Apex court ruling, slap in the face of Naidu govt
Tadepalli: Terming the Supreme Court verdict as a slap in the face of Chandrababu Naidu government, YSRCP has demanded an apology by all those who had passed uncharitable remarks against the Party leadership.
Speaking to media here on Friday, MLC Varudu Kalyani said, the apex court directing the release of anchor Kommineni Srinivasa Rao shows that the coalition government has been filing false cases with no substance but with arrogance and vindictive approach.
The court verdict makes it clear that the government has been filling false cases to settle scores and to gag the press and those who have been questioning the failures of the government and using it as a tool for diversion politics.
From Chandrababu Naidu, to Lokesh to women Ministers and others in the ruling dispensation stand exposed that the red book constitution is a bubble and they should apologise to YSRCP leadership for passing objectionable remarks, she said and demanded their resignation.
In the year bygone, the coalition government has not fulfilled a single poll promise and the Talliki Vandanam scheme, three LPG cylinders and free bus to women, besides pensions and stipend to unemployed are all broken promises. Amaravati capital city has turned out to be a money making mission for a favoured few, as the 50,000 house site pattas given to poor by YS Jagan Mohan Reddy were cancelled by Chandrababu Naidu which shows the intent, she said.
The apex court order reflects the existence of democracy and safeguard of fundamental rights and has exposed the vindictive nature of coalition government.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Preventive detention must not act as a substitute for criminal prosecution or bail: SC judgment
The Supreme Court has held that the extraordinary measure of preventive detention must not be used as a substitute for criminal prosecution or to bypass orders of bail. A Vacation Bench headed by Justice Sanjay Karol observed that preventive detention 'should not be resorted to when ordinary criminal law provides sufficient means to address the apprehensions leading to the detention order'. The Bench referred to judicial precedents from the apex court which had held that the law of preventive detention should not be used 'merely to clip the wings of an accused who is involved in a criminal prosecution'. Great care must be taken before detaining a person who is out on bail, it added. 'When a person is enlarged on bail by a competent criminal court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinising the validity of an order of preventive detention which is based on the very same charge which is to be tried by the criminal court,' the judgment said. The judgment came in an appeal against a September 2024 order of the Kerala High Court, which had upheld a Palakkad District Magistrate's direction to detain a man under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. His wife had appealed to the Supreme Court after the High Court refused to intervene in favour of the man, who was described as a 'notorious goonda of the district' and a moneylender. 'The provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the State that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature,' Justice Karol, who authored the verdict, observed. Preventive detention is recognised in the Constitution under Article 22(3)(b). 'The power of preventive detention is an exception to Article 21 and, therefore, must be applied as such, as an exception to the main rule and only in rare cases,' Justice Karol cautioned. Allowing the wife's appeal to quash the preventive detention order, the Supreme Court said the detention order in question did not ascribe any reason as to how the actions of the detenu were against the public order of the State. 'Given the extraordinary nature of the power of preventive detention, no reasons are assigned by the detaining authority as to why and how the actions of the detenu warrant the exercise of such an exceptional power,' the apex court explained.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Constitution an evolving document, adapting itself to changes: CJI BR Gavai
Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai referred to the Indian Constitution as a living, organic, and evolving document that adapts to the changes demanded by various circumstances. Speaking at the Edinburgh Law School on the topic 'Constitution As An Evolving Document', the CJI said that in the last 75 years, the Constitution has witnessed several amendments in order to meet the challenges of the changing times. "As and when certain issues arose on account of the interpretation of the Constitution given by the Supreme Court, the Parliament has rose to the occasion, and has provided answers by way of amending the Constitution, so as to meet the changes of the new generations, the changes as demanded by the change in the circumstances," the CJI said in a speech on Friday. Gavai had earlier described the Constitution as a "quiet revolution etched in ink" and a transformative force that not only guarantees rights but actively uplifts the historically oppressed. Speaking at the Oxford Union in London on the theme 'From Representation to Realisation: Embodying the Constitution's Promise' on Tuesday, the CJI, the second Dalit and the first Buddhist to hold India's highest judicial office, highlighted the positive impact of the Constitution on marginalised communities and gave his example to drive home the point.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Congress MP sends 'reminder' to Rajya Sabha chair on pending impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav
Congress leader and Rajya Sabha member Vivek Tankha has written to Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, chairman of the Upper House, to remind him about a pending motion, signed by 55 MPs, seeking the removal of Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court on the grounds 'of alleged misbehaviour unbecoming of a judge'. 'Queries were raised regarding the authenticity of some signatures, including that of my signature. I have clarified, and supposedly other MPs must have clarified to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat that the signatures are genuine and correct. MPs signed in the presence of each other on three sets of the representation in the House itself…' Mr. Tankha said in his letter, dated June 12. He said that senior Opposition MPs had been present, including P. Chidambaram and Digvijaya Singh of the Congress, Independent Kapil Sibal, John Brittas of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Rashtriya Janata Dal's Manoj Jha, and P. Wilson of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. In all, 55 Opposition MPs had moved an impeachment motion against Justice Yadav on December 13, 2024, for allegedly making 'communal' remarks within the court's premises. 'We request that due consideration be given to the pendency of this motion, as it reflects the collective concern of Members of this august House,' Mr. Tankha said. Parliamentary inquiry needed The Congress MP also voiced his opposition to the Union government's plan to remove Justice Yashwant Varma, who was indicted by a three-member committee set up by the former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. In March, a large quantity of half-burnt currency notes were recovered during a fire at Justice Varma's official residence while he was serving as a Delhi High Court judge. The Supreme Court then moved him to the Allahabad High Court and took away all his judicial work after an in-house inquiry indicted Justice Varma. Now, the government has reached out to political parties to move a motion to remove Justice Varma on the basis of the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry report. 'The in-house Committee report is only meant for the Chief Justice of India and other judges of the Supreme Court, and cannot constitute the basis for removal,' Mr. Tankha said, arguing that Parliament must conduct a fresh inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act.
