‘Swaraj Bachao' rally of Cong seeks local elections immediately
2
Jaipur: In a fiery address at the 'Swaraj Bachao' rally here Wednesday, Pradesh Congress Committee (PCC) chief Govind Singh Dotasra accused the BJP-led state govt of deliberately delaying urban local body and
panchayat elections
.
The rally, organised by Rajiv Gandhi Panchayati Raj Organisation on the birth anniversary of former PM Rajiv Gandhi, saw Congress members and supporters demanding immediate elections and opposing arbitrary delimitation and the two-child norm in elections.
Dotasra criticised the state govt for what he termed as a blatant violation of constitutional provisions and court orders. He alleged that BJP was undermining local governance under the pretext of 'One State, One Election', a move he claimed was aimed at consolidating power and weakening democratic processes.
Dotasra said, "Unfortunately, there are forces in power in the country that do not respect the Constitution, openly violate constitutional provisions, disrespect the opposition and weaken democracy." He added, "State BJP govt is attacking constitutional provisions by postponing panchayat and municipal body polls."
Stay updated with the latest local news from your
city
on
Times of India
(TOI). Check upcoming
bank holidays
,
public holidays
, and current
gold rates
and
silver prices
in your area.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
13 minutes ago
- Hans India
Delhi BJP MPs meet CM Gupta a day after attack to enquire about her health
New Delhi: Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta on Thursday met all seven Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs from the national Capital at her official residence in Civil Lines, a day after she was attacked by a man during a 'Jan Sunwai' programme. On Wednesday, 41-year-old Rajesh Bhai Khimji Bhai Sakariya allegedly slapped and pulled CM Gupta's hair at her Civil Lines residence. He has since been arrested and remanded to five days of police custody. Additionally, CM Gupta has been provided Z+ security and the CRPF has been deployed outside her residence. Sharing a photograph of the meeting, BJP MP Praveen Khandelwal said, "Today, along with all my fellow MPs from Delhi, I met our Chief Minister, Rekha Gupta and enquired about her well-being. The Chief Minister is completely healthy and, as always, is actively dedicated to the service of Delhi's citizens." After meeting the Chief Minister, the MPs strongly condemned the attack. BJP MP Ramvir Singh Bidhuri told IANS, "It's important to note that this minister never worried about her own safety. She was always concerned about the people… She has done a lot for my Lok Sabha constituency also. We used to advise her to increase her security, but she said she didn't need to as she works for the people." Speaking to IANS, BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj said, "We visited Chief Minister Rekha Gupta at her residence to ask about her health. I want to assure the people of Delhi that Rekha Gupta is a very brave leader. Her morale remains completely intact. This cowardly and critical attack has not affected her work style in the slightest." BJP MP Manoj Tiwari also said that the CM's public hearings will continue as usual as she "remains committed to the public." "She will meet people in the next sitting and resume work from tomorrow. Even today, after meeting people, she has been working. We will wait for the police investigation. Apart from that, our Chief Minister is now fine. Yes, she was injured, but she is in good health," he said. Meanwhile, the Delhi Police registered a case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita's Section 109 (attempt to murder), Section 132 (obstructing a public servant), and Section 221 (obstructing a public servant in discharge of public functions). The police said a team from central agencies and the Special Cell is interrogating the accused to determine his motive. Investigations revealed that Rajesh travelled from Rajkot to Delhi by train on Tuesday morning and stayed at Gujarati Bhavan in Civil Lines. He later went to CM Gupta's private residence in Shalimar Bagh and mentioned this in a phone call to a friend. Rajesh also has a criminal background, with at least five cases registered against him at Bhaktinagar Police Station in Rajkot. He was acquitted in four of them, while one case is pending in court, with the next hearing due on September 9. Gujarat Police have been contacted for further details.
Indian Express
13 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
13 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.
