India has blasted Pakistan for its continuous "obstructive and insincere" policy with regard Kulbhushan Jadhav, held in their custody since 2016, and charged it with "violating" its assurance given to the International Court of Justice at the Hague.
"It is clear that Pakistan’s approach to this matter (on Jadhav) continues to be obstructive and insincere.
It has not only violated its assurance to the ICJ to fully implement the 2019 judgement, but also failed to
act in accordance with its own Ordinance," MEA spokesman Anurag Srivastava said in a statement after
two Indian consular officials registered their protest at the conduct of Islamabad.
A long-awaited meeting of Indian officials with Kulbhushan Jadhav did not yield expected results
as they could not obtain "his written consent for arranging his legal representation".
MEA spokesman said the meeting ended inconclusively on Thursday after Pakistan refused to give
them "unimpeded consular access" as ordered by the ICJ and enshrined as right under international norms.
Indian authorities had made more than ten requests to Islamabad over the last one year for “unimpeded, uninterrupted and unconditional” consular access to the former Indian naval officer-turned-businessman
in line with the verdict of the International Court of Justice.
Jadhav, as alleged by Indian authorities, was picked up from Iran and was sentenced to death by a
military court in April 2017 in Pakistan.
The ICJ had stayed the capital punishment and after fierce legal battle ruled in favour of Jadhav and India
in July 2019.
The ICJ on July 17 (2019) had declared that Pakistan is "under an obligation" to inform Shri Jadhav without further delay of his rights and to provide India consular access to him, External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar had said in his statement in both Houses of Parliament on July 18.
The Court unanimously found that it had jurisdiction on the matter and by a vote of 15-1, pronounced on the other key aspects of the case. The sole dissenting Judge was from Pakistan.
The Court pronounced that Pakistan had "breached relevant obligations" under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
It did so by not notifying India, without delay, of the detention of Shri Jadhav, thereby depriving the Indian government
the right to render consular assistance.
MEA spokesman Srivastava in his statement on July 16 said: "The Consular Officers were not given unimpeded,
unhindered and unconditional access to Shri Jadhav. On the contrary, Pakistani officials with an intimidating
demeanour were present in close proximity of Shri Jadhav and Consular Officers despite the protests of the
Indian side".
"It was also evident from a camera that was visible that the conversation with Shri Jadhav was being recorded.
Shri Jadhav himself was visibly under stress and indicated that clearly to the Consular Officers.
The arrangements did not permit a free conversation between them".
He also said, the Consular Officers could not engage Shri Jadhav on his legal rights and were prevented from "obtaining his written consent for arranging his legal representation".
Thursday’s consular access to Jadhav was the second time that he had been allowed to meet Indian officials. The first was on September 2, 2019.
The Indian officials concluded that the consular access being offered by Pakistan was “neither meaningful nor credible”.
They left the venue after lodging their protest.
Last year, senior Counsel Harish Salve, who represented India and Kulbhushan Jadhav in the ICJ at The Hague,
had said if Pakistan violates the directives, Islamabad can even attract sanctions.
"Consular access has to be given, if it is not given, we can go back to the ICJ. If the country brazenly defies
the ICJ edict, there are other provisions including sanctions," Mr Salve had told reporters in London.
Diamer Basha Dam
India has also "strongly protested" against construction of Diamer Basha dam to the Pakistan government.
MEA spokesman Srivastava told reporters at the weekly briefing that the proposed dam will lead to
"submergence of large parts of land of Indian Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh".
"We condemn attempts by Pak to bring about material changes in Indian territories under its illegal occupation,” Srivastava
said.
“We have also consistently conveyed our protest and shared concerns with both China and Pakistan on all
such projects in Indian territories under Pakistan’s illegal occupation where it has no locus standi,” he maintained.
Notwithstanding New Delhi's objection to the massive China-backed project, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran
Khan inaugurated the construction of the Diamer-Bhasha dam on Wednesday.
On May 13, 2020, the Pakistani government inked a Rs.442 billion contract with a joint venture of China Power and Frontier Works Organisation (FWO) for the construction of the dam.
Anti Defection Law : Big Debate - Some state Assembly Speakers made news
NewsMakers: Thenucho, Nagaland :: Luis Proto Barbosa in Goa ::: Dr Barababu Singh Manipur
The Anti Defection Law and the 'quasi judicial powers' of the Speaker of state assemblies and Lok Sabha have yet again come under judicial as well as public scrutiny.
The future polity of leaders such as Sachin Pilot, the Congress party in Rajasthan and to an extent the future of the grand old party at the national level could be decided by some of the related developments.
But here, we focus on some state assembly Speakers who made news vis-a-vis the powers given to them under Chapter 6 of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, the anti-defection law.
Interestingly, the law was enacted in 1985 during the Rajiv Gandhi era and more some years since then many thought the infamous 'Aya Ram Gaya Ram (Mr Come, Mr Go)' syndrome of Indian politics could soon become a thing of the past. However, by 1990 as the V P Singh government took charge of governance in the country, defection games started soon and it also came to light that defection is something inherent - like the darkness underneath a lamp!
