Minister Kamal Nath to face a floor test in the Assembly stating, “Under Article 174 and 175(2) of the Constitution, I am empowered to direct that MP Assembly session will begin on March 16 at 11 am with my address. Soon after that, the only work to be done is voting on trust vote.” When the Speaker NP Prajapati refused to hold floor test and deferred the Budget Session of the House to 26th March, ex-Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, Shivraj Singh Chouhan approached the Supreme Court of India to seek the Court’s direction to getting a floor test done in the State Assembly.

In a two-day long hearing of the case titled Shivraj Singh Chouhan & Ors vs. Speaker Madhya Pradesh legislative Assembly & Ors., the Supreme Court ordered for the floor test to be conducted in the state Assembly on 20th March by 5 PM and the same to be video recorded, to effectively resolve the state of uncertainty in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The operative part of the judgment that lays down the guidelines for a floor test to be held today is as follows:

  • The session of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly which has been deferred to 26 March 2020 shall be reconvened on 20 March 2020.
  • The meeting to be convened in pursuance of (i) above shall be confined to a single agenda, namely, whether the government of the incumbent Chief Minister continues to enjoy the confidence of the House. 
  • Voting on agenda (ii) above shall take place by show of hands (the Governor having clarified by his letter dated 15 March 2020 that there is no provision for recording the division by ‘press of a button’). 
  • The proceedings before the Legislative Assembly shall be videographed and, if a provision exists for the live telecast of the proceedings, this shall, in addition, be ensured.
  • All authorities, including the Legislative Secretary, shall ensure that there is no breach of law and order in the course of the proceedings and that the floor test is conducted in a peaceful manner.
  • The floor test in pursuance of the above directions shall be concluded by 5.00 pm on 20 March 2020.
  • The Director-General of Police, Karnataka as well as the Director-General of Police, Madhya Pradesh shall ensure that there shall be no restraint or hindrance whatsoever on any of the sixteen MLAs taking recourse to their rights and liberties as citizens. In the event that they or any of them opt to attend the session of the Legislative Assembly, arrangements for their security shall be provided by all the concerned authorities.”

In light of the arguments that took place in the Supreme Court on the issue of floor test and the role of Governor, we shall now see what are the powers, functions and roles of the Governor in a State.

The post of governor of a state is of immense importance in our political system. It is considered as one of the pivotal parts of “checks and balances” that our democracy is proud of. Powers and functions bestowed upon the governors and lieutenant-governors of the states and union territories of India are similar in nature to that of the President of India at Union level. Being de jure head of the state government, all its executive actions are taken in the governor’s name. While the President of India is “elected”, the governor is “selected” by the existing central government via imperative processes.

While the Constitution was being framed and discussed upon, Sardar Patel sought to make it explicit that ‘special powers’ endowed upon the Governor would not create dissonance between him and the ministry. He stressed that there would be no ‘invasion of the field of ministerial responsibility’. The ‘special powers’ would primarily be limited to sending a report to the Union President when a grave emergency arose, threatening menace to peace and tranquillity. At one point there was also an argument put forward that the governor should be elected directly by the people of that province, but it did not find assent. Jawaharlal Nehru had emphasized that this post could be utilized to bring distinguished people from eclectic backgrounds as well as academics into the field of public service, as they might not have necessary expertise or zest for winning an election.

Role, Functions and Powers of the Governor as enshrined in the Indian Constitution

As provided by Articles 155 and 156 of the existing Constitution of India, Governors of the States are appointed by the President of India and are answerable to him and hold their offices during the pleasure of the President of India. The Governor, thus, is an appointee of the Central Government in the State, and, in so far as he acts in his discretion, he shall be answerable to the Union Government. Except in matters in which the Governor is required by or under the Constitution to exercise his function in his discretion, the Governor is the Constitutional or formal head of the State and he exercises all his powers and functions on the aid and advice of his council of Ministers.

This is so because our Constitution embodies generally the Parliamentary or Cabinet system of Government of the British Model both at the Union and the States. Article 164(1) of the Constitution of India empowers the Governor to appoint the Chief Minister. However, like the discretion of the President in the appointment of the Prime Minister, the Governor’s discretion in the appointment of Chief Minister is conditioned by an essential form of Parliamentary form of Government that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the State legislative assembly. This means that the leader of a party which commands the majority in the legislative assembly is eligible for appointment as Chief Minister, and the Governor is bound to request him to form the Government. If there is no party commanding a clear majority in the legislative assembly, the Governor may exercise his discretion in the appointment of Chief Minister according to his personal assessment of the situation at that time. 

In a 5 Judge Bench, the Supreme Court of India has held in BP Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 331 that the role of the Governor of a State is to function as a vital link or bridge between the Union Government and the State Government. He is required to discharge the functions related to his different roles harmoniously, assessing the scope and ambit of each role properly. Therefore, the Governor of a State has a dual role. The first is that of a Constitutional head of the State bound by the advice of his Council of Ministers. The second is to function as a vital link between the Union Government and the State Government. In certain special or emergent situations, he may also act as a special representative of the Union Government. He is constitutionally the head of the State in who is vested the executive power of the State and without whose assent there can be no legislation in exercise of the legislative power of the State. The fact that the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President does not make the Government of India an employer of the Governor.

Difference between powers of The President and powers of The Governor

There is a distinction between the powers of the President under Article 74 and the Governor under Article 163 of the Constitution. There is some qualitative difference between the position of the President and the Governor. The President under Article 74 has no discretionary powers but the Governor has certain discretionary powers under Article 163(2) of the Constitution of India. In contrast to Article 74, even though Article 163 similarly provides that the Governor of a State is to exercise his functions in consonance with the aid and advice tendered to him by the council of Ministers with the Chief Minister as the head, yet Article 163(2) confers discretionary powers with the Governor when it is so expressly mandated by or under the Constitution. To a limited extent Article 163(2) authorizes Governor to act in his own discretion and in that sense, there is a clear distinction between the power vested in the President and the power vested in the Governor.

In the landmark judgment of B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. & Anr, (2001) 7 SCC 231, the Supreme Court observed that the Governor should act as per the will or advice of the majority party only when the same is in accord with the Constitution and the laws.

Conclusion

The legislative and discretionary powers of Governor are very clear and precise in terms of the Constitutional Provisions and various judgments of the Supreme Court. The Governor can summon, prorogue, defer or dissolve the State Legislative Assembly, his decisions often taken in counsel with the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers. The Governor holds the power to select the Chief Minister should no political party win a majority in the Vidhan Sabha of the state, or in the Chief Minister’s demise without any obvious successor. The Governor may recommend imposition of the President’s Rule on the President’s behalf, and in such circumstances, override the Council of Ministers and directly handle the workings of the State.

Lastly, the Governor of a state is the custodian of the Constitutional machinery of the state and hence has a greater responsibility to make sure that the same doesn’t breakdown. Lalji Tandon, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, was doing exactly the same which he asked Chief Minister to prove his majority on the floor of the House after 22 of his party’s MLAs resigned.

Support comes from unexpected avenues for PM Modi’s ‘Janata Curfew’ as even the detractors join in

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Support comes from unexpected avenues for PM Modi’s ‘Janata Curfew’ as even the detractors join in

Calling for “resolve and restraint” to fight coronavirus, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday asked the entire country to observe ‘Janata curfew’ on Sunday, March 22 as a test run for social distancing over the next few days.

In a nearly 30-minute national broadcast, he asked people to stay at home from 7 am to 9 pm that day and abide by it while underscoring the dangers of coronavirus, saying the world has never seen a crisis as grave as this.

Prime Minister Modi’s appeal to the citizens to fight the coronavirus has received overwhelming support across the spectrum. Barring a few, the movement to fight the coronavirus received support from all sections of the society. The support for PM Modi also came from unexpected quarters as usual detractors including the members of the “liberal-secular” media and the Congress ecosystem heaped praises on PM Modi for calling people to observe the Janata Curfew.

Sagarika Ghose, a self-styled ‘journalist’ and a known Modi baiter, surprisingly praised Prime Minister Modi for calling on citizens to observe social distancing through self-imposed curfew. However, as usual, there was also a bit of criticism from ‘intellectual’ Sagarika Ghose, as she said she would have liked to hear more about ‘solid measures’ on the overall approach to tackling the crisis.

Former Bollywood actress Twinkle Khanna also surprised netizens and applauded PM Modi for his speech. Khanna who usually rants against the Modi government took to Twitter to state that PM Modi’s address to the fight the corona epidemic made her feel more united.

Yogendra Yadav, a multi-talented ‘intellectual’ and self-proclaimed psephologist, also declared that every Indian must support the government’s efforts to fight the Chinese virus. Yadav, who often comes up with deranged assertions to attack the Modi government also supported the idea of the Economic Task Force.

Rajdeep Sardesai, the Michealangelo of Indian journalism and a known member of the Congress ecosystem, supported PM Modi’s call for restraint and resolve during the testing times and asked the government to act now to tackle the health crisis.

The most unexpected support to PM Modi’ initiative came from none other than Shehla Rashid. Rashid, who is a freelance protestor and a member of the anti-India JNU brigade, shocked the netizens when she appreciated PM Modi’s call to stay indoors. She also endorsed PM Modi’s appeal, asked everyone to be united and follow the instructions given by the government.

Abusive troll Swati Chaturvedi too called PM Modi’s Thursday speech as a ‘better one out of all his speeches’. Chaturvedi however, was not happy with PM Modi’s appeal to applaud the thousands of people who are working day and night to fight the coronavirus outbreak.

Sonam K Ahuja, another Bollywood starlet, also retweeted a post praising PM Modi’s efforts. Sonam Kapoor retweeted Masaba Gupta’s post which said that PM Modi delivered an outstanding speech and it was the time to come together to applaud our nurses and doctor.

The ecosystem, which sustains on the anti-Modi propaganda, perhaps have realised the seriousness of the Coronavirus crisis in the country and believes that the crisis can only be tackled with meticulous planning managed by a powerful leadership. In a way, the anti-Modi brigade now feels that it is only Prime Minister Modi who can unite a country at the time of such a crisis and have also decided to support the PM during these challenging times.

Ex-CJI Gogoi exposes the ‘lobby’ which holds judiciary at ransom, says if judgement goes against what they advocate, they malign the judge

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Ex-CJI Gogoi exposes the ‘lobby’ which holds judiciary at ransom, says if judgement goes against what they advocate, they malign the judge

Former Chief Justice of India and Rajya Sabha MP Ranjan Gogoi revealed that the judiciary is being held at ‘ransom’ by a handful of people. Speaking to Times of India after taking oath as an MP nominated by the President of India, ex-CJI Gogoi said that the judicial independence was under threat because of a stronghold of a ‘lobby’ which comprises of about half a dozen people.

He further said that the same set of people go and malign a judge if a judgement does not go as per their wish. Justice Gogoi further added that the judiciary will not be fully independent in its true sense unless the stronghold of these people was broken. “They hold judges at ransom. If a case is not decided in a particular way advocated by them, they malign the judge in every way possible,” he said.

Speaking on the allegations that his Rajya Sabha nomination was a quid pro quo for the Ayodhya verdict where the 5-judge Supreme Court bench headed by him ruled in favour of the temple, Gogoi said he was being maligned because he defied the lobby. He added that he decided on the basis of what his conscience. “If a judge decides a case fearing what the half-a-dozen people will say, then he is not true to his oath,” he told the Times of India. Furthering on the judgement, he said, “It was a unanimous verdict by a five-judge bench. Rafale was again a unanimous verdict by a three-judge bench. By alleging quid pro quo aren’t they questioning the integrity of all three judges involved in the two judgements?”

Read: The Curious case of Justice Ranganath Misra who gave clean chit to Congress for 1984 Sikh massacre

Dismissing the insinuations that he was ‘compensated’ for the Ayodhya and Rafale verdict, he said that if a former CJI wants quid pro quo, he could seek bigger, better posts with more lucrative emoluments. Rajya Sabha nomination would hardly fit since the benefits of a Rajya Sabha MP are quite similar to that of a retired judge. He further added that if rules permit, he would not take the salary and allowances and give it to refurbish libraries in smaller towns.

He further added how he was hailed when he participated in the historic press conference in January 2018 against ex-CJI Dipak Misra. “I was the darling of the lobby when I went for the press conference in 2018. But they want judges to decide cases in a certain manner and only then will they certify them as ‘independent judges’,” he said. In January 2018, four senior Supreme Court judges namely Justices J Chelameswar, Madan B Lokur, Ranjan Gogoi and Kurian Joseph, called a press conference to inform the nation of “their failed efforts” to convince the Chief Justice to take steps to protect the institution.

Speaking to India Today, CJI Gogoi said that if the President of India makes you an offer under Article 80 and tells you that the nation needs your service, you do not refuse. “You shouldn’t refuse that,” he said. “So far as quid pro quo is concerned, if you write five judgements against the government, then only you are eligible for nomination under Article 80? If you write judgements which eventually turn out to be in favour of the government, only then are you eligible?” he said. “If it was a quid pro quo, I wouldn’t have stopped at Rajya Sabha membership,” he said.

1...5,5535,5545,555...7,613Page 5,554 of 7,613