Yesterday was 71st Republic Day of India. On 26th January 1950, India adopted a constitution which converted entire (almost) civilization of Indian continent into one country. It was the first civilizational nation with multiple cultures and languages.
Developments from last two months, had made it clear that yesterday was destined for anarchy. And it happened. One person (protester) died due to freak accident involving rash driving of tractor. The intention to provoke the police to open fire so that vast number of deaths may be shown as proof of fascist Government of India.
At the cost of injury to 300 police personnel, the situation was diffused. Today is the day of reckoning. Two protester groups have already disassociated with the protests and dissipation of protesters has started. Question is could it be avoided? After all if I knew it and was waiting with baited breath to write about it, everyone knew about it. Could anything be done about it?
The Supreme Court, today, suspended the implementation of the three controversial farm laws until further orders and formed a four-member committee to hold talks and resolve the issue of agitators and the Government. Following are the members of the committee formed by the Court:
BS Mann, Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU)
Ashok Gulati, Agricultural Scientist
Pramod K Jishi, International Food Policy Research Institute
Anil Ghanwant, Shetkari Sangathan
When I joined the bar, somebody told me that the District Court is the court of law as it has very discretion except to implement the law. High Court are Courts of Justice as in India the courts have the jurisdiction of Chancery Courts (of England) as well. On this when I asked about Supreme Court the reply was epic and proves from time to time. He said Supreme Court was Panchayat. The traditional court which used to exist in every village and used to decide on the basis of common sense. Today’s order proves that preposition once again and I would say no more. Though the situation can be summed up in another way as well.
On this day (13 December) in the year 2001 Parliament of India was attacked by 5 terrorists . The perpetrators belonged to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. Both were Pakistan sponsered terrorist organisations. Here is a report:
Last week, Prime Minister initiated construction of new building for Parliament, which will look like this:
Proposed Parliament Building
New Building would be ready by 2024, general elections. The interesting point is that the opposition does not seem to be happy about this development. Leaving aside other reasons there are legal reasons for their dismay. Delimitation of Parliament Constituencies was frozen about two decades back.
Delimitation
Under Article 82 of the Constitution, the Parliament by law enacts a Delimitation Act after every census. After coming into force commencement of the Act, the Central Government constitutes a Delimitation Commission. This Delimitation Commission demarcates the boundaries of the Parliamentary Constituencies as per provisions of the Delimitation Act. The present delimitation of constituencies has been done on the basis of 2001 census figures under the provisions of Delimitation Act, 2002. Notwithstanding the above, the Constitution of India was specifically amended in 2002 not to have delimitation of constituencies till the first census after 2026.
Demographic change:
The rural-urban demography has undergone massive change. Presently about 300 member of Parliament represent rural area and remaining represent urban area. The demography has undergone vast change. Presently 60% of population is in urban area or perhaps more. Therefore the present dominance of rural area in Parliament is likely to change. This means more say of middle class in power sharing of the government.
The New Parliament will have seating capacity of 900 members of Lok Sabha up from present 543 members. After 2026 a fresh census shall be held and thereafter A Delimitation Commission will delimit all the constituencies and this number of member is likely to go up. This would require each political party to re-caliberate it’s machinery to gear up for occasion but the opposition which is so disorganized that they can not even have a leader of opposition.
No wonder the Opposition is not happy. It is not the building that is target. It is the possible change after 2026 that worry them.
Bombay High Court has granted bail to Rhea Chakraborty. The arguments in the matter were heard over seven days ago and now judgement is pronounced granting bail to her. There is a problem in the order.
Right to liberty is absolute:
As per the constitution, the right to liberty is absolute subject only to restrictions by a valid law. In this case the court took over seven days to decide, if Rhea Chakraborty was entitled to be free. Is that reasonable?
Justice delayed is justice denied:
I had pointed out that the requirement for bail under NDPS Act is very strict and it is almost a mini verdict on innocence. Section 37 of NDPS Act requires that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that s/he is not guilty of such offence. Now the judge has granted bail we have to assume that there was nothing on record to link her with the offence. We can not go into merits of the judgement. The reasons why Rhea should not be granted bail are already discussed here and I am surprised by the order which I have not read as yet.
Justice Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal of Bombay High Court has delivered the verdict after deliberating for seven days. Here is the problem.
Citizenship Amendment Act has become a law by which persecuted minorities from three neighbouring countries shall get citizenship after in naturalization period of 6 years instead of normal 12 years.
The Kerala government which is a communist and islamist combine had passed a resolution in the state assembly calling upon the union government to withdraw the aforesaid law. It was a vane act targeted at vote banks. If the resolution had to be no legal effect, why was it passed after so much fan fair?
Now the same Kerala government has approached the Supreme Court under article 131 challenging the citizenship Amendment Act. But it’s roadblocks are hard to surmount. Article 131 of the Constitution is as under:
Sandeep Bhalla's Blog 