CP Radhakrishnan vs Sudershan Reddy: Battle lines drawn, race for Vice-President's office begins
INDIA bloc
's announcement of the candidature of former Supreme Court judge
Sudershan Reddy
for the upcoming vice-presidential polls, the line-up for the keenly awaited contest is now final. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) had already named Maharashtra Governor Chandrapuram Ponnusamy Radhakrishnan as its candidate for the post of VP.
Both candidates bring a wealth of experience and diverse backgrounds to the table, making this election a significant one for the country.
This will be a face-off between Radhakrishnan's extensive political experience and grassroots connections and Reddy's legal acumen and commitment to justice. As the election date approaches, the nation will be watching closely to see how the battle unfolds.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Villas Prices In Dubai Might Be More Affordable Than You Think
Villas In Dubai | Search Ads
Get Quote
Undo
Here is a look at the two candidates and their track records and how their credentials stack up in the race for one of the country's top constitutional offices.
CP Radhakrishnan: Sports fan, travellers, true-blue saffron
Radhakrishnan has dedicated over four decades to public service and politics. Born on October 20, 1957, in Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu, he holds a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration. His political journey began in 1974 as an RSS Swayamsevak, and he later became a State Executive Committee Member of the Bharatiya Janasangh. In 1996, he was appointed Secretary of the
BJP
in Tamil Nadu, and in 1998, he was elected as an MP from Coimbatore, a position he retained in 1999.
Live Events
Radhakrishnan's parliamentary work has been extensive. He served as Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Textiles and was involved in various committees, including those focused on Public Sector Undertakings and Finance. He had a notable role in the Special Parliamentary Committee investigating the Stock Exchange Scam. In 2004, he was part of India's Parliamentary Delegation to the UN General Assembly and the first delegation to Taiwan.
His leadership within the BJP is marked by his presidency in Tamil Nadu from 2004 to 2007, where he led a significant 19,000 km 'Ratha Yatra' to raise awareness on critical issues such as river linking and eradicating terrorism. Radhakrishnan's tenure as Chairman of the Coir Board saw Indian coir exports reach a record high of Rs 2,532 crore.
Most recently, he served as Governor of Jharkhand and took on additional responsibilities in Telangana and Puducherry before being sworn in as Governor of Maharashtra on July 31, 2024. He is also known for his enthusiasm for sports and a love for travel.
Sudershan Reddy: Legal eagle, social justice champion
On the other side, Sudershan Reddy, a former Supreme Court judge, is the opposition's candidate. Reddy has a distinguished legal background, having served as the first Lokayukta of Goa and being part of the Board of Trustees for the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre in Hyderabad.
Reddy's legal career began in 1971, and he rose through the ranks, becoming a permanent judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1995 and later the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court in 2005. He joined the Supreme Court on January 12, 2007, and retired in 2011.
Reddy has been a strong advocate for social and political justice, which has defined much of his career. His legal expertise and experience in public service are expected to resonate with voters seeking a candidate with a focus on justice and fairness. He is scheduled to file his nomination on August 21.
With both candidates having impressive credentials, the upcoming vice presidential election promises to be closely contested.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
US policy on India is confusing; Trump an aberrational president: Ex-NSA John Bolton
Former Trump national security adviser John Bolton criticised Washington's 'confused' policy on India, questioning the 25% penalty on India for purchasing Russian energy while China faces no sanctions. In an interview with HT, Bolton acknowledged that the India-US relationship is for the time being in 'a very bad place' and believes Trump is an 'aberrational president' as he stressed on the need for efforts to limit damage to bilateral ties for the US President's remaining term. Former US national security adviser John Bolton speaks at a panel hosted by the National Council of Resistance of Iran – US Representative Office (NCRI-US) at the Willard InterContinental Hotel in Washington, DC, on August 17, 2022. (Getty Images) Q. Former ambassador Bolton, just a couple of months ago, India was a close strategic ally of the United States. Now things seem to have changed entirely—a 180-degree turn. As President Trump's former National Security Advisor, can you channel some of his thinking on India? A. Well, I think it's unfortunately very confused. The first level of concern is the tariffs that emerged out of the so-called Liberation Day tariffs in April, where Indian negotiators were working to try and get a mutually satisfactory arrangement, and Trump kind of pulled the plug without warning and said the tariffs would be at 25%. The second matter is the 25% addition to that tariff because of purchases of Russian oil and gas. It turns out that Russia has not faced any new sanctions. China has not faced any new sanctions, notwithstanding the fact that they were the major purchasers of Russian oil and gas. India has been singled out. I wish India didn't buy oil and gas from Russia, because I think it's in the interest of India as well as the United States to recognise the threat posed by China, the growing axis between China and Russia, and the threat that poses globally. Leaving India hanging out to dry as the only country to which punitive action has been taken obviously leads a lot of people to conclude that the United States has given up on India, and I do worry that India is being driven closer to Russia and China. It's just part of the aberrational Trump presidency. But it's a very bad place for the relationship at the moment. Q. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent has come down hard on India for buying Russian energy. India has pushed back defending its position. Can you speak to that criticism? A. Secretary Bessent isn't very experienced in international affairs, and I don't think he sees the growing axis between China and Russia. The complaint is that India took some of the gasoline it was buying from Russia, perhaps refined it and sold it internationally. That's a complaint worth discussing. But the sanctions as written do not preclude anyone, including India, from buying Russian oil at the capped price, or below $60/barrel, and then selling it elsewhere. If that's the complaint, the complaint lies with the sanctions, not so much with India's behaviour. What India did isn't prohibited. Q. There are many in India questioning whether trust in the US has been strained beyond repair after the last few months. What would you say to them? A. Unfortunately, what Trump has done on tariffs is destroying decades of effort with India and many others to build up good faith and reliance, and it will take time to repair that. But here's what's important: Trump is aberrational. I don't know any other Republican or Democrat who ran for president who if elected would behave anything like this. Trump doesn't have a philosophy, so there's no legacy for his successors. Our objective should be to keep the damage to the relationship at a minimum, and then think about how to repair it quickly thereafter. When Trump leaves, he'll take almost the bulk of this history with him. Q. Regarding China, we've seen President Trump and his team push for a deal with the Chinese, but policy seems confused at times. What is Trump's China policy? A. It's confused. In the first term, Trump wanted the biggest trade deal in history with China. Deadlines for tariffs on China have already been extended 180 days. China hasn't faced secondary sanctions on its purchase of Russian oil and gas. If you want a trade war, we should have teamed up and had a trade war with China, because they're the worst actor in international economics. They steal intellectual property, subsidise companies, don't open their market even when they claim to. It's hard to explain why he gives China this much leeway. Q. Lastly, what do you see happening going forward? Are you optimistic that India and the US could return to normalcy? A. I think a couple things will need to happen. We need continued conversations between non-governmental Indians and Americans, so people see that what's happening at the top isn't reflective of what the whole country thinks. Modi should wait for the right moment, perhaps at the UN General Assembly in New York in September, to meet Trump one-on-one and clear the air. Before the tariff problem, Trump and Modi had a good personal relationship, which is central to Trump's view of state-to-state relations. That asset remains, and if deployed effectively, could be a step toward recovery.
Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Can elected govt be at whims and fancies of Governor, asks CJI
The Supreme Court bench hearing the Presidential reference asked the government Wednesday whether an elected government can be placed at 'the whims and fancies of the Governor' by vesting him/her with the power to withhold a Bill forever. 'But then would we not be giving total powers to the Governor to sit in appeals?… The government elected by majority will be at the whims and fancies of the Governor,' Chief Justice of India B R Gavai asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who appeared for the Centre. The bench said that to interpret that the Bill 'dies' the first time the Governor withholds it 'would be counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process'. The five-judge Constitution bench is hearing President Droupadi Murmu's reference on timelines fixed by a two-judge bench for the President and Governors to act on Bills sent by state legislatures. Delving into the contours of the Governor's discretionary powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, Mehta told the bench: 'It is not an asylum for retired politicians but has its own sanctity which was debated in the Constituent Assembly.' He said the Governor, though unelected, represents the President and is not just a 'postman' to mechanically approve Bills. 'A person who is not directly elected is not a lesser person,' he said. Addressing the bench which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, Mehta said the Governor has the option to grant assent to a Bill referred by the state legislature, withhold assent, refer it to the President in case of repugnancy with any Central law or return it to the state legislature for reconsideration. He said withholding is not a temporary act, and that 5-judge and 7-judge benches of the Supreme Court have interpreted it to mean that the Bill 'falls through'. Illustrating this, he said, 'Suppose a border state passes a Bill dealing with our external affairs, that we will permit a particular country's people to enter or not, then he cannot assent, he cannot refer it to President because it's not a repugnancy issue, and he cannot resend it to the House because if it is again passed, he cannot say no to it. So he will have to withhold.' He said the power 'has to be used rarely, sparingly, but that is the way the situation is'. The CJI then asked, 'If he doesn't exercise the option of resending the Bill for reconsideration, he can withhold it for time immemorial?' 