Former SC judge Sudershan Reddy is INDIA bloc's vice president candidate
Supreme Court judge
B
Sudershan Reddy
, 79, as its vice-presidential candidate against the ruling NDA's CP Radhakrishnan. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge announced the decision in the presence of the leaders of allies, projecting it as an "ideological" fight .
Making it a 'south versus south' contest, the opposition has fielded a candidate from
Telangana
who, unlike Radhakrishnan, is a non-politician with a legal background. He emerged as a compromise choice for the INDIA bloc in its search for a mascot in what is seen as a token contest, with the ruling side comfortably placed to win.
Sudershan practised law before becoming a HC judge in 1993, later serving as Gauhati chief justice and then a SC judge. After retirement, he briefly served as Goa Lokayukta under the Parrikar government and was seen as sympathetic to the Telangana statehood movement.
"B Sudershan Reddy is one of India's most distinguished and progressive jurists. He has had a long and eminent legal career. He has been a consistent and courageous champion of social, economic and political justice. This VP contest is an ideological battle, and all the opposition parties agreed on Reddy as the joint candidate," said Kharge. People familiar with the matter said DMK leader MK Stalin's proposal for making Tamil scientist M Annadurai the opposition candidate got stuck because Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee conveyed her suggestions - that the opposition candidate should be a non-politician, preferably a retired
judge.
Live Events
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
7 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Will courts be powerless to intervene if Governor sits over bills passed by assembly: SC to Centre
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre if courts were "powerless to intervene" if Governor sat over bills for years, rendering the state legislature "defunct". Will courts be powerless to intervene if Governor sits over bills passed by assembly: SC to Centre A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai made the remark in response to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's submission that courts should refrain from interfering and passing binding directions in such a situation and a political solution can be found to deal with such an impasse. "The assembly, elected by a majority, unanimously passes a Bill, if the Governor does not exercise the proviso under Article 200, it will be virtually making the legislature defunct. The persons who are elected, what is the safeguard for them," the bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar told Mehta. The bench continued, "... can we say that however high the constitutional functionaries may be, if they do not act, the court is powerless to intervene in such a situation? Assent is given or rejected, the reasons we are not going into, why he has given or not given. Suppose an act passed by the competent legislature, if Governor simply sits over it for an indefinite period, what will then?" The bench is hearing a presidential reference on the question whether the court can impose timelines for governors and President to deal with bills passed by state assemblies. Mehta said courts should not lay down a precedent in "such an extreme situation" and rather an endeavour ought to be made in finding a solution from within the system. The Centre has challenged the April 8 verdict for ruling the bills pending with the Tamil Nadu Governor were deemed to have been passed. "This deemed to have been passed bill direction is violative of the constitution," Mehta said, arguing courts couldn't substitute itself to the role of another constitutional functionary. Mehta said no timeline could be fixed for President and Governor to act on the bills passed by the assembly as the Constitution itself didn't provide any timeline for these constitutional functionaries. The bench said it is not sitting in appellate jurisdiction to review the April 8 verdict. CJI Gavai said, "We appreciate your timeline argument. But, consider a situation where the Governor ought to act, but sits over four years. What happens to democratic set up or the 2/3 majority by which the state is elected and represents the will of the people?" Mehta said a solution had to be found politically and concluded his submissions on the presidential reference. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Madhya Pradesh government, has commenced his arguments. The hearing would resume on August 26. Earlier, the bench asked the Centre if hands of constitutional courts could be tied if constitutional functionaries refused to discharge functions or there was inaction on the part of the Governor on bills passed by state assemblies. The bench made the remarks after Mehta said if some Governors sat over bills passed by the assembly, political solutions had to be explored by states instead of judicial solutions. CJI Gavai asked Mehta, "If constitutional functionaries do not discharge their functions without any reason, can the hands of a constitutional court be tied?" Mehta said for all problems, courts couldn't be the solution and in a democracy, primacy had to be given to dialogue. Justice Kant weighed in, "If there is any inaction on the part of the Governor, which can vary from state to state, and if an aggrieved State approaches the court, can the judicial review of such inaction be completely barred. Tell us what can be the solution?" Calling for some "flexibility", Mehta submitted, "Suppose the Governor is sitting over bills, there are political solutions which can be adopted. It is not everywhere that the chief minister rushes to the court. There are instances where parleys take place, the chief minister meets the Governor, he meets the Prime Minister and President and solutions are found." The law officer said there were several occasions telephonic conversations were made to resolve the impasse. "For decades, this practice has been adopted to resolve disputes, if any. Delegations go and meet the governor, President and sometimes a middle path is found." He underscored invoking statesmanship and political maturity to end the impasse between the state government and Governor, who is Centre's representative. "I am saying, every problem in this country may not have solutions here in the court. There are problems in the country where you find solutions within the system," he added. Earlier, the CJI said judicial activism should not become judicial terrorism. The chief justice's remark came when Mehta said that elected people who have a lot of experience should never be undermined. "We never said anything about the elected people. I have always said that judicial activism should never become judicial terrorism or judicial adventurism," the CJI told Mehta. On April 8, the apex court while dealing with the powers of Governor with respect to bills passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly, for the first time, prescribed the President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such a reference was received. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hans India
7 minutes ago
- Hans India
TN 2026 election a direct fight between TVK and DMK: Vijay
Chennai: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president and actor C. Joseph Vijay on Thursday declared that the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election would be a straight contest between his party and the ruling DMK. Addressing a massive gathering at TVK's second State-level conference at Parapathi in Madurai district, Vijay said the BJP was his ideological enemy while the DMK was his political opponent. Thousands of TVK cadres and fans had assembled at the venue since Wednesday night, and Vijay arrived in his trademark style, running across a 500-metre ramp as supporters cheered and party colours filled the air. 'All Tamil people are my blood relatives. I came into politics with determination, not as a refuge. Serving the people is my duty, and I will stand with them all my life,' he said. Vijay ruled out any alliance with the BJP, describing it as a 'fascist force,' and accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of forcing the NEET examination on Tamil Nadu. He also came down heavily on the DMK government, charging Chief Minister M.K. Stalin with misleading women, government employees, and other sections of society through unfulfilled promises. 'Answer us, Stalin uncle. Did you come to power to serve the people or betray them? It is very wrong, uncle,' he said, criticising the government over corruption, women's safety, the farmer crisis, and the Parandur airport protests. Reiterating that TVK will contest all 234 constituencies, Vijay told the crowd that the candidates would be drawn from local communities and urged voters to treat every TVK nominee as if he himself were contesting. In a symbolic announcement, he said he would contest from Madurai East and nine other constituencies before clarifying that wherever TVK fields a candidate, it should be seen as his own battle. Vijay also criticised the Centre for neglecting the Keezhadi archaeological findings and the plight of fishermen arrested by the Sri Lankan Navy. He aimed the AIADMK for straying from the ideals of its founder, M.G. Ramachandran, while recalling the legacy of late DMDK leader Vijayakant. 'The BJP cannot succeed in this secular land with any alliance,' he declared. Concluding his speech, Vijay told his cadre that the political fight in Tamil Nadu was now reduced to two sides. 'The 2026 election will be between the DMK and the TVK. Let us together build a new Tamil Nadu.'
New Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
China expresses 'surprise' over clarification on Jaishankar's comments on Taiwan
BEIJING: China on Thursday expressed "surprise" over clarification by India over External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's reported comments related to the One-China policy during his talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi this week. India on Tuesday said there is no change in its position on Taiwan, and New Delhi's relationship with it focuses on economic, technology and cultural ties. "We are surprised at India's clarification," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said at a media briefing. She was replying to a question from China's official media on reports of India's clarification over Jaishankar's remarks. The clarification came after the Chinese foreign ministry reportedly misquoted Jaishankar as saying during his talks with Wang that Taiwan is part of China. The Chinese spokesperson on Thursday claimed that Beijing finds it "inconsistent with the facts". "It would seem that some people in India have tried to undermine China's sovereignty on the Taiwan question and impede the improvement of China-India relations. China expresses serious concern and firmly opposes that," Mao said. "Let me stress that there is but one China in the world, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory. This is a prevailing consensus among the international community, including India," she claimed.
