Monthly Archives: February 2015

PM MODI GOVT PROPOSES; CJI DATTU DISPOSES; OVER-NIGHT FIXING CASES – Rs. 100 CRORES & MORE! Dushyant Dave writes a letter to CJI H.L. Dattu complaining about “sudden and unannounced listing of matters”: February 25, 2015

TO AVOID  BEING JAILED  BY MODI OF INITIATING CRIMINAL CONTEMPT  0F 27 JUDGMENTS & JAILING DATTU & GANG OF 867 EMPLOYEEES-CUM-CONSTITUTIONAL-JUDGES: A CLASSIC EXAMPLEEven today, several Advocates and Advocates-on-Record met us and complained about what happened in various Courts including Court No.1, yesterday in several matters, which were listed at the nth hour and in which despite requests, they were not accommodated, leading to disposal of many such matters.

Sir, this results in not only denial of Justice to litigants including governments, but also leaves a bad mark on the conduct of the lawyers. Litigants would feel betrayed that they were not informed in time. If governments are clients, the Advocates-on-Record would be looked down with suspicion. There is a serious issue as to credibility of the Institution and those of us working in it.

………….READ COMPLETE … HERE BELOW

Dushyant-Dave and CJI Dattu

Senior Advocate and President of Supreme Court Bar Association has written a letter requesting the Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu, against sudden listing of matters in the Supreme Court. The lawyers are generally unhappy about the new system of listing of matters introduced by the Chief Justice. Mr. Dave has pointed out that if such a system is followed, contrary to traditions, it would lead to intensified agitation.

Read the letter here:

“Dear Sir,


I am constrained to write to you on account of extra ordinary situation which has arisen regarding the subject matter. The Bar is greatly disappointed and shocked at this turn of events. In last couple of weeks, tons of Members of Bar have approached me, especially Advocates-on-Record, bitterly complaining on the issue. The matters are being listed sometime overnight, which ought not to be listed especially for final hearings.

These matters are mostly “Admitted matters” wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant Leave, quite some time ago, after being satisfied on the merits for such grants and upon hearing both sides. These matters have to be dealt with accordingly and not in the manner in which Fresh/Miscellaneous matters seeking Leave are dealt with.

It has been an established practice of this Court to have a Terminal List, at the beginning of the year, indicating final hearing matters to be taken up, followed by Weekly List, clearly informing Members of the Bar, well in advance about these matters.

This practice has worked to the satisfaction of both the Bench and the Bar. Members of the Bar get sufficient time to contact clients, sometimes long lost, in far flung areas of the Nation. Further, Members get sufficient time to prepare themselves and in given cases engage Seniors or other arguing Counsels. There has been no justifiable reason to make a departure from this system. After all every institution is built upon traditions.

Sir, although this matter has been brought to your kind attention and you have also kindly agreed to accommodate the Bar during our personal meeting, as also through Registry Officials, the problem persists.

Even today, several Advocates and Advocates-on-Record met us and complained about what happened in various Courts including Court No.1, yesterday in several matters, which were listed at the nth hour and in which despite requests, they were not accommodated, leading to disposal of many such matters.

Sir, this results in not only denial of Justice to litigants including governments, but also leaves a bad mark on the conduct of the lawyers. Litigants would feel betrayed that they were not informed in time. If governments are clients, the Advocates-on-Record would be looked down with suspicion. There is a serious issue as to credibility of the Institution and those of us working in it.

Sir, the Members across the Bar are deeply anguished and agitated. I fear that if the situation is not addressed amicably, this agitation will intensify. I would sincerely urge you to address this and resolve it to the satisfaction of all concerned in the same way as your have done with some other issues about the Bar. Sir, your approach has been positive in those areas and I urge you to look at this positively. I am away over the weekend, but I will be happy to meet with you on Monday to discuss it personally.

With Warm Regards.


Dushyant Dave

President”

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Guess which SC lawyer enjoys the same Z+ security cover as SC judges & CMs? (Spoiler: You will never): 25 February 2015

Bangalore-based self-described Supreme Court advocate Vikas Bansode, legal advisor to former Karnataka governor HR Bhardwaj, has had his Z-class security cover renewed and upgraded to Z-plus level “for an indefinite period” on 24 January by the local police, reported the Bangalore Mirror.

Bansode, who was nearly appointed legal advisor to an SIT looking into illegal mining after Bhardwaj’s resignation, apparently enjoys the same security cover as Karnataka’s chief minister and governor – including eight 24-hour guards, some of whom are armed, two police vehicles with a driver and three security personnel, co-ordinated by a reserve sub-inspector, costing around Rs 1.5 crore per year – according to the Mirror.

Trouble is, police declined to tell the Mirror why Bansode was awarded this privilege by a high-powered committee of cops and the state’s chief secretary Kaushik Mukherjee.

………………………………

Zzzzz security for people, Z+ for random guy

Zzzzz security for people, Z+ for random guy
 Who is the most important person after the governor and the chief minister in Karnataka? Home Minister? Narayana Murthy? Azim Premji?
Well, in terms of high security to provided to an individual, it is a legal advisor — now a persona non grata as such — to former governor H R Bhardwaj.

Z-Plus security, the highest accorded to the CM and Governor in the state and recently withdrawn to former prime minister H D Deve Gowda, has been given to Vikas Bansode whose appointment was coterminous with that of his boss. So, even without an official post, Bansode, who stayed on in Bengaluru even after Bhardwaj was eased out by the Narendra Modi government, has in fact been given an upgrade in his security.

He was enjoying just Z security, but on January 24, police commissioner M N Reddi issued an order to accord Z-Plus security to him ‘for an indefinite period’. Reddi only signed the order; the decision was taken in the third week of January by a high-level committee which comprises police brass and is headed by chief secretary Kaushik Mukherjee. Mukherjee told Bangalore Mirror, ”I will soon review security cover for VIPs. All those not qualified enough for security will cease to have it.”

Bansode was legal advisor to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) board before the then governor Bhardwaj chose him for his counsel. Later, he was to be appointed legal advisor to the Lokayukta-governed Special Investigation Team (SIT) which was looking into illegal mining cases. This appointment failed to come through and he was expected to be transferred.

But then on January 24, the police were issued an order to extend Bansode’s security for an indefinite period. According to this order, deputy commissioners of the City Armed Reserve will provide eight guards including gunmen at his house round the clock. There will be two police vehicles with a driver and three security personnel each. A Reserve Sub-Inspector will be coordinating the entire security activity 24×7. Z-plus security is normally given to union ministers, Supreme Court judges, VIPs and CMs of states. When this VIP travels, the Bangalore Police usually request their counterparts in that region to provide security of the same scale. Even senior ministers are not entitled to this level of protection.

According to estimates, the exercise costs the exchequer Rs 1.5 crore annually. Usually, a committee comprising the chief secretary and the police brass take a call on the threat perception. Sources said they didn’t have an idea whether Bansode gave a representation to such a committee.

Bansode claims to be a senior Supreme Court lawyer. He is well-connected in political circles thanks to his recent tenure at the former governor’s office. None of the police brass is ready to explain the reasons behind the security cover.

 

Related Articles

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Will 2 women finally make history in the patriarchal world of Patiala House judiciary staff elections? : 25 February 2015

Women: Minority leaders
Women: Minority leaders 
Six women sit huddled in one corner of the administration room in Patiala House court complex, surrounded by a sea of smiling men. Both genders are united in their attentiveness towards a senior staff member reading out names written on the chits that he’s pulling from a bag on the table before him.

“Sanjay. Kamla. Vipul. Geeta.”

Every couple of seconds he yells out a permutation and combination of these four names, and few others.

Kamla and Geeta are two of the women sulking in the corner; Sanjay and Vipul are among the men joking about and pushing one another like school-kids. As different as the two groups’ demeanor is, they’re equally tense.

It’s higher judiciary staff elections at Patiala House, and the women want places at the executive members table. What’s more, one of them — Kamla — wants the chair of joint secretary. If she wins, she’ll be the very first female to hold the position in the history of ol’ PHC.

They insist neither is interested in politics. “It isn’t for me,” Kamla says while she waits in the complex-courtyard near gate number 2, near where staff members line up to cast their votes.

Kamla and Geeta are running because, among other things, the women who work in and visit Patiala House need clean toilets; a private room to rest in; crèches for their children over whom no neighbour or family is willing or able to watch.

“But, most importantly,” says Kamla, “women should have a voice in the committee. There should be at least one person to whom they can go and feel comfortable talking about whatever — be it abuse they face or health issues they feel embarrassed to talk to men about. There are things, like the crèches, that men just don’t get the importance of.”

“We know it won’t be easy to get these things, and we don’t expect to get them quick,” she adds.

Geeta chimes in: “Yes, if I’m a member, at least there’s someone they can take their problems to, who can then take them to someone who actually can fix them. You know what I’m saying, na? Even that’s enough for me.”

Kamla’s few followers encircle her protectively. At a distance, Vipul — her opponent — stands among the men who clearly outnumber the women.

Though Geeta insists that the ratio between male and female members of the higher judiciary staff is 2:3, Barfly’s experience says otherwise.

Higher court staff comprises the almads, the readers; people who work directly in assisting the judge with the case. Almost always, with a few fierce exceptions, they are men.

More often than not, these staffers stay after hours in court. Adding to that, the lack of crèches means that any woman who’s without private transport and with children that her husband or in-laws can’t (or won’t) help manage (i.e., all of them), cannot fulfill the job requirements.

What does all this mean for Kamla and Geeta?

The men: Order restoredThe men: Order restoredIt means their names are not in the result ultimately called out.

When a former under-secretary — sharp-eyed (though some snipe, not similarly witted anymore) — calls out “Vipul” for the position of under-secretary, the male voices cheer and hoot.

“Vipul ji is a nice man. He will make a good joint secy,” someone is heard saying. Kamla and Geeta agree, but that doesn’t allay their dejection.

The women — backs held straight, eyes clouded with disappointment — put on polite smiles. “We had said we’ll work with whoever wins, and we will do just that,” Geeta says while walking out alongside her friend and fellow-defeated.

“Doesn’t matter, at least you got to run once — that’s once more than Hilary Clinton,” a girl is heard telling Kamla whose face — slowly falling into a hangdog expression — begins to reveal how badly losing has hit her.

The reference is lost. But, in the stout shape of a portly reader — usually quiet and an eye-avoider — hope is semi-restored.

“I voted for you,” he confides in Kamla as she’s passing him by, her eyes meticulously counting the grey specks on the white linoleum floor.

“If you run again, next time also I will.”

Delhi Barfly writes of the comings, goings and other gossip clogging up Delhi’s court system.

Also read:

Related Articles

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Should the Constitution Be Scrapped?

In a new book, Louis Michael Seidman claims that arguing about the constitutionality of laws and reforms is the cause of our harsh political discourse.

None

When James Madison and his fellow statesmen drafted the Constitution, they created our system of government, with its checks, balances and sometimes awkward compromises. The laws of the United States are based on this document, along with the Bill of Rights, and for more than 200 years, Americans have held it sacred.

But Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman says that adherence to the Constitution is both misguided and long out of date. In his incendiary new book, On Constitutional Disobedience, the scholar who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall argues that giving up on the Constitution would improve American political discourse and government, freeing us from what he describes as an “intergenerational power grab” by the Founding Fathers.

Why would we stop obeying the Constitution?

This is about taking the country back for ourselves. There’s no reason to let folks who have been dead for 200 years tell us what kind of country we should have. The United States that the Founding Fathers knew was a very small country huddled along the Eastern seaboard. It was largely rural; large parts of it were dependent on slave labor, and there was nothing like modern manufacturing or communication. Many of the most important drafters of the Constitution, including Madison, owned other human beings. Virtually all of them thought that women should have no role in public affairs. I don’t mean to say that they were not farsighted for their time, but their time is not our time.

Are there certain parts of the Constitution you find most onerous?

One example hits home for me—I live in the District of Columbia, and the Constitution provides that the District of Columbia will be ruled by Congress, with the residents having no right to choose who’s going to be in Congress. That might have been okay in the 18th century, but it’s not anything any American would endorse in the 21st century. Another problem is the method we have for electing a president. It’s not an arrangement that anyone would set up today, but we’re more or less stuck with it. The electoral college is free to vote for whomever it wants—they could vote for Beyoncé for president if they wanted to.

If Beyoncé were 35 years old, as the Constitution requires the president to be.

That’s right. Maybe she is, I don’t know. [She isn’t. Knowles will turn 32 this year]

A lot of people would agree with you on those points. But instead of scrapping the Constitution, couldn’t we just amend it, so it’s better in tune with modern circumstances?

One really unfortunate thing in the Constitution is Article V, which governs the ways in which the Constitution is amended. As a practical matter, it’s impossible to amend. The Constitution requires a very strong supermajority; an entrenched minority can prevent it from happening. And just as with the rest of the Constitution, there’s no reason why people who are alive today should be saddled with amendment provisions that are no longer wise and practical.

What if we did as the founders did and simply wrote a new constitution from scratch?

I’m against people who are long dead telling us what kind of country to have, but I’m also against us telling people who aren’t alive yet what kind of country to have. Starting over and writing a new constitution is an invitation to entrench our views against the views of future generations, and I don’t think we have a right to do that.

Couldn’t giving up on constitutional obedience lead to tyranny or chaos?

I think that’s extremely unlikely. We all have an interest in not having tyranny and chaos, and it is that interest, and our willingness to stand up for it, that ultimately prevents that from happening. The Constitution is a piece of paper. What prevents tyranny and chaos is not a piece of paper, but a willingness of all of us to realize that we’re all in this together, that freedom is better than tyranny and order is better than chaos. There are lots of countries that get by just fine without constitutions. Last time I looked, there wasn’t tyranny and chaos in New Zealand or the United Kingdom.

What would we gain by giving up constitutional obligations? 

It would improve deliberation and rhetoric about issues that divide us—gun control, for example. Now, to the horror of most of my friends, I am actually quite skeptical about gun control. But that’s a subject on which reasonable people can disagree. But what happens when you start thinking about constitutional obligations? All of the sudden the argument is not, “How are you going to enforce this? Would it actually prevent violence? Would it cause more violence?” The argument is about, “What exactly did the word ‘militia’ mean 200 years ago? What is the relationship between the ‘bear arms’ clause in the English Bill of Rights and the American Bill of Rights?”

Those are questions that historians ought to have some interest in, but they’re completely irrelevant to the issue of gun control in 21st century America. Without enlightening us, arguments of constitutionalism unnecessarily divide us. Now, all of the sudden, instead of talking about a policy decision that reasonable people could disagree about, we’re talking about whether one’s opponent is really an American, whether they are violating the document that defines us and creates us as a nation.

Is there historical precedent for constitutional disobedience?

My view sounds really radical, but most of our greatest presidents had a lot of skepticism about the Constitution. No one had more doubts than Thomas Jefferson. Throughout his life, he expressed real doubt about allowing one generation to rule another. He said at one point that it was like allowing a foreign country to rule us. He proposed that constitutions automatically expire after a single generation. The most consequential act of his presidency, the Louisiana Purchase, was in his own view unconstitutional. But he also thought that it was the right thing to do, and so he went ahead and did it, and we’re better off for it.

The Emancipation Proclamation, that we’re celebrating the 150th anniversary of now, was a massive constitutional violation. Virtually nobody in the 1860s thought that the federal government had the ability to interfere with slavery in states where it already existed. Franklin Roosevelt purported to believe in the Constitution, but the Constitution he believed in was a vague statement of aspirations, not a lawyer’s document that would be enforced in all its detail. There’s no doubt that in part because of that belief he did things that were outside the constitutional understanding at the time he did them. Teddy Roosevelt ran against constitutional obligation in his famous Bull Moose campaign. We have a long tradition of skepticism about the Constitution, questioning it, fighting against its yoke. This is as American as apple pie.

You also say that the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution argue for disobeying it. Can you explain?

When the framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, the call from the Congress was to amend the Articles of Confederation [the governing document adopted in 1783 upon the end of the Revolutionary War.] As soon as they got to Philadelphia, they immediately decided they were not going to follow their mandate and were not going to follow the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they threw out the Articles, and they wrote an entirely new document, in violation of the terms of the Articles. The Constitution itself was pretty clearly an illegal document—it was itself unconstitutional. I’m not saying that we should go back to the Articles of Confederation, but it is more than a little ironic that we are so insistent on obeying the Constitution when the people who wrote the Constitution itself were ready to disobey the constitution that was in effect at the time.

Why now? Is this the historical moment for this idea?

We’re at a moment when people are more willing to really think seriously about constitutional obligation. There’s an unstable situation right now in the United States. On the one hand, people express this deep commitment to obeying the Constitution. And yet on the other hand, both conservatives and liberals are using the Constitution for political purposes. We have this amazing coincidence that on the Supreme Court, justices appointed by Democrats read the Constitution as if it were written by the Democratic platform committee, and justices appointed by Republican presidents read the Constitution as if it were written by the Republican platform committee. And then each side accuses the other of constitutional violation.

How would our government function without the Constitution?

If we didn’t have a constitution, that would not mean that we didn’t have longstanding institutions, and settled ways of dealing with things. Not having a constitution does not mean not having a Senate and a House, presidents, states, even a Supreme Court. All of those things we’ve had for a very long time, and I don’t think people would want that to change.

Aren’t the roles of the President, the Senate and the House prescribed in the Constitution? How would the separation of powers be detailed? Are you arguing that the process should just be self-policing, without any underlying rules or regulations?

It’s not at all clear that as things stand now constitutional obedience is what is enforcing separation of powers. Many separation of powers questions—especially with regard to foreign affairs—are not judicially enforceable. What prevents one branch or another from overreaching—to the extent that they haven’t overreached—is political forces, not constitutional obedience. So, for example, when the Reagan Administration unilaterally armed the Contras, Congress stopped the program not by going to court to enforce the Constitution, but by holding public hearings, attaching riders to appropriation bills, etc. In any event, it is very unlikely that our current divisions of power would be changed dramatically and quickly if there were no constitutional obligation. We have long traditions in this country and are used to certain ways of doing things, and people have vested interests in the status quo. These forces would constrain sudden change in much the way that they do in New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Israel, where the structure of government is not enforced by a constitutional document, but nonetheless is relatively stable.

How would we determine which laws or government actions are appropriate or inappropriate? Would we still have judicial review?  

I certainly understand the argument that we don’t want a pure democracy, and there is something to be said for an elite body that is separated from day-to-day politics, pronouncing on questions of political morality. But if we look at the most important Supreme Court decisions over the last century or so—things like Brown v. Board of EducationRoe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, which established the right to gay intimacy—those are not, in any meaningful sense, tethered to the constitution. They are judgments by the justices about our traditions, about prior precedent, about their own sense of political justice. That might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing—I think that is something for the American people to decide. There is one thing that would change, and that is people would not be able to stop an argument by saying, “But that is unconstitutional.”

What would judicial review be based on, without the Constitution?

It would be based on our values. I take no position on judicial review in this book. What I do think is that if we are going to have judicial review, judges have an obligation to be honest with us about what they are doing. As things stand now, they are not being honest. Important decisions rendered by the Supreme Court on issues like abortion, the rights of gay men and lesbians, and affirmative action, have virtually nothing to do with the Constitution. Instead, they reflect contestable value judgments made by the justices. It’s important to emphasize that this is not something I’m proposing—this is how things are now. Maybe it’s a good idea to have an elite body, somewhat insulated from political majorities, making judgments of political morality that bind the political branches. But people need to decide on that question without being confused by the pretense that the justices are only enforcing the Constitution. One of the virtues of my proposal is that it would force the Supreme Court to be more honest about what it’s actually doing.

How would our rights to, say, free speech, be protected without the Bill of Rights?

Freedom of speech and the press are important rights that we ought to protect. In the long run, though, if we’re going to have freedom of speech, we’re not going to have it because people are told, “Your betters said this was something you’ve got to have.” The people who favor it have got to do the hard work of telling their fellow citizens why this is something we should cherish and why it’s important to all of us. One of the problems with constitutional obligation is if people start depending on it, they get lazy, and they stop making arguments that make sense to people today.

If we don’t have to obey the Constitution, does it still have value? What should its place be?

The Constitution, in the great words of its preamble, speaks of “we the people,” of forming “a more perfect union” and providing “for the common defense” and “general welfare.” Those are things that anybody could favor. To the extent that we treat the Constitution as kind of a poem that inspires us, or even as a framework that allows us to debate how we should achieve these things, I don’t have a problem with that. Poems inspire us, but they don’t command obedience, and I don’t think the Constitution should either.

http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/Constitutions-Scrapped-Siedman-631.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpg

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/should-the-constitution-be-scrapped-11569546/?all

RELATED CONTENT

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/should-the-constitution-be-scrapped-11569546/#zsYUqBvJMt1eYlZS.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

ANARCHY CREATED by PM MODI, BJP, VHP, RSS etc., ABORTED:  Bihar CM Jitan Ram Manjhi quits; Nitish says BJP’s plan has failed: 20 Feb 2015

“KEJRIWAL  Ya ‘TN CM Jaya’ KO PM BANAO” —–DESH BACHAO>>,,,, ,,,,,,,SHARE,,,,,,,<< JAIL SCI CJI Dattu & Gang of Judges blessed by MODI or BROOM AWAY CORRUPT JUDICIARY & EXECUTIVE

………………………..

Bihar CM Jitan Ram Manjhi quits; Nitish says BJP’s plan has failed: 20 Feb 2015

Bihar chief minister Jitan Ram Manjhi resigned on Friday ahead of a crucial trust vote in the assembly, Raj Bhavan officials said.

Manjhi met governor KN Tripathi an hour before the start of assembly proceedings and tendered his resignation.

TV reports said he also recommeded that the assembly be dissolved and fresh elections held in the state. Manjhi is expected to address a news conference shortly where he will formally announce his resignation.

The resignation came as anti-climax to the storm within the Janata Dal (U) over the last one month, which saw Manjhi take on his one-time mentor and former chief minister Nitish Kumar with support from the Bharatiya Janata Party.

The official JD (U) camp started celebrations as soon as the news broke. “We have been vindicated. The BJP’s game plan to take over Bihar has failed,” Nitish Kumar said.

The crisis in the state started after Manjhi was expelled from his party, the JD(U), after refusing to step down from the chief minister’s post to make way for Nitish Kumar and became an unattached member of the assembly.

But it became a regular war since February 7, when the JD(U) legislature party re-elected Kumar as its leader and showed Manjhi the door.

Kumar said that Manjhi, whom he nominated on May 20, had derailed Bihar’s growth and, more importantly, consorted with the BJP to put the JD(U) in real danger in the 2015 assembly polls.

Kumar asked governor Keshari Nath Tripathy on February 9 to swear him in within 48 hours and demonstrated the support of 130 MLAs – his own 97, plus RJD’s 24, Congress 5, CPI one and independent one —in Delhi. He even expelled Manjhi and suspended rebel ministers.

But the ever submissive and grateful Manjhi turned out to be the real rebel, refusing to quit unless defeated in a floor test.

He claimed to have mustered the support of at least 43 JD(U) MLAs — 12 more than the 31 required — to add to the 87 BJP legislators.

But then as it eventually turned out, he was well short of the halfway mark of 117, forcing him to put in his papers.

https://jailcorrupt867judges.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/modis-anarchy-aborted-bihar-cm-jitan-ram-manjhi-quits-nitish-says-bjps-plan-has-failed-20-feb-2015/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/news/Bihar-CM-Jitan-Ram-Manjhi-may-dissolve-assembly-if-forced-to-quit/videoshow/46140981.cms

……………..

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bihar-cm-jitan-ram-manjhi-quits-ahead-of-trust-vote/article1-1318737.aspx

………………………..

This Message in Larger India’s Democratic Interest is Posted or Messaged at / to Following:-

https://www.facebook.com/digvijay.mote

https://www.facebook.com/

https://www.facebook.com/narendramodi

https://www.facebook.com/NaMoPMoI

https://www.facebook.com/NaMoPMoI

https://www.facebook.com/ourleaderModi

https://www.facebook.com/ourleaderModi

https://www.facebook.com/groups/wesupportnarendramodi/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/wesupportnarendramodi/

https://www.facebook.com/MuslimSupportNaMo

https://www.facebook.com/MuslimSupportNaMo

https://www.facebook.com/digvijay.mote?fref=nf&pnref=story

https://www.facebook.com/?sk=nf

https://www.facebook.com/?sk=nf

https://www.facebook.com/NarendraModi4PM

https://www.facebook.com/NarendraModi4PM

https://www.facebook.com/PMOIndia

https://www.facebook.com/PMOIndia

https://www.facebook.com/PMOIndia

https://www.facebook.com/PMOIndiaReportCard

https://www.facebook.com/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/PMOIndiaReportCard/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/PMOIndiaReportCard/

https://www.facebook.com/pages/PMO-Narendra-Modi/384241691753563

https://www.facebook.com/pages/PMO-Narendra-Modi/384241691753563

https://www.facebook.com/pages/PMO-Narendra-Modi/384241691753563

https://www.facebook.com/PMOIndia

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

MODI’S ANARCHY ABORTED: Bihar CM Jitan Ram Manjhi quits; Nitish says BJP’s plan has failed: 20 Feb 2015

MODI’S ANARCHY ABORTED: Bihar CM Jitan Ram Manjhi quits; Nitish says BJP’s plan has failed: 20 Feb 2015

Bihar chief minister Jitan Ram Manjhi resigned on Friday ahead of a crucial trust vote in the assembly, Raj Bhavan officials said.

Manjhi met governor KN Tripathi an hour before the start of assembly proceedings and tendered his resignation.

TV reports said he also recommeded that the assembly be dissolved and fresh elections held in the state. Manjhi is expected to address a news conference shortly where he will formally announce his resignation.

The resignation came as anti-climax to the storm within the Janata Dal (U) over the last one month, which saw Manjhi take on his one-time mentor and former chief minister Nitish Kumar with support from the Bharatiya Janata Party.
The official JD (U) camp started celebrations as soon as the news broke. “We have been vindicated. The BJP’s game plan to take over Bihar has failed,” Nitish Kumar said.

The crisis in the state started after Manjhi was expelled from his party, the JD(U), after refusing to step down from the chief minister’s post to make way for Nitish Kumar and became an unattached member of the assembly.

But it became a regular war since February 7, when the JD(U) legislature party re-elected Kumar as its leader and showed Manjhi the door.

Kumar said that Manjhi, whom he nominated on May 20, had derailed Bihar’s growth and, more importantly, consorted with the BJP to put the JD(U) in real danger in the 2015 assembly polls.

Kumar asked governor Keshari Nath Tripathy on February 9 to swear him in within 48 hours and demonstrated the support of 130 MLAs – his own 97, plus RJD’s 24, Congress 5, CPI one and independent one —in Delhi. He even expelled Manjhi and suspended rebel ministers.

But the ever submissive and grateful Manjhi turned out to be the real rebel, refusing to quit unless defeated in a floor test.

He claimed to have mustered the support of at least 43 JD(U) MLAs — 12 more than the 31 required — to add to the 87 BJP legislators.

But then as it eventually turned out, he was well short of the halfway mark of 117, forcing him to put in his papers.
https://jailcorrupt867judges.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/modis-anarchy-aborted-bihar-cm-jitan-ram-manjhi-quits-nitish-says-bjps-plan-has-failed-20-feb-2015/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/news/Bihar-CM-Jitan-Ram-Manjhi-may-dissolve-assembly-if-forced-to-quit/videoshow/46140981.cms
……………..
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bihar-cm-jitan-ram-manjhi-quits-ahead-of-trust-vote/article1-1318737.aspx
………………………..
This Message in Larger India’s Democratic Interest is Posted or Messaged at / to Following:-
https://www.facebook.com/digvijay.mote
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/narendramodi
https://www.facebook.com/NaMoPMoI
https://www.facebook.com/NaMoPMoI
https://www.facebook.com/ourleaderModi
https://www.facebook.com/ourleaderModi

https://www.facebook.com/groups/wesupportnarendramodi/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/wesupportnarendramodi/
https://www.facebook.com/MuslimSupportNaMo
https://www.facebook.com/MuslimSupportNaMo
https://www.facebook.com/digvijay.mote?fref=nf&pnref=story
https://www.facebook.com/?sk=nf
https://www.facebook.com/?sk=nf
https://www.facebook.com/NarendraModi4PM
https://www.facebook.com/NarendraModi4PM

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

HEIGHT OF COLLUSION OF COURTS, ADVOCATES & GOVERNMENT –Vs- Aam Admi Party

M.L. Sharma, an AGENT of 867 Employees-Cum-INDIAN-CORRUPT-JUDGES Headed by H.L. Dattu, the Chief Justice of India & BJP Govt. Files a FICTIUOS PIL against AAP of  foreign funding: 18 Feb 2015.

ML Sharma PIL: Centre tells HC that no issues in AAP’s foreign funding

The central government Wednesday told the Delhi high court that the Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) foreign funds were investigated and nothing was found in violation of the law.

A division bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice R S Endlaw also asked the ministry of home affairs to submit its revised or up-to-date report with regard to its findings in the matter, in a sealed cover by 4pm Wednesday.

The bench reserved the order on the public interest litigation (PIL) that sought a CBI probe into foreign funds the AAP received in the past and now in violation of law.

Advocate Pranav Sachdeva was arguing for the AAP

The PIL was filed by advocate ML Sharma against AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and others saying that AAP has been receiving foreign funds in violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).

The counsel appearing for the Centre told the court that the earlier government had investigated the issue and filed a status report and nothing was found against AAP

“The issue was investigated, there was nothing which was found out,” he added.

Recently, AAP Volunteer Action Manch (AVAM), a group of volunteers who broke away from the AAP in August last year, accused the party of receiving Rs.2 crore in four equal instalments from companies registered in Delhi slums and having the same set of directors.

The group claimed that April 5, 2014, four bogus companies made donations of Rs.50 lakh each through cheques to AAP at midnight.

It alleged that the companies made these donations even though they have not earned profits for two years.

Sharma claimed that it has been revealed that lakhs of phone calls from Dubai and other countries have been made to Delhi, especially to the Muslim community for supporting AAP’s election.

“The AAP now has been securing funds from foreign country, especially Muslim terrorist, in cash converting through false cheques as well as phone calls to Delhi from Dubai and other countries…,” the plea said.

However, appearing for the AAP, advocate Pranav Sachdeva told the court that the issue of AVAM is being investigated by the government and it has cooperated on the issue.

AAP is the only party which asked the Supreme Court to set up a SIT on funding received by all national and regional political parties, he further said.

The bench after hearing all the parties reserved the order on the PIL and said: “Order reserved. We will pass the order.”

The plea named Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, advocates Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan and said AAP and its members were promoted and funded by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the US through various companies and trusts such as the Ford Foundation.

Earlier, the court had directed the central government to go through the details of the money donated to AAP since its inception Nov 26, 2012 and to take action if anything was found in violation of the FCRA

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized