Vice-President should not undermine judicial independence: Hiremath
Taking exception to Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankar's recent remarks on Supreme Court's functioning, president of Citizens for Democracy S.R. Hiremath has urged the Vice-President to refrain from making such statement as it will undermine judicial independence.
Addressing presspersons in Hubballi on April 23, Mr. Hiremath said that it was not just the vice-president of India, but also some of the Union Ministers and members of Parliament who had resorted to unwarranted remarks against the Supreme Court, which was not a good development.
Mr. Hiremath said that judiciary should work independently, as it had been doing, and none should interfere in the functioning of the judiciary. Emphasising that all three branches of the Constitution were important in the effective functioning of a democracy, he said that one should allow other branches to work under the constitutional framework, and none should forget that judiciary had the wisdom to decide on constitutional issues.
Referring to the golden jubilee conference of CFD (founded in 1974 by Jay Prakash Narayan) which was held at Gandhi Peace Foundation in New Delhi recently, Mr. Hiremath said that, in his inaugural address, former judge of the apex court Justice Madan Lokur spoke on 'constitutional morality' and noted that the country is now facing a moral crisis.
'During the conference, a resolution on the 'undeclared emergency' under Prime Minister Narendra Modi since 2014 was passed. It was resolved to call upon all concerned organisations and individuals to launch a united fight against the NDA government. It was also resolved to launch a national cultural movement to defeat the ideology of the Sangha Parivar,' he said.
On the fight of SPS (Samaj Parivartana Samudaya) against illegal land grab at Beninganahalli, allegedly by Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar, Mr. Hiremath said that the apex court would hear the matter on April 29.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Burning fuel, intense heat left no chance to save anyone: Amit Shah
Gandhinagar: Union home minister Amit Shah , who rushed to Ahmedabad on hearing the news of the plane crash, said that the aircraft carried about 1.25 lakh litres of fuel, and the temperature had increased to an extent where there was no chance of saving lives. Stating that there was one survivor in the crash whom he met at the hospital, Shah said that authorities will provide the final death toll after conducting DNA sampling. He said that the aviation department began an investigation into the plane crash, and the Union civil aviation minister issued instructions to complete the inquiry at the earliest. Speaking to reporters after visiting the crash site and meeting the injured at the hospital, Shah condoled the death of the plane crash victims. "The death toll will be known after the DNA sampling is completed. Of the 242 persons on board the plane, there is one survivor. The plane had 1.25 lakh litres of fuel, and the temperature increased to such a level that there was no chance of saving lives. The state govt has done a commendable job in responding to the plane crash," Shah said. He said that all the bodies had been recovered from the crash site, and the task of collecting DNA samples is ongoing. The victims' relatives who are abroad have also been informed about the incident and their DNA samples will be collected as soon as they reach here. "About 1,000 DNA tests will have to be conducted. Gujarat has the facility for these tests. The mortal remains of victims will be handed over to relatives after DNA sampling," Shah said. Chief minister Bhupendra Patel, who was in Bardoli for an official function, rushed back to Ahmedabad after the air tragedy and supervised relief and rescue operations at the crash site. The CM also accompanied Union home minister Amit Shah to the crash site and the hospital where the injured are admitted. He directed the FSL and NFSU to expedite the process of collecting DNA samples as frantic relatives rushed to the Civil Hospital in search of their loved ones. Lauding the efforts of the agencies that participated in the rescue and relief operations, Amit Shah said, "Accidents cannot be prevented, but the administration's preparedness is tested during such times." He said that the entire country stands in solidarity with the family members of the victims. Shah said that the Union govt was informed within 10 minutes of the crash, and both the central and state govts launched a concerted relief and rescue operation. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Govt to soon restart work on Wullar barrage: Manohar Lal
(You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Union power minister Manohar Lal on Thursday said the Centre will soon restart work on the Wullar barrage in Bandipora of northern Kashmir , now that India has suspended the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with a presser in Srinagar, he said the government will increase the capacity of the ongoing hydropower projects and explore the possibility of starting new projects as well. The minister was in Srinagar to highlight and celebrate the achievements of the Narendra Modi-led NDA government, which completed 11 years this month. He also held a meeting along with J&K CM Omar Abdullah related to the power and housing projects of the state. NHPC and companies from here are doing great work. And now Indus Waters Treaty is in abeyance, we will increase the capacity of ongoing (hydropower) projects and explore the possibility of starting new (hydropower) projects as well," said Khattar."A project was conceived in 1981 around Wular Lake, but they (Pakistan) didn't give the permission and there was no consensus and we had to abandon the project," said Khattar.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Trump's tariffs and a U.S.-India trade agreement
At the end of the day, it was not the big fight between nations, but a case brought by five small U.S. businesses that presented the biggest challenge yet, to U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Tariffs are the substance of laws and regulations formulated after highly rigorous trade negotiations. The binding of tariffs through schedules of commitments in trade agreements, offers much needed certainty and predictability to businesses trading across borders. Which is why Mr. Trump's sweeping tariffs — 10% to 135%, over 100 countries worldwide — were a stunning repudiation of the rules of trade. That it also extended to the barren Arctic marine reserves of Heard and McDonald Islands, uninhabited by humans, just highlighted the irony of a bizarre executive order. This sweeping executive action also upended the fundamental principle of separation of powers between the three branches of government — the legislature, the executive and the judiciary — which lie at the heart of any democratic constitutional framework. That such an exercise of executive authority could happen without any checks and balances in the U.S., widely regarded as among the modern world's oldest democracies with a strong constitutional framework, was another point of reckoning. Five small and mid-sized U.S. businesses, dealing with wines, plastics, bicycles, musical circuits, and fishing equipment, took on the U.S. administration, and challenged the presidential executive order at the U.S. Court of International Trade (U.S. CIT), stating that the tariffs were unlawfully harming their operations and economic viability. A closer look at 'trade deficits' The Trump administration argued that the tariffs were necessary to address the 'national emergency' created by U.S.' trade deficits with all countries worldwide. Trade deficit occurs when imports exceed exports. A 'deficit' is not necessarily bad for a country's economic health. It only demonstrates the availability of consumer wealth to purchase imported goods. In any event, the U.S. administration, bizarrely, did not account for U.S. export of services in its calculation. For example, the U.S. has cited the $44.4 billion trade deficit with India. This, however, does not consider trade in services (which includes digital services, financial services, education) and arms trade, after considering which, the Global Trade Research Initiative has estimated that the U.S. actually runs a $35 billion-$40 billion overall surplus with India. The U.S. CIT, in its judgment dated May 28, 2025, ruled that the worldwide and retaliatory tariffs exceeded any authority under law. The court cautioned against the blatant and overarching use of 'national emergency' powers by the President. It noted that the mere incantation of 'national emergency' cannot sound the 'death-knell of the Constitution', and, additionally, cannot enable the President to rewrite tariff commitments in international agreements. The strong and powerful ruling, so far, has had little practical impact, having been stayed the very next day by a U.S. appeals court. The tariffs and the threat of tariffs, therefore, continue, and so does the pressure to conclude a trade deal with the U.S. The Trump administration had in fact, argued before the U.S. CIT that the enhanced tariffs provided it leverage in trade negotiations — an argument which the CIT ruled does not in any manner mitigate its legal infirmity. More egregious U.S. executive actions are promised as part of the Trump One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) — a proposed omnibus law which would reportedly also grant the executive immunity from enforcement of judicial orders. Where India stands Where does all this really leave India? The governments of both countries have been indicating an early conclusion of a trade agreement, before the U.S. threat of the July 8 deadline. Despite ongoing negotiations, the U.S. has enhanced its existing punitive tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium imports (in force since Mr. Trump's first term), to 50% on both. Pursuant to complaints initiated at the World Trade Organization by Switzerland, Norway, China and Türkiye, WTO panels had ruled (in 2022) that the tariffs imposed during Mr. Trump's first term, do not meet the proposed justification of national security. India too had initiated a WTO dispute, but withdrew this on the basis of a 'mutually agreed solution' with the U.S. in 2023. That mutual solution clearly did not prevent Trump administration extending the new 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium to India as well. India's contemplated retaliation at the WTO has been resisted by the U.S. A purported target of the Trump administration's ire is China's rise. The argument that the U.S.-China trade impasse presents a possible strategic advantage for India, however, is made uncertain by two recent developments: the U.S. and China's truce, pausing their retaliatory tariffs against each other and working towards a negotiated solution; and, more importantly, the U.S. administration's threats to impose tariffs on Apple's products, should it manufacture in India. Mr. Trump's transactional approach also indicates that there is no guarantee that the U.S. will intervene in India's favour should there be a military standoff with China. The path ahead In any trade agreement with the U.S., therefore, a careful balancing of India's interests is paramount. Any deal would need to ensure the removal of all additional tariffs on India's exports, allay concerns about retaliatory tariffs on U.S. investments, such as that from Apple in India, and ensure that the proposed OBBB Act's 3.5% tax on remittances sent from the U.S. does not apply to remittances by Indian citizens. India should also seek assurance that there would be no retaliation against India's digital services taxes. A long-standing concern for India is also the fears and backlash against H-1B visas, used widely by tech companies for their Indian employees. It is critical for a trade deal to address the issue of visas required for services trade. It is equally important for both sides to iron out the delivery of cross-border trade in services, which includes aspects relating to data flows and their regulation. Above all, any trade agreement that India negotiates with the U.S. needs to be fully aligned with India's commitments under the WTO. The U.S. disregard for multilateral institutions, notwithstanding, WTO's multilateral set of rules is the only real safeguard in an uncertain world, and India needs to do much more to preserve its foundations, as committed during its G-20 presidency. Finally, India should have the ability to stay out of any sub-optimal deal. Mr. Trump's tariffs, while painful, are likely to have a short lifespan with the biggest challenge emerging from within the U.S. itself. R.V. Anuradha is a Partner at Clarus Law Associates, New Delhi. The views expressed are personal
