The Supreme Court has ruled that the ruling Congress Party at the Centre has the right to appoint the Lokayukta heads as their own inquisitioners against opposition-led state govts. The Supreme Court ruling has created a glaring fundamental loophole for abuse of power:
http://truthdive.com/2013/01/02/modi-faces-setback-as-sc-upholds-appointment-of-lokayukta.html
Clearly, the Supreme Court has shown its contempt for Federalism, and has made a mockery of the spirit and the intent of the Constitution. The Court's decision amounts to saying that the unelected Gujarat High Court is an alternative proxy to the elected state govt.
5 comments:
Any thoughts on the following:
http://news.oneindia.in/feature/2013/poor-drafting-of-lokayukta-act-went-against-modi-1124037.html
The contentious Section 3 in the Lokayukta act of Gujarat says that "Provided that the Lokayukta shall be appointed after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and except where such appointment is to be made at a time when the Legislative Assembly of the State of Gujarat has been dissolved or a Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution is in operation in the State of Gujarat, after consultation also with the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, or if there be no such Leader, a person elected in this behalf by the members of the Opposition in that House in such manner as the Speaker may direct." The section does not provide that any consultation has to be made with the Chief Minister, and that seems to be the error committed by the person who drafted the law.
-----------------
and the article also claims: The last Lokayukta was relinquished the office 24.11.2003 and no steps were taken to fill the vacancy till 6.8.2006. However, the process of appointment of Lokayukta was initiated by Modi on 7.8.2006. The governor issued the impugned warrant of appointment appointing Justice (Retd.) R. A. Mehta as Lokayukta on 26.11.2011.
“The Court's decision amounts to saying that the unelected Gujarat High Court is an alternative proxy to the elected state govt.”
Exactly! Accepting SC's view, we should get rid of the presumably redundant provision for consultation with CM and the Council of Ministers. SC has also stated that CM (Modi) "had full information and was in receipt of all communications from the High Court Chief Justice," which gives the impression that SC has equated CM with the Council of Ministers.
drisyadrisya,
Yes, I was totally aware of that article, and I'll tell you that it's the Supreme Court's responsibility to protect the principles and rationale of the Constitution, and not merely play a game of Simon Says.
That's why US Supreme Court judges always talk about the "spirit and intent" of their Constitution and its founders, rather than merely trying to nitpick over commas and periods. A constitution which allows the ruling party to trample upon opposition parties at will - in this case by imposing their own inquisitioners upon opposition-led states - isn't a constitution worth protecting. If this is what you and the Supreme Court feel the rest of the citizenry should put up with, then it's time for the rest of us to take up arms against you.
Reverse Midas touch: whatever trhe CONG touches turns to shit.
Another related article
http://www.firstpost.com/india/sc-has-muddied-the-waters-in-gujarat-lokayukta-case-576779.html
Post a Comment