'Towering figure': Mallikarjun Kharge introduces B Sudershan Reddy; calls VP poll an ideological battle
NEW DELHI: Congress president
Mallikarjun
Kharge on Wednesday introduced former Supreme Court judge B Sudershan Reddy, the opposition's vice-presidential candidate, as a 'towering figure' in Indian jurisprudence.
He said Reddy was celebrated for landmark judgments and his commitment to social, economic and political equality.
Kharge stressed that the upcoming vice-presidential election was not merely about occupying an office but an 'ideological battle for the soul of the nation.' While the ruling party upheld the ideology of the RSS, he said, the Opposition stood firmly by the Constitution and its values.
'B Sudershan Reddy embodies the timeless values of justice, equality, and inclusivity that fuelled India's freedom movement and form the bedrock of our Constitution,' Kharge said.
Formally introducing Reddy to leaders of various Opposition parties at the Central Hall of Samvidhan Sadan (Old Parliament), Kharge said Reddy was chosen for his lifelong commitment to constitutional values.
He accused the BJP government of discriminating against the opposition for the past 11 years and alleged that bills were being rushed through Parliament without proper debate. 'The Modi government has been passing bills hastily.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
The Speaker has also played a role in this by not allowing MPs to speak,' Kharge alleged.
The Congress chief added that Reddy's nomination was a pledge to restore fairness, impartiality, and dignity to the Rajya Sabha, which he claimed had been in decline. He also criticised the government for introducing key bills at the end of sessions, leaving little scope for scrutiny, and accused it of misusing agencies such as the ED, CBI and Income Tax Department to target Opposition leaders.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi welcomed Reddy, saying the country was witnessing a struggle between those defending the Constitution and those seeking to undermine it. He alleged that while the BJP had 'stolen' elections in Haryana and Maharashtra, the public would now resist such attempts in Bihar.
Congress general secretary KC Venugopal announced that a mock poll would be held on September 8 to prepare MPs ahead of the vice-presidential election scheduled for September 9.
The meeting was attended by several senior leaders, including Sonia Gandhi,
Sharad Pawar
, Ram Gopal Yadav, Tiruchi Siva, Sanjay Raut and Shatabdi Roy, along with other Opposition MPs.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
8 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.
Hindustan Times
8 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Sahibabad market violence: Trader held over remarks against woman
Ghaziabad: The Ghaziabad police have arrested Bijender Yadav, a trader at Sahibabad vegetable market, for allegedly making insulting remarks against a woman, the wife of a government officer, said officials on Wednesday. A spokesperson of the Congress' city unit has said that trader Yadav is not holding any party responsibility as of now. (HT Photos (Video grab)) On August 14, Yadav, along with 100-150 unidentified people, was booked in an FIR registered at the Link Road police station under the BNS sections for insulting the modesty of a woman, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, criminal intimidation, and threats that cause fear of death, grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, or other serious offenses. 'Yadav, named in the FIR, was arrested on Tuesday under section 151 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (to prevent the commission of cognizable offences). The FIR was lodged by the woman. However, even after a lot of persuasion, she or her husband has not come to the police to provide their statements so far. An investigation is underway,' said assistant commissioner of police (Sahibabad circle) Shweta Yadav. The woman alleged in her FIR that Yadav allegedly gave a speech to the Sahibabad vegetable market traders on August 11, and also passed insulting remarks against her and her husband. The incidents later took an ugly turn, and a group of men allegedly opened fire at traders, leaving two men injured. Several purported videos of the speech, firing and violence also went viral on the social media. Later, eight suspects of a group were arrested on August 11 evening for rioting, attempted murder, and violence. Earlier, Yadav, who is also ex-Congress district president, told HT that due to traders' harassment he had made the remarks. A spokesperson of the Congress' city unit said that Yadav is not holding any party responsibility as of now.
Indian Express
8 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.'
