Archives for April 2018

Congress President Rahul Gandhi on Saturday attacked Prime Minister Narendra Modi over an alleged scam in the Rafale fighter aircraft deal with France.

Issuing a “Modi Scam Alert!” Gandhi tweeted: “$15 billion fighter jet deal re-tendered. Prime Minister’s friends race to tie up strategic partners.

“RAFALE, (Rs) 40,000 crore loss to exchequer was “Sayonara” (bye bye in Japenese) money to French, so Prime Minister could re-tender contract and favour friends.”

Gandhi’s comment came in the wake of a news report which stated that India is looking to buy more than 100 new fighter jets which were eventually expected to cost upwards of Rs 100,000 crore or about $15 billion.

His party has been long alleging that the deal of 36 Rafale fighter jets with the French government was finalised by the the Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled Centre at a higher price than the previous deal for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) negotiated by the Congress led-United Progressive Alliance government.

The Congress has been pushing the Centre to reveal the price of the deal, but the Modi government has not relented. Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has said the price cannot be revealed due to national security issue.

India and France signed an agreement in March on the Exchange and Reciprocal Protection of Classified or Protected Information during the visit of French President Emmanuel Macron, replacing an earlier pact signed in 2008.

It defines the common security regulations applicable to any exchange of classified and protected information between the two countries.

The important meeting on the ticket for Mysuru division which has created a lot of speculations and curiosity will be held on April 7th at Ramanashree Resort at Yelahanka in Bengaluru. Each day is dedicated for a meeting on individual division.

Dakshina Kannada, Udupi, Shimoga, Kodagu, Chikkamagaluru and other district presidents, chief secretaries, committee representatives who represent the districts at state and national levels will take part at this meeting of Mysuru division. National president Amith Shah is already staying at the resort and conducting daily meetings. At the meeting, he will collect gather the opinions of district leaders and reach the final decision.

The district committee has recommended one name for Udupi, Karkala, Kundapura constituency from Udupi district and two names for Kaup and Byndoor constituency. But it cannot be said that the high command will not correct the candidate list. Amidst this, RSS is playing an important role in the distribution of tickets for coastal Karnataka’s two districts.

Big Boss fame, Sandalwood actress, Jayalakshmi joined Mahila Empowerment Party (MEP) officially on Friday, April 6 in a ceremony at Leela Palace Hotel in the city. She was welcomed into the party by Dr Nowhera Sheik, national president of MEP.

After her joining Jayalakshmi spoke to the scribes and said, “I have joined the party with the intention of conveying the ideology of MEP and the works done by Dr Nowhera Sheik, national president of the party to the commoner. Today politics has stoped to a very low level. The representatives we have elected and sent are busy abusing each other. In the coming Karnataka assembly elections, the role of MEP will be a deciding factor regardless of any party forming the government. I will contest from any constituency which the party assigns me.”

Speaking on the occasion Dr Nowhera Sheik said, “We will release the list of our party candidates very soon. We have the intention of fielding able candidates in 224 legislative constituencies. Out of the 35% will be represented by women,

The Supreme Court today did not agree to the fervent plea of an original litigant that the Ayodhya land dispute should be immediately referred to a larger bench as the issue was far more important than that of polygamy among Muslims, for which a constitution bench was constituted.

A special bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, made it clear to senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing M Siddiq, that it will decide whether to send the matter to the larger bench only after hearing all parties to the litigation. Siddiq, now deceased, is one of the original litigants in the Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute.

“You (CJI) sent pleas to strike down polygamy immediately to the Constitution Bench, but you are reluctant to send the Babri Masjid case to the Constitution Bench. Is polygamy more important than the right of Muslims to worship in a mosque,” Dhavan posed before the bench which also comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.

Former Attorney General and senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for a Hindu group, opposed the plea and said it was the prerogative of the apex court to decide on which bench would hear the case.

Parasaran referred to the decision of the apex court that a five-judge bench would hear the petitions against the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) Act, despite the submission that earlier seven-judge benches had heard the second and the third judges cases that had brought the collegium system of appointment into force.

The hearing in the sensitive case began in the afternoon with an unusually unpleasant exchange of words between Dhavan and Additional Solicitor Generals (ASGs) Maninder Singh and Tushar Mehta. It started just after the bench assembled at 2 PM after ASG Singh apparently asked Dhavan, who was standing to advance his submissions, to move a bit.

“Sit down, Mr Maninder Singh,” Dhavan said at top of his voice, leading the ASG to retort by saying “behave yourself, Mr Dhavan”. Later during the day, Dhavan also made some uncharitable remarks against Parasaran, which led one of the lawyers to lodge a strong protest.

At the outset, Dhavan, who appeared for the legal representatives of the late Siddiq, referred to a recent apex court order by which the pleas, challenging the practice of polygamy and ‘Nikah Halala’ among Muslims, were sent to a five-judge constitution bench.

“A constitutional explanation was required…this (Ayodhya case) is far more important matter than the polygamy,” he said, adding that he was not required to advance the submissions for referring the case to a larger bench and it should be sent immediately.

“What is more important…The press is here, I am here, please say which is more important for you,” he asked, adding was it necessary to argue if the matter was going to be referred to a larger bench. “Why address the press in your arguments,” the bench asked.

“Because it is their right to know. I want the people of India to know. Press has the right to attend the hearing unless court makes it in-camera,” the senior lawyer replied, adding “the nation wants to know it”. Dhavan then referred to the 1994 verdict in the case of M Ismail Faruqui and assailed certain findings and observations like a mosque is not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam.

The Faruqui verdict had dealt with the constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 by which the Centre had then taken over the disputed site and the adjoining land. The senior lawyer said, “the shadow of Ismail Faruqui has fallen on the minds of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court (which decided the Ayodhya title case).”

He said the Faruqui judgement was needed to be referred to a larger bench as it had said that mosques are not integral to Islam under the Muslim Law and hence, this will have a bearing on the present case as well. He also referred to some other verdicts in support of the arguments that this case should be sent to a larger bench.

Two ‘rath-yatras’ were taken out by BJP leaders that had led to the destruction of the mosque, he said, adding that the land, where the mosque is situated, belongs to the ‘Allah’ even after the demolition of the mosque. He also referred to the judgements that had said that some miscreants had demolished the mosque on December 6, 1992. The advancing of arguments remained inconclusive and would resume on April 27.

Earlier, the apex court had said it would decide on whether to refer to a larger bench the issue of reconsideration of the entire 1994 verdict dealing with the acquisition of the disputed land in Ayodhya or parts of it. The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.