Under the proposed legislation, a Prime Minister, Chief Minister(s) or ministers facing charges with a minimum five-year jail term will lose their chair if they are arrested or detained for 30 consecutive days.
The three draft-laws were introduced - the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill by Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
The opposition was up on its feet and tore copies of the legislation as pandemonium prevailed.
As Shah was proposing that the bills be sent to a joint committee for examination, Trinamool MP Kalyan Banerjee and other opposition leaders tore copies of the bills and threw them at the Home Minister. Visuals showed pieces of paper falling near the minister. However, Banerjee denied tearing copies of the bills.
There is at present no provision to remove a sitting minister or chief minister if they are accused of a serious crime.
How is the new law necessary ?
In 79 years of Independent India's history, only one chief minister went to jail and ran a government from there.
The Modi Govt now wants law that seems to address this exception. The centre's move is being termed draconian,
Take the clock to March 2024 - India was in the election season. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was arrested but he did not step aside from office.
He created a 'first' for India. He made use of the law which had not set any rule clearly that a CM held behind bars had no moral right to decide the fate of his state.
Earlier all CMs arrested or facing arrest, be it Lalu Prasad or Hemant Soren, resigned beforehand. The Opposition parties are in panic mode.
They say there are serious concerns that the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill could bring a law that would create room for misuse against CMs of Opposition-ruled states.
The Central regime, the present or subsequent, might use it to make the CMs toe its line, or pull down Opposition governments.
With vindictive politics allegedly on rise; it is apprehended that the elected governments would be now left at the mercy of the Executive -- that is the government in power especially the central government.
It is commonly argued that the central agencies such as CBI and ED have been weaponised by the BJP to cripple the opposition parties.
Many say keeping Kejriwal in jail created enough hurdles for the AAP in Delhi and ultimately in 2025 - his party lost miserably.
The ED, a premier agency, has been at the forefront in probing corruption cases involving money laundering.
However, the government in March this year presented data in Parliament that adds to the concerns.
The ED filed cases against 193 politicians in the last 10 years but was able to get just two convicted.
The ED's success rate against politicians is a miserable 1%.
Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, part of a three-judge bench, said in August that the ED had been "successful" in incarcerating people for years without convictions.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, part of another bench, pointed to the ED's dismal conviction rate and said: "There is a difference between law enforcing and law violating...".
"The Centre's knack for targeting Opposition-ruled with the misuse of Article 356, used to impose the President's rule, goes back to the initial years of India's democracy. This has been criticised by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions. In the SR Bomai case of 1994, the Supreme Court had underlined that Article 356 should only be invoked as "a last resort"." says an article in 'India Today'.
This proposed legislation is being seen as an opportunity/tool for the Centre to impose Article 356 and impose Presdient's Rule in states.
It is a welcome move that the draft Bill includes the process to even sack the Prime Minister, but as critics have pointed out, it is a fig leaf to push through a stringent law.
"Amit Shah knows no case will be initiated against the PM, so this bill is for CM's ruled by his opponents!" posted Congress supporter Vijay Thottathil on X.
"This bill violates the basic principle of the Constitution. When Amit Shah was the Home Minister of Gujarat, he was arrested (encounter case). Did he uphold morality then?" Congress leader KC Venugopal said.
To this, an agitated Shah said he had resigned as Gujarat minister before he was arrested. "There were false allegations against me. I had resigned on moral grounds till I was under trial. I did not hold a single constitutional post till I was cleared of all the charges by the court," Shah said.
In 2014, a special CBI court cleared Shah of all charges, citing a lack of evidence.
ends
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment