Stalin lambasts Bill to remove jailed PM, CMs, Ministers; Calls it "black bill"
Strongly condemning the Bill, the CM, in his post on X, said the Bill struck at the very root of democracy and called upon all democratic forces to unite against this attempt to turn India into a dictatorship.
Stalin said the plan behind the Bill is clear since it allows the BJP to foist false cases against political opponents in power across states and remove them by misusing provisions that treat even a 30-day arrest as a ground for removal of an elected leader without any conviction or trial.
"This unconstitutional amendment will certainly be struck down by the courts because guilt is decided only after trial, not by the mere registration of a case," the Tamil Nadu CM said.
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
Hans India
11 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
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
