Latest news with #StateAssemblies
Hans India
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Opposition or obstruction? A nation held hostage by political rowdyism
In a democracy, the opposition plays a critical role. It comprises political parties or groups not in power but with a significant presence in legislatures like Parliament or State Assemblies. Their primary function is to question, critique, and scrutinise the government's actions, ensuring no abuse of power. They are also expected to suggest alternate policies, champion transparency, and give voice to diverse concerns of the public. A responsible opposition acts as a watchdog, not a saboteur. It is not an enemy of the ruling government but a guardian of democratic values. A strong opposition keeps authoritarianism at bay and preserves the spirit of the Constitution. But what we witness today, across parties and states, is a disturbing deviation from this principle. Instead of offering constructive criticism or alternative solutions, many opposition parties have chosen disruption, division, and destruction as their political weapons. Arrogance, street-style rowdyism, inflammatory speeches, walkouts, and the deliberate blocking of legislative processes have become commonplace. Sadly, this degeneration is pan-Indian—no North-South divide here. Take Andhra Pradesh, for example. Former Chief Minister Y S Jaganmohan Reddy, who had dismantled institutions, and demands status of leader of opposition though his party doesn't meet the criteria, boycotts the Assembly and incites supporters with violent rhetoric like 'Rapa Rapa'—a grotesque reference to slitting throats. His rallies are routinely marred by mismanagement; recently, during a visit to Sattenapalli, civilians lost their lives due to crowd chaos. One of his own supporters was crushed by the vehicle he was travelling, yet there was no remorse. Worse, Jagan triggered a law-and-order scare by breaching security protocol, trying to step out of his car to confront a situation based on unverified reports on Wednesday in Chittoor district. His party indulges in street theatre—dumping mangoes procured from neighbouring towns on roads in protest minutes before his visit. There are also whispers that YSRCP leaders are discouraging investors from entering Andhra Pradesh by sending emails. Each Jagan appearance now signals potential chaos—a serious concern for both the government and police. In Maharashtra, political rowdyism has taken another form. Eknath Shinde's Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Gaikwad assaulted a canteen owner over an alleged stale food that was served. This is the same leader who had earlier offered a bounty to anyone who would cut off Rahul Gandhi's tongue. Such rogue elements make a mockery of law and democracy. The response from state governments has been tepid. Whether in Andhra Pradesh or Maharashtra, it's time for demonstrative action against those who refuse to adhere to the democratic ethos. If such elements are allowed to flourish, the brand image of the state—and indeed the nation—will suffer. Elsewhere, opposition parties are actively stoking linguistic and cultural fault lines. In Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra, they cry foul over an alleged 'Hindi imposition,' manufacturing a controversy where none exists. Strangely, their outrage never extends to celebrities or industrialists who don't speak the local language—wealth, it seems, buys silence and exemption. Neither Rahul Gandhi nor his I.N.D.I.A bloc allies will utter a word about how a mere ring-seller with a pushcart morphed into 'Changur Baba,' amassed over ₹100 crore by getting foreign funds through coerced conversions in Uttar Pradesh, and owned a palatial bungalow with foreign-breed dogs, Arabian horses, and links to criminal networks. They won't speak against those who routinely attack Sanatan Dharma. Why? Because they believe Hindus, being largely silent and tolerant, are politically dispensable. For them, it's not about principles—only vote banks matter. In Bihar, which heads to polls later this year, the opposition continues to beat the tried drum of 'Constitution in danger.' The I.N.D.I.A. bloc—fragmented and opportunistic as it is—offers no fresh vision. The same leaders who celebrate electoral wins cry foul when they lose, questioning EVMs, VVPATs, and the Election Commission's integrity. Rahul Gandhi remains stuck in denial. He speaks of stolen votes and rigged systems, yet refuses a formal EC invitation to discuss electoral processes. His hit-and-run tactics miss the mark every time. People want jobs, growth, and governance—not dynastic theatrics or divisive slogans. Even his repeated chant of 'caste census' lacks seriousness. In Karnataka, it took enumerators mere seconds per household; in Telangana, stickers were pasted at many places with no actual data collection. When Congress wins—be it Karnataka, Himachal, or Telangana—there's silence on electoral malpractices and selective intensive revision of electoral roles. But when they lose—like in Haryana or Maharashtra—EVMs suddenly become the suspect, and the EC is accused of being BJP's puppet. Rahul accuses the Commission of withholding critical data and voter footage. One must ask: what were Congress booth agents doing during these elections? Have they colluded with the BJP? Or is it just another excuse from a party running empty? Even the Gen Z brigade of the opposition, like Tejashwi Yadav, is mimicking the old dynastic playbook. In Bihar, he calls for 'Kranti' against BJP and mocks CM Nitish Kumar's initiatives. This from a leader of a party that has never embraced democracy within its own ranks. For him, democracy likely means the power shuttle from father to mother to son—not the people. Leaders like CPI's D Raja, CPI(ML)'s Dipankar Bhattacharya, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, Mamata Banerjee, and Nobel-aspirant Arvind Kejriwal must introspect. What kind of democracy are they promoting when they stand against national security measures or indulge in disruptive politics? The time has come to differentiate between a democratic opposition and a destructive force masquerading as one. The Indian public is not fooled anymore. They seek accountability, not anarchy. They want development, not drama. And they deserve an opposition that rises to the occasion—not one that drags democracy into the gutter for political gain. (The author is former Chief Editor of The Hans India)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Constitution defines roles of legislature, executive, judiciary: CJI Gavai
Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai stressed the importance of the Indian Constitution, stating that it has "defined the boundaries" of the three wings of government--legislature, executive, and judiciary. CJI Gavai highlighted that lawmaking is the responsibility of the legislature and state assemblies, while the executive functions within the framework of the Constitution and the law. Addressing the issue of "judicial activism," the CJI asserted that it is necessary for "upholding" the constitution and rights of the citizens. "Judicial Activism is bound to stay, and it is necessary for the upholding of the Constitution and the upholding of the rights of citizens. At the same time, I am of the view that the Indian Constitution has defined the boundaries of its three wings, whether it is the Legislature, the Executive, or the Judiciary. The work of making laws belongs to the Legislature, whether it is the Parliament or the various State Assemblies. It is expected that the Executive functions according to the Constitution and the law", CJI BR Gavai said while addressing an event in Nagpur on Friday. However, CJI Gavai opined that despite "judicial activism" being bound to stay in the judicial system, it should not be allowed to be converted into judicial adventurism or judicial terrorism. "If the Judiciary tries to interfere in the Executive and Legislative fields in every matter, then I always say, though Judicial Activism is bound to stay, it should not be permitted to be converted into Judicial Adventurism and Judicial Terrorism", BR Gavai said. The Chief Justice further stated that when a law is enacted beyond the authority of Parliament or a State Assembly, and it violates constitutional principles, it is imperative for the judiciary to step in. "When any law is made beyond the authority of Parliament or the Assembly, and it breaches the constitutional principles at that time, the Judiciary can step in", he said.
The Hindu
18-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Time has come for ‘One Nation-One Vote' , says Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan
Union Minister of Agriculture Shivraj Singh Chauhan said the time has come for the country to go for simultaneous elections to both the Parliament and State Assemblies through the proposed 'One Nation-One Vote' saving time and money for the country's development. Addressing a nationwide national awareness campaign for intellectuals here on Sunday on a virtual mode from Nagpur, Mr. Chouhan said the idea of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to have a single election is very 'progressive' and said the latter always puts the nation first before the party. The Minister stated that the recent general elections cost ₹1.35 lakh crore and including the polls to various Assemblies as well as expenditure of the candidates could be to the tune of ₹7 lakh crore. Apart from such a huge cost, frequent polls is leading to policy paralysis, political instability, to works and other economic activity due to the model code of conduct, he said. His cabinet colleague, Union Minister of Coal & Mines and Telangana BJP president G. Kishan Reddy too echoed his sentiments and claimed that frequent elections have become a stumbling block for the country's development and progress. 'The Modi government alone can take up big step reforms like it did in bringing out the GST, abrