Punjab political leaders against ‘One Nation, One Election' proposal
The 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE) proposal promoted by the BJP-led Central government, which seeks to hold simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State/Union Territory Legislative Assemblies, has sparked significant debate in Punjab amid concerns over weakening of federalism, regional autonomy and democratic principles.
On June 14, members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on ONOE met leaders of political parties of the State in Chandigarh. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the Indian National Congress and the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) firmly expressed their reservations to the proposal and opposed the idea of ONOE.
The SAD, a century-old party, highlighted several concerns and pointed out that the proposed Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, would weaken the State's autonomy.
'The Bill would cause more harm than improvement. Article 356 was the root cause of the disruption of simultaneous elections in the country. In case Article 356 is not done away with, the election schedule would be disrupted again, so what's the point of this Bill? Also, the insertion of Article 82 A clause 5 empowers the Election Commission of India to defer elections to Legislative Assemblies. This can be misused against opposition parties anytime,' it said.
Opposing the idea of ONOE, the Congress's leaders, including State president Amarinder Singh and Partap Singh Bajwa, the Leader of Opposition in the Punjab Assembly, presented the party's case before the committee.
'One Nation, One Election goes against the basic concept of federalism that has been guaranteed by the Constitution of India,' the State president said, pointing out that parliamentary and Assembly elections were held on entirely different issues.
'The idea of imposing simultaneous elections to Parliament and the State Assemblies will mean imposing dictatorship by default. The regional and local issues that gain prominence during the Assembly elections will be ignored and suppressed. The regional and local aspirations will get muzzled down,' Mr. Singh said.
Strong objections
The ruling AAP in Punjab raised strong objections to ONOE, terming it 'a direct assault on the fundamental structure and spirit of the Constitution of India'.
Pointing out that the proposed Bill would effectively render the tenures of State Assemblies subject to the discretion of the Union government, Punjab Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema said the BJP's attempt was an alarming overreach incompatible with the federal framework enshrined in the Constitution.
Mr. Cheema said the proposals in the Bill would destabilise the balance of power essential to India's democratic fabric. 'The One Nation, One Election Bill proposed by the BJP is a calculated move to eliminate regional parties that represent diverse cultures, languages, and regions, and serve as the backbone of Indian democracy.'
BJP leaders, meanwhile, argue that simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State/Union Territory Legislative Assemblies would reduce election-related expenses and boost governance continuity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
34 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
After video with ‘second wife', Uttarakhand's ex-BJP MLA suspended by party for ‘indecent conduct'
Former BJP MLA from Jwalapur, Suresh Rathore, has been expelled from the party for six years for alleged 'indecent conduct'. According to the state media in charge of the BJP, Manveer Singh Chauhan, the party had taken cognizance of a viral video on social media showing Rathore with his second wife, without having divorced his first wife. Calling it 'indecent conduct', he said the party had issued him a show-cause notice, seeking an explanation for his conduct. The video of the former MLA went viral on social media, wherein he is with the Saharanpur-based actress Urmila Sanawar, introducing her as his second wife. This had led to objections from the Congress after they called it a violation of the Uniform Civil Code. The code prohibits polygamy. Chauhan said that the response submitted by Rathore was not satisfactory to the organisation. 'He was found guilty of repeatedly violating the party's code of conduct and social decorum. Acting on the directions of state president Mahendra Bhatt, he has been expelled from the party for six years,' Chauhan said. After his video had stirred controversy, Rathore backtracked from his statement and said that it was part of a film. The Congress spokesperson, Garima Dasauni, said that this was an example of the BJP's immoral politics and double standards. 'If it was truly an act, then should we now believe that every public behaviour of BJP leaders is scripted like a film? And if it was real, then was the party's show-cause notice nothing but a farce?' Dasauni had said earlier this week. She added that the BJP initially remained silent, and only when public outrage grew over the former ruling party MLA's violation of the Uniform Civil Code did the party issue a notice. 'This once again exposes the BJP's opportunistic politics and its pretense of seriousness towards women's dignity,' she added. Aiswarya Raj is a correspondent with The Indian Express who covers South Haryana. An alumna of Asian College of Journalism and the University of Kerala, she started her career at The Indian Express as a sub-editor in the Delhi city team. In her current position, she reports from Gurgaon and covers the neighbouring districts. She likes to tell stories of people and hopes to find moorings in narrative journalism. ... Read More
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
File FIR against channels that showed teacher as Lashkar terrorist killed during Op Sindoor: J&K court
A local court in J&K on Saturday directed the police to register an FIR against some news channels that had aired the photograph of a local religious seminary portraying him as an LeT terrorist killed in Kotli in Pakistan occupied Kashmir during Operation Sindoor. The teacher Qari Mohammad Iqbal of Qari Mohalla was in fact killed during cross-bordering shelling by Pakistan in Poonch on May 7. India launched Operation Sindoor and hit nine terror sites in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir in retaliation to the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22 in which 26 people were killed. Referring to a report by SHO Poonch that two news channels had initially aired that Iqbal was a Pakistan terrorist, later withdrew it and issued an apology following clarification, Sub Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch, Sjafeeq Ahmed, said, 'the subsequent apology by the news channels does not cure the mischief already caused''. 'An apology may have mitigating value at the state of sentencing, but does not preclude the statutory duty of police to register an FIR once a cognizable offence is disclosed,' the judge observed, directing the SHO of Poonch Police Station to register an FIR under Sections 353(2) (public mischief) ,356 (defamation) and 196(1) (outraging religious sentiments) of BNS, 2023, read with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 'While freedom of the press is a vital part of democracy protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on grounds such as defamation, public order, decency and morality,' the judge said. 'In the present case, the act of branding a deceased civilian teacher of a local religious seminary as a Pakistani terrorist without any verification, particularly during a period of India-Pakistan hostilities, cannot be dismissed as a mere journalistic lapse,' he said. 'Such conduct amounts to public mischief and defamation, capable of causing public outrage, disturbing social harmony, and tarnishing the reputation of the deceased and the institution he served,'' the judge said. '… In today's digital era, misinformation can spread rapidly, creating confusion and unrest,' the judge said. An application seeking registration of an FIR against the news channels was filed by advocate Sheikh Mohammad Saleem, who claimed that the news channels not only displayed his name and photograph portraying him as an LeT terrorist, but also linked him to the 2019 Pulwama terror attack. Referring to the SHO's report that the family members of the deceased did not lodge any complaint and the broadcast of the news had originated from Delhi, the judge said there is no legal bar to any person with knowledge of the offence, including a public spirited citizen, to initiate such action. The SHO's second contention about the territorial jurisdiction in view of broadcast originating from Delhi also fails in the light of Section 199 BNS which provides that when an act and its consequences occur in different places, jurisdiction arises in either location, the judge said. In the present case, the consequence of the broadcast — defamation, emotional injury and public unrest — occurred in Poonch, where the deceased resided, served and was martyred, he pointed out. Earlier, Iqbal's family members had served legal notice through advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed to both the news channels seeking damages of Rs 5 crore each.
