PRESIDENT’S POWER TO ADJUDICATE UPON ELECTION PETITION
Why we are discussing this issue? Opening Remarks: In 2024 Lok Sabha general election was held in May. This was the 18th Lok Sabha election. All political parties offered in manifesto many promises. Freebies are offered by almost all political parties. In Delhi the local state government is sworn in thrice based on freebies. Similarly in Karnataka and Telangana the state government is elected based on freebies. The disadvantage of such freebies is the economy of the State is pulled back due to nonproductive expenses. The taxpayers do not get more advance facilities from the tax they have paid. PIL challenging freebies is pending before the Supreme Court. During Lok Sabha election we saw that one of the parties Congress have distributed a guaranteed cards along with the forms that if they come to power, they will give Rs.8500/- to every woman and Rs.1,000,00/- per year to meet major expenses. This party has won more seats than last two elections and there was religious concentration of votes. There was also a statement that the party if come to power would confiscate entire wealth and do caste survey and thereafter redistribute the same. The congress party won 99 Lok Sabha seats. However, they are in power in three states. Telangana, Himachal and Karnataka. They can offer them. But women who were given guarantee cards along with form started Queuing up outside Congress Party offices. They said we have lost. The question arise now is whether this is a blatant fraud? What does law say? The law which governs election is the Representation of peoples Act 1951 ( Said RP Act 1951) The question is whether all this statements go against the provisions of Section 123 of RP Act 1951 ? A complaint is pending before the President of India challenging election. Now question arises Can third party challenge in representative character the election of candidates who belong to a single largest party who won election on basis of guaranteed card? Who has jurisdiction to hear the election Petition under Section 123 and 8A of RP Act 1951? Does President of India have power under Section 123 or 8 A of the said R.P. Act 1951? This Act came into force on 17th July 1951. Preamble of the Act explains the purpose of its enactment. An Act to provide for the conduct of elections to the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of those Houses, the corrupt 1*** practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections. The terms corrupt practices is defined in the Act as “corrupt practice means any of the practices specified in section 123” What does corrupt practices mean. Section 123 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for the same. Corrupt practices.— The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:— (1)“Bribery”, that is to say— (A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate […]
Read more
WHEN A CRIMINAL MATTER IS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER STATE HIGH COURT THEN WHETHER COURT OF ORIGIN LOSES POWER AND JURISDICTION TO TRY AND ENTERTAIN REMISSION APPLICATION ?
BILKIS BANU JUDGEMENT AN ANALYSIS Yesterday two Judges bench passed an order setting aside remission given by the Gujarat High Court on the recommendation of the Gujarat Government under Section 432 (7) (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1973 in the matter of Bilkis Banu vs Union of India. But there is different view of 5 Judges Constitution Bench in Murugan Vs Union of India . This law needs more clarification. Brief History : These writ petitions was filed assailing the Orders dated 10.08.2022, granting remission and early release of respondent Nos.3 to 13 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.491 of 2022 (which petition shall be considered to be the lead petition), who were all convicted, having been found guilty of committing heinous crimes during the large-scale riots in Gujarat on 28.02.2002 and a few days thereafter which occurred in the aftermath of the burning of the train incident in Godhra in the State of Gujarat on 27.02.2002. The crime in question was driven by communal hatred and resulted in twelve convicts, amongst many Writ Petition (Crl.) No.491 of 2022 Etc. others, brutally gang-raping the petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.491 of 2022, namely, Bilkis Yakub Rasool, who was pregnant at that time. Further, the petitioner’s mother was gang raped and murdered, her cousin who had just delivered a baby was also gang raped and murdered. Eight minors including the petitioner’s cousin’s two-day-old infant were also murdered. The petitioner’s three-year-old daughter was murdered by smashing her head on a rock, her two minor brothers, two minor sisters, her phupha, phupi,mama (uncle, aunt and uncle respectively) and three-cousins were all murdered. Cause of Action Bilkis Yakub Rasool, being an unfortunate victim of the heinous crimes filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ, order, or direction quashing the Orders dated 10.08.2022 passed by the State of Gujarat by which the convicts in Sessions Case No.634 of 2004, Mumbai (respondent Nos.3 to 13 herein), whose convictions were upheld by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and thereafter by Supreme Court. On 28.06.2022, the Department of Home Affairs, Government of Gujarat, addressed a letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, seeking sanction from the Government of India on the proposal for the premature release of the prisoners, respondent Nos.3 to 13. By letter dated 11.07.2022, the Ministry of Home Affairs, The government of India conveyed its approval under Section 435 of the CrPC for the premature release of all 11 convicts, respondent Nos.3 to 13. Pursuant to the concurrence of the Central Government, the State of Gujarat issued the impugned orders dated 10.08.2022. In the above background, writ petitions were filed, praying, inter-alia, for issuance of a writ, order, or direction, quashing the Orders dated 10.08.2022 LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED It was asserted inter-alia that though the crime was committed in the State of Gujarat, the investigation and trial were carried out in the State of Maharashtra under the orders of this Court. Hence, given the language of Section 432(7)(b), only the state of Maharashtra would be the appropriate […]
Read more
RIGHTS OF RESERVATIONS AS PER POPULATION WHETHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSITION?
During the last 40 years in India, politics has been divided into regional and mainstream parties. The mainstream party was the only one dominated by a family. Under its shelter, every state advanced state-level family powerhouse. They are still inter-alia in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, West Bengal, and Telangana. However, the said respective families would oppose state elections and partner in the central government. This continued for decades. Slowly people realised that there is a change in voting tendency. Well, let’s migrate to the topic under discussion to the current situation as the country will go for Lok Sabha elections in 2024. The small local regional parties referred to in para hereinabove along with the mainstream party formed an alliance. They named it as INDI Alliance. This INDI Alliance has introduced a new idea to fetch more votes. They have proposed that rights on the national resources will be as per the population of a caste. A caste having a larger population should get more facilities. During the tenure of UPA erstwhile Prime Minister said that it is in particular Muslims who has first right to the resources of this country. Please see the link https://youtube.com/shorts/UAdiboSk-vk?si=P1bjy7UvohWHj-CE PARTITION India has seen division in 1947. A bloody partition based on religion. Millions. Many shed lives and were martyred and many children lost while crossing the border. Nehru became the first PM of independent Bharat. INDIA WAS BORN We have a constitution in force. Our constitution gives equal opportunity to all. Let us see what it provides: Article 13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights. (1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void. (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void Article 14. guarantees Equality before the law. —The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Article 15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them. (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction, or condition with regard to— a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public. (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. [(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of […]
Read more