Latest news with #JagdeepDhankar
India Gazette
26-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Vice President inaugurates 'Agri-Industry Conclave' in Narsinghpur, Madhya Pradesh
Narsinghpur (Madhya Pradesh) [India], May 26 (ANI): Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar inaugurated the 'Agri-Industry Conclave' in Narsinghpur, Madhya Pradesh. The vice president emphasised the need for direct subsidies to farmers. Addressing the event as the chief guest, he said, 'There will be a real uplift in farmers' income when every form of assistance reaches them directly.' Comparing the farmers' income to their counterparts in the USA, VP Dhankar added, 'In the United States, the income of a farmer's family is higher than that of an average household. One key reason for this is that farmers receive direct government support. In our country, there is a large subsidy on fertilisers, and many other significant subsidies too, but these are indirect.' He estimated that with the direct transfers, each farmer will receive Rs. 35,000 annually and asked the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) to take note of this. VP Dhankar also lauded the PM-KISAN Samman Nidhi, which is a direct assistance scheme for farmers. Appreciating the efforts by Chief Minister Mohan Yadav in the areas of dairy, livestock, vegetables, and fruits, the Vice President said, 'The day is not far when farmers will go beyond just milk, curd, buttermilk, and even ice cream or rasgullas.' Giving the idea of 'agri-entrepreneurship', the Vice President urged the farmers to take up entrepreneurship and called them 'agripreneurs'. He said, 'There are 730 Krishi Vigyan Kendras (Agricultural Science Centres) in the country and many institutions under ICAR, all of which are now alert and active. I am pleased to say that the direction I highlighted in Mumbai is now becoming a ground reality.' Praising the Indian Armed Forces for Operation Sindoor, he said, 'Today's India believes that the bravery of our armed forces has made every Indian hold their head high. We proudly say we are Indians. India has changed, and India will no longer tolerate terrorism. What hadn't happened in 70 years was done through a bold decision by India's Prime Minister, he stopped Pakistan's water and declared that blood and water cannot flow together. This is a powerful message. The dignity of those who lost their loved ones was protected.' He also inaugurated various development projects. (ANI)
The Hindu
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
What is the 1991 K. Veeraswami judgment all about?
The story so far: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar on Monday (May 19, 2025) opined the time has come for revisiting a 1991 judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami versus Union of India. Insisting upon registration of a First Information Report (FIR) regarding the Delhi cash on fire incident at the residence of High Court judge Yashwant Varma on March 17, 2025; the Vice President said, the 1991 judgment was the genesis of the problem of corruption in the higher judiciary and it was a 'judicial legerdemain.' Who was K. Veeraswami? Kuppuswami Naidu Veeraswami had commenced his legal practice by joining the Madras Bar in 1941. He was appointed as Assistant Government Pleader in 1953 and Government Pleader in 1959. He held the post till his elevation as a permanent judge of the Madras High Court in February 1960. On May 1, 1969, he had become the Chief Justice of the High Court and on February 24, 1976, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a First Information Report (FIR) against him for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act of 1947. The charge against him was that he had acquired assets worth ₹6.41 lakh disproportionate to his known sources of income not only in his name but also that of his wife Eluthai Ammal and sons V. Suresh and V. Bhaskar between May 1, 1969 and February 24, 1976. A copy of the FIR was filed before a special court for CBI cases in Chennai on February 28, 1976. On coming to know of these developments, the then Chief Justice proceeded on leave from March 9, 1976 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on April 8, 1976. The CBI, however, proceeded with the investigation into the PC Act case and filed a charge sheet before the special court on December 15, 1977. How did the case reach the Supreme Court? After the special court took cognisance of the charge sheet and issued summons, the former Chief Justice filed a petition in the Madras High Court in 1978 to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. He contended the prosecution was wholly unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, illegal and void. His plea was heard by a Full Bench (comprising three judges) of the Madras High Court and dismissed by a majority decision of 2:1 On April 27, 1979 Justices S. Natarajan and S. Mohan refused to quash the criminal case. They held there was no necessity for the CBI to obtain sanction for prosecution from a competent authority, as required under Section 6 the PC Act, since Veeraswami had demitted office and was not a Chief Justice on the day when the charge sheet was filed. However, Justice V. Balasubramaniam, the third judge, took a contrary view and quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that the CBI had failed to call upon the former Chief Justice to account for the disproportionate assets and then record a finding as to whether his explanation was satisfactory or not and the reasons thereof. The Full Bench, thereafter, granted a certificate of appeal to the Supreme Court in view of the importance of the constitutional questions involved in the case. The 1979 appeal was heard and dismissed by a five-judge Bench of the top court on July 25, 1991 with a 4:1 majority. While Justices K.J. Shetty, B.C. Ray, L.M. Sharma and M.N. Venkatachaliah held that the PC Act would be applicable to the judges of the higher judiciary too, Justice J.S. Verma alone dissented. What did the Supreme Court rule? Senior counsel Kapil Sibal had appeared for Veeraswami before the Supreme Court and argued that the PC Act would not be applicable to the judges of the higher judiciary since sanction to prosecute was a mandatory requirement under the Act and there was no single authority who could grant such sanction in the case of High Court or Supreme Court judges. He contended the President could not be regarded as the sanctioning authority since he/she acts upon the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and therefore, there was every chance of the executive interfering with the independence of the judiciary. On the other hand, the then Solicitor General A.D. Giri and Additional Solicitor General K.T.S. Tulsi defended the invocation of the PC Act against Mr. Veeraswami and said, the top court could lay down guidelines with respect to issues related to obtaining sanction. After hearing them; Justices Shetty, Ray, Sharma and Venkatachaliah had held that a judge of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts would squarely fall under the definition of 'public servant' under the PC Act and that prosecution could be lodged against them after obtaining sanction. Justices Shetty, Ray and Venkatachaliah also held that the President would be authority competent to accord sanction for prosecution of a judge but ruled that no criminal case should be registered against a Chief Justice/Judge of a High Court or a judge of the Supreme Court without consulting the Chief Justice of India. If the Chief Justice of India himself was the person against whom allegations of criminal misconduct had been made, then the consultation must be carried out with other judges of the Supreme Court. The three judges, further, ordered that a similar consultation must be held at the stage of examining the question of grant of sanction for prosecution and that the decision on granting sanction should be in accordance with the advice of the Chief Justice of India. Though Justice Sharma concurred with the other three judges on the issue of applicability of the PC Act to judges of the higher judiciary, he held that the question as to who should be the sanctioning authority need not be answered in Veeraswami's case since he had retired from service before the filing of the charge sheet and his case did not require any sanction for prosecution. Justice Verma, in his minority view, disagreed entirely with the other four judges and said the judges of the higher judiciary would fall outside the purview of the PC Act and it would be completely inapplicable to them. Observing that the Parliament may have to enact a new legislation for dealing with corruption among those holding high Constitutional posts, he said: 'Any attempt to bring the judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act by a seemingly constructional exercise of the enactment, appears to me, in all humility, an exercise to fit a square peg in a round hole when the two were never intended to match.'
Hindustan Times
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Institutions have respective roles, should not infringe on each other: Jagdeep Dhankhar
Vice president Jagdeep Dhankar on Thursday said all institutions have their specific roles and one should not infringe on each other adding that institutions -- executive, judiciary and legislature, must work in tandem and togetherness. 'I have highest respect for judiciary. I know judiciary has bright people and holds significance. How strong is our democracy is defined by the state of judiciary. From a global benchmark, our judges are the best. But then I appeal we should show collaboration, coordination and cooperative stance,' said the vice president addressing a book launch function in Lucknow. 'We have to respect the Constitution in letter, in spirit, in sense. In our Constitution, two positions are supreme. One is of the President of India and other of governor. And it is supreme because oath of president and governor is different from others including CM, MLA, minister and judges. The oath for them is 'I will abide by the Constitution,'' said VP. Also Read: No constitutional visualisation of any authority above Parliament: Jagdeep Dhankhar Dhankhar underscored the importance of the Constitution adding that it calls for coordination, dialogue, and debate. 'For president and governor, it is different. Their oath is 'I will preserve, protect and defend Constitution' and the second oath is 'I will serve the people.' For the governor people of state and for President, people of India,' said the VP. 'All institutions have their roles, and one should not play the role of the other. We must respect Constitution in letter, in spirit, in sense,' said the VP. Last month, the VP had expressed concern over the April 8 Supreme Court judgment, setting a timeline for the President to sign bills sent by the governors. He had raised questions about the judiciary performing executive functions and acting as a 'super Parliament'.
Time of India
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Tamil Nadu university vice chancellors boycott conference organized by governor RN Ravi
COIMBATORE: Vice chancellors from the state govt-run universities boycotted the Tamil Nadu Vice Chancellors Conference organised by the Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi at Udhagamandalam in the Nilgiris district on Friday morning. However, a section of vice chancellors from private deemed-to-be universities and central universities participated in the meeting. Raj Bhavan Tamil Nadu announced on April 22 that the annual two-day conference of Vice Chancellors (VCs) of state, central, and private universities in Tamil Nadu was to be held at the Raj Bhavan campus at Udhagamandalam in the Nilgiris district on April 25 and April 26. Vice President of India Jagdeep Dhankar is going to inaugurate the conference around 11 am. Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi arrived in Udhagamandalam on Thursday, and he will preside over the conference, with the Vice President of India as the chief guest. However, VCs from the state govt-run universities boycotted the conference as they did not reach the venue by 10.35 am on Friday. But VCs from private and central universities are participating in the meeting. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo The Supreme Court granted assent to various bills that were readopted by the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly on April 8. The court also fixed a timeline for the President of India and governors to make decisions on the bills passed by the state assemblies. Meanwhile, the Raj Bhavan in Tamil Nadu announced the Vice Chancellors Conference, and various political outfits opposed Governor RN Ravi's move to conduct the two-day conference.
The Hindu
24-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
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.