'It dies,' Mehta said, reiterating that 'it (the power) is to be used rarely but power is conferred.' He said, 'The very language in which Article 200 is couched, it gives him options.' He said 'neither textually nor contextually, it is possible to conclude that the term withhold will have to be read as a temporary suspension of powers of granting assent till first proviso works out. There is no concept of temporary withholding of any Bill. If the framers of the Constitution wanted to link the term withhold in the main part of Article 200 to read only in the context of first proviso, two things would have been provided: (a) term withhold in the main part would have been qualified with the term subject to first proviso mentioned therein, (b) the first proviso would have mentioned that the Bill so withheld shall be reconsidered by the House, which is not there.' Justice Narasimha said the options must remain open-ended so that the political process has the chance to resolve the deadlock over a Bill. 'The way the political process occurs is not adjudicatory. Even assuming the Governor says I withhold, the political process can knock his doors and he can still open it and say, I will send it back to you, you consider and send it back. But to say… the first time he says, I withhold, the matter comes to an end… It can't be like that. It is counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process also. It has to be in a situation where it is open-ended,' he said. He was quick to add that the court understood that the Solicitor General was referring to Bills on subjects in the Union List. On the debate over the discretionary powers of the Governor, Justice Narasimha said, 'At that time we did not have impact assessment of a statute … Now, you see the amount of litigation it has thrown up by having provisions of this nature. Perhaps that could tell us whether the vision was right or not. Because the validity or correctness of a thought will come from its performance.' Mehta said he was 'not arguing that the Governor has unlimited discretion'. CJI Gavai said, 'We have some experience as to how some honourable Governors have exercised their discretion leading to so many litigations, but we are not going by that.' Mehta said, 'Indian democracy is a matured democracy. There may be aberrations on an individual level. But by and large, the democracy under this very Constitution has worked very effectively. And I personally experienced it during Covid times, how the Centre-state federal balance envisaged was on display. So it would be really hazardous to assess on the basis of some aberrations.'
The Hindu
10 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bangladesh's accusations are misplaced, says Centre
The Union government on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) said that India does not allow foreign outfits to carry out political activities targeting any country from Indian territory. Bangladesh had accused India of hosting Awami League (AL) leaders and described the alleged activities of these leaders as an 'unambiguous affront' to the people and state of Bangladesh. Randhir Jaiswal, Official Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs described Bangladesh's concerns as 'misplaced'. 'The Government of India is not aware of any anti-Bangladesh activities by purported members of the Awami League in India or of any action that is contrary to Indian law,' Mr. Jaiswal said. Earlier, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh had accused India of allowing 'growing anti-Bangladesh activities' by the leadership of the Awami League which was banned last year after the Awami League government led by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was overthrown in a student-people uprising prompting Ms. Hasina to seek shelter in India. 'Any form of political activity campaigning against the interests of Bangladesh by Bangladeshi nationals, particularly by the absconding leaders/activists of a banned political party, staying on Indian soil, legally or illegally, including the establishment of offices is an unambiguous affront against the people and State of Bangladesh,' said the MoFA Bangladesh. The statement cited an event held at the Press Club of India on July 21 where a civil society outfit with ties with Bangladeshi diaspora spoke about the law and order situation in Bangladesh and distributed books and reading materials during the event and said such activities 'may trigger public sentiment in Bangladesh which may in turn impact the ongoing efforts of the two countries in further enhancing the relationship between the two closest neighbours.' The interim government of Bangladesh has banned Awami League citing the involvement of its top leaders in the crackdown against civilians and students during July-August 2024 before the collapse of the Sheikh Hasina government. Though many Awami League leaders are in hiding, the party maintains a large cadre base who recently clashed with ruling establishment's student supporters in Gopalganj. 'India reiterates its expectation that free, fair and inclusive elections will be held at the earliest in Bangldesh to ascertain the will and mandate of the people,' said Mr. Jaiswal.
