Paper ‘Storm' Sweeps Lok Sabha Over Bills To Oust ‘Tainted' Ministers
Union home minister
Amit Shah
on Wednesday tabled a
Constitutional amendment bill
that triggered a ruckus in the House.
The Bill proposes the removal of PM, CMs, Union and state ministers jailed for 30 consecutive days on charges which carry a conviction of five years or more.
Shah also moved a motion to send the Bills to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed discussion.
Bills Torn, Papers Fly
Opposition MPs tore copies of three bills and flung bits at Amit Shah. The bills included the Constitution (130th Amendment), J&K Reorganisation, and the UT Bill.
Minister Kiren Rijiju had slammed opposition MPs, warning people would not forgive 'insults to democracy.'
The Centre objected to the showdown that took place and accused MPs of disrespecting people's mandate.
Why Is Opposition Against The Bills?
Opposition leaders accused the Centre of trying to create a 'police state' through the new bills.
Asaduddin Owaisi opposed the bills, calling them an attack on the principle of separation of powers.
Congress MP
Manish Tewari
said the Bill "throws all existing constitutional safeguards to the winds. This amendment is unnecessary and unconstitutional".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
11 minutes ago
- India Today
India-Russia ties steadiest since World War II, says Jaishankar in Moscow
In a joint press briefing in Moscow, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said India and Russia have been 'the steadiest of the major relationships in the world after the Second World War.' Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov echoed that sentiment, describing the ties as a 'special strategic partnership' shaped by the two countries' Jaishankar, who arrived in Moscow after a round of trade and economic talks with Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov, said his meeting with Lavrov was an opportunity to review both the political relationship and bilateral cooperation. 'I look forward to an exchange of views on politics, on trade, on economics, investment, defence, science and technology, and of course people-to-people exchanges,' he spoke about recent high-level engagements, including the 22nd Annual Summit last year and subsequent leadership meetings in Kazan. 'They have always given us guidance to take forward our Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership,' Jaishankar said, adding that preparations were now underway for the next summit at the end of this also pointed to an active bilateral calendar, mentioning visits by National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, and NITI Aayog Vice Chairman Suman Bery. 'All these showed how deep our relationship is,' Jaishankar at the global context, Jaishankar underlined the need to adapt to 'the evolving geopolitical situation, the shifting economic and trade landscape, and our shared goal to maximise our complementarity.'Lavrov, welcoming Jaishankar, said he was glad to host him in Moscow after a busy schedule of meetings. He emphasised, 'We define our relations as a special strategic partnership, and this was defined by our leaders, and I hope that we fully justify these links.'The Russian minister framed ties against the backdrop of a changing global order. 'This is a multipolar system of international relations with an increasing role played by the SCO, BRICS and the G20. And, of course, the United Nations, which remains a platform for cooperation, compromise and seeking agreement,' he added that Moscow supported 'balanced approaches' and hoped the talks with Jaishankar would be meeting between the two leaders comes against the backdrop of heightened trade tensions with the United States under President Donald Trump's tariff offensive. Washington has doubled tariffs on Indian goods to 50 per cent and imposed fresh duties on crude oil purchases from Russia, sparking concerns in New Delhi over economic fallout and the threat of secondary this context, Jaishankar stressed the importance of expanding and diversifying cooperation with Moscow. 'Doing more and doing differently should be our mantras,' he told Manturov a day earlier, urging Russian companies to engage 'more intensively' with Indian counterparts and avoid getting 'stuck on a beaten track.'- EndsMust Watch
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Anti-defection law and Supreme Court's order for Telangana speaker: When the custodian refuses to act
Written by Shashank Maheshwari and Anmol Jain 'The evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy.' These words from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Bill, 1985, capture the spirit of the Tenth Schedule. Yet, four decades on, the anti-defection law is being weakened and bypassed not only by defections and resignations but also by omissions by the Speakers — the constitutional authority responsible for deciding anti-defection petitions. The Supreme Court's ruling in Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana (2025) exemplifies this challenge. The case came up after three Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLAs defected to the ruling Congress in 2024. Petitions seeking their disqualification were filed before the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly, who kept them pending, allegedly for political reasons. A single judge bench of the High Court directed the Assembly Secretary to place the petitions before the Speaker and ensure a hearing schedule. Disagreeing, the division bench quashed the order, holding — contrary to the prevailing Indian jurisprudence — that courts cannot fix timelines for the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, significant time had passed. This very fear of delay was foreseen during the parliamentary debates of 1985. Parliament chose to vest decision-making power in the Speaker, not the Courts or the Election Commission, to ensure the swift disposal of petitions. The worry was that judicial procedures would consume time and deny rightful representation to the electorate. Yet, no statutory limits were set on the Speaker's discretion, perhaps because the law's immediate purpose — when it was introduced — was to prevent the elected members of the Congress party from defecting to the opposition, a pattern that gave a blow to Congress in several states. Even so, Congress leader Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi had cautioned: 'Now, in regard to a dispute regarding a member, the matter will be referred to the Presiding Officer, but no time limit has been fixed. I would request that in the next session, the time limit be fixed within which the Speaker has to announce his decision. If he keeps it pending for three to four months, it should not be allowed.' His words now seem to be prophetic. Across the country, Speakers have used inaction to shield defectors, hollowing out the law itself. In Padi Kaushik Reddy, the SC revisited its precedents. Referring to Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), it reiterated that while the Speaker's procedural role and actions are immune from judicial review under Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution, decisions on disqualification petitions are judicial in nature and subject to review on limited grounds such as mala fides, perversity, or jurisdictional error. Relying on Rajendra Singh Rana & Ors v. Swami Prasad Maurya & Ors (2007), the Court stressed that failure to exercise jurisdiction cannot excuse inaction. In the above-mentioned case, given excessive delay and the impending dissolution of the Assembly, the Court directly decided disqualification without remanding the matter back to the Speaker. Similarly, in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020), the Court had imposed a four-week limit for deciding petitions, recognising that delay itself defeats the law. The Court also observed that Speakers should normally conclude matters within three months. Against this backdrop, paragraphs 93 to 95 of the Padi Kaushik judgment are telling. The Court reaffirmed that while it cannot mechanically dictate timelines, indefinite silence renders the Tenth Schedule meaningless. The Speaker is under a constitutional duty to act within a reasonable time. Where this duty is breached, judicial review may not prescribe rigid deadlines but can intervene to ensure that the law's very purpose of curbing defections is not frustrated. The judgment lays bare the core dilemma. The Tenth Schedule vests power in the Speaker on the assumption that constitutional morality will guide him. But as the 1985 debates and repeated judicial interventions reveal, this assumption has not held. The Speaker's inaction, warned against four decades ago by parliamentarians like Dasmunsi, remains the law's Achilles' heel. The Supreme Court has once again underlined the problem, while exercising restraint so as not to encroach upon the legislature's domain. Unless parliament amends the law to fix a clear timeline or shifts adjudication to an independent authority, the anti-defection regime will continue to be hollowed out by seemingly partisan Speakers. The 'evil of political defections' that the framers sought to eradicate thus survives — not because the law is absent, but because its custodian refuses to act. The writers teach law at Jindal Global Law School
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
If constitutional functionaries don't discharge duties, can courts' hands be tied, SC asks
The Supreme Court on Thursday 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 Governor on bills passed by state assemblies. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai made the remarks after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said if some Governors sat over bills passed by the assembly, political solutions had to be explored by states instead of judicial solutions. The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, 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. If there was any wrong, the bench said, there ought to be a remedy. CJI Gavai then 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 been given to dialogue. Justice Kant weighed in, 'If there is any inaction on the part of 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 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 takes place, the chief minister meets Governor, he meets Prime Minister and President and solutions are found.' The law officer said there were several occasions telephonic conversations are 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. Mehta further argued nowhere in the Constitution a timeline was fixed for Governor or President to act on the bills and where a timeline was provided, it was expressly provided. CJI Gavai then told Mehta, 'If there is any wrong, there has to be a remedy. This court is the custodian of the constitution and it will have to interpret the constitution by giving it literal meaning.' Justice Kant agreed with the CJI and said, 'If the power of interpretation vests in the Supreme Court, then interpretation of law has to be tried by the court.' Mehta said justiciability was a different thing while adding something to the Constitution was different. 'There has to be some flexibility when dealing with the constitutional functionaries. This court has time and again called the law officer or representative and asked to do certain work without making it in the judgement,' Mehta said. He referred to the top court saying the Parliament should consider if there were any additions to be made to the Constitution. 'This court can very well ask the Parliament to enact a law fixing a timeline for Governor in dealing with the bills passed by the assembly but it cannot be done through the judgement of this court,' Mehta added. Justice Narasimha noted, 'If an extreme view is taken to argue that you can't do it, you say we don't have the power to do it at all, how do you make the Constitution work?' Mehta then referred to the April 8 verdict in Tamil Nadu Governor case, leading to the present presidential reference, and said the verdicts say President and Governor will record reasons and if they don't follow the time line, states can approach the apex court or the high court. 'This means one institution is directing President to do it within some timeframe. I respect the directions and there may be justification but it can't confer jurisdiction,' Mehta said. The hearing is underway. 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. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether judicial orders could impose timelines for the exercise of discretion by the president while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. 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 President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by Governor within three months from the date on which such a reference was received.