Here is an interesting piece of info: between 1967 and 1972, the country had witnessed around 2000 defections.
Now let us take the clock back to the murky and shaky politics of 1990 and see how some Speakers in state legislatures made 'news' or rather hit headlines vis-a-vis the backdrop of Anti Defection Law.
The tiny state of Goa was perhaps the first state assembly where Anti Defection Law (then requiring one-third of party strength) came into play. But here it was a smooth sail.
Luis Proto Barbosa was the state assembly Speaker. As the Congress suffered 'defection', Barbosa himself was the "leader of the dissident group" and he gave recognition to the 'split' in the ruling camp and rushed to the Raj Bhawan to stake claim to form a new government.
Barbosa, who otherwise has been a towering Goa politician, served as the Chief Minister for eight months in 1990.
In 1994, in the Ravi Naik case of Goa, the Supreme Court had ruled that lawmakers need not necessarily
resign from their parties to attract disqualification under the 10th Schedule.
Next Speaker who stole limelight was Late T N Ngullie, a Congress neta in Nagaland.
He made use of the 'merciless scissors' and disqualified ten Congress legislators. It was perhaps the first case of
'disqualification' for defection and most Naga leaders were stunned.
However, Ngullie's move could not save the day for the then Chief Minister S C Jamir, who was dismissed by the state's first Christian Governor Dr M M Thomas.
Incidentally, Sachin Pilot's father Rajesh Pilot and S S Ahluwalia had rushed to Kohima on a salvage mission to save the
day for Jamir.
But Governor Thomas, a strong opponent of Emergency, declined to meet the two "AICC observers" stating their
views were not relevant for state assembly politics in Nagaland.
Nagaland's love affair - if one could say - with the power-politics of the Speaker's office and Anti Defection Law continued
for some time. Thenucho, who replaced T N Ngullie as Speaker, was brother-in-law of Chief Minister Vamuzo.
At one point, as many as 15 MLAs out of 60 (that is one fourth of the assembly) were disqualified by
Thenucho and that helped Vamuzo to be in power while veteran Congressman Jamir was cornered and left
leaking his injuries.
Another northeastern assembly Speaker who made news in the 1990s was Dr H. Borobabu Singh of Manipur.
More than fighting with fellow netas, often he landed up in dispute with the judiciary.
Once he said he had the powers to summon even the Chief Justice of a High Court to be present in the witness
box in his 'bar of court'.
He had a long and fierce legal confrontation with the Supreme Court as well as he had landed in a contempt
case in the apex Court after he took a firm stand that “by virtue of the office of Speaker of the
Manipur Legislative Assembly that he is immune from the process of the Court even in a contempt proceeding”.
Borobabu Singh had even ordered ‘compulsory retirement’ for the Assembly Secretary who wanted to implement
a court order against his ruling.
Speakers in various states have hit headlines for one reason or the other over the powers given to them
under the Anti Defection Law.
But the menace of political defection is far from over.
In August 2016, after years of argument and counter argument, the Supreme Court refused to revisit its two-decade-old verdict on the anti-defection law holding that an elected or nominated member of Parliament of a political party is bound by its whip even after expulsion.
"Though we have heard the matter at length, we are not answering the question," a three-judge bench comprising justices Ranjan Gogoi, PC Pant and Arun Mishra had ruled.
YSR Congress Party MP Vijay Sai Reddy wrote an opinion piece in 2018 stating: “It needs to be
remembered that all anti-defection laws come in the way of a lawmaker expressing some
independent views without fear of losing the seat. So what should the
lawmaker do? Should the anti-defection law be used only during
confidence motions?”
Political commentators generally have used a common refrain.
The political defection is a menace and certainly the Anti Defection Law has made defection a difficult
proposition but it has not been abolished.
In November 2010, when a case of violation of whip by MPs Amar Singh and Jaya Prada had come, the apex court did not disqualify them.
More recently yet again, Manipur Speaker Y Khemchand’s decision to disqualify three Congress MLAs and
one Trinamool MLA ahead of the Rajya Sabha election in June 2020 had revived the debate
on Speaker’s powers. BJP candidate Leisemba Sanajaoba was elected to the Rajya Sabha
with 28 votes, while Congress could manage only 24 - exactly shortfall of four.
From time to time various suggestions have been made to bring in changes. In 2003, the
Vajpayee government made some changes to the original law.
B B Lyngdoh, a former Meghalaya Chief Minister, had said the law should be scrapped as it had
given "unbridled powers" to the Speaker.
In recent times, interestingly, incumbent Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot had said
in February this year defections can be stopped only if a law is enacted that lays down that
elected lawmakers 'cannot switch political parties at any cost'.
 |
| Blogger in Nagaland |
No comments:
Post a Comment