The BJP leadership's unprecedented decision to announce candidates' names well in advance appears to be aimed at identifying friction within the ranks so that issues can be resolved well in advance.
A day after Prime Minister Narendra Modi chaired a meeting of the BJP's central election committee, the party on Thursday, Aug 17, announced 39 candidates for the 230-member Madhya Pradesh House and 21 candidates for Chhattisgarh, which has 90-member Assembly.
The names of former Chief Minister Raman Singh and other senior party leaders are missing from the first list. One highlight in Chhattisgarh list is the name of Vijay Baghel, Lok Sabha MP from Durg. A former MLA from Patan, he has been fielded from the same seat this time.
In Madhya Pradesh too, the names of Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and prominent ministers are not on the first list of candidates.
For Madhya Pradesh, there are five women, eight Scheduled Caste candidates and 13 Scheduled Tribes candidates. The Chhattisgarh list comprises five women, 10 candidates from Scheduled Tribes and one from the Scheduled Castes.
"Abrogation of Art 370 a classic example of abuse of power" ::: Debate in Supreme Court on Govt's 2019 decision
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave said on Thursday that President's Rule under Article 356 imposed in Jammu and Kashmir was in its nature "temporary" and thus permanent actions could not be taken under it.
"You (BJP) have a government in association with a local party in J&K. It is working well. You suddenly withdraw the support from that government. Then you persuade the President to issue a 356 order.
Then you persuade President to issue a dissolution of assembly. Parliament takes controls over executive and legislative functions. Then you say President will exercise all powers into one. Then you pass orders under 370. What more classic example of abuse of power than this?," he said.
He went onto argue, "Tomorrow it may happen that my party cannot get elected in a state. Will I disintegrate it into a Union Territory? Because there is a law and order problem?"
Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan argued in Supreme Court that without "democratisation of power", India could have collapsed.
"....the Democratisation of power was necessary and that without the existence of– a) autonomy given to States and; b) special provisions and concessions given to to people when needed, India would collapse". He said in the Supreme Court before the Constitution Bench headed by CJI Chandrachud.
“There is some misunderstanding on the status of the merger agreement. The court had observed that after the instrument of accession the surrender of sovereignty was absolute.
Our submission on this is that as far as the instrument of accession is concerned it deals with external sovereignty. That is lost with a few exceptions here and there. But internal sovereignty is not lost,” Dhavan told the five-judge Constitution Bench.
He said it was the autonomy within the federation and the special provisions made in relation to people, which made the Constitution what it was. "Take that away and we don't need such a big Constitution," he said.
On Aug 10, the CJI had said, “Once Article 1 of the Constitution says that India shall be a Union of States --- and that includes the state of Jammu & Kashmir --- transfer of sovereignty was complete. We cannot read the post Article 370 Constitution (of Jammu and Kashmir) as somehow a document which retains some element of sovereignty in Jammu & Kashmir”.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave also commenced oral submissions.
He said that Centre’s action disintegrating the erstwhile state into two Union Territories will have ramifications on the future of the nation.
“Tomorrow it may happen that my party cannot get elected in 'A' state. I (referring to the ruling party in the Centre) will disintegrate it (state 'A') in Union Territory? Because there is law and order problem? This is something to be seriously considered,” Dave said.
“We have insurgency in so many states in North East India. We had an insurgency in Punjab for a long time. If we were to start disintegrating states into Union Territories, no state would be saved,” he added.
Dave argued that constitutional powers cannot be exercised to achieve political ends. “The ruling party manifesto in 2019 had said that we'll abrogate (Article) 370,” he said, referring to the BJP's manifesto for 2019 Lok Sabha polls. Further, he contended that abrogation of Article 370 strike at very basic features like democracy, federalism, etc. of the constitution.
CJI DY Chandrachud, however, raised pertinent questions and made some key observations. "How do we deal with Art 356 (1)(c)? So the president has the power to suspend certain provisions of the constitution during the operation of proclamation under 356."
He also said, "Normally when the legislature uses the word "means" and "includes"- it's an indication of expanding the power. So when the constitution says "make incidental and supplementary provisions" and then says "including"- this seems to widen the ambit of earlier part". The CJI also remarked, "Including" would mean that what was otherwise not a supplementary or incidental provision, it is within the ambit of presidential proclamation. Isn't it?"
"Suppose the president in a proclamation suspends the operation of any provision of the Constitution - is that amendable to be challenged on the ground that it is not incidental or supplemental? Or are these words widening the ambit of the first part of 356(1)(b)?," the CJI added.
No comments:
Post a Comment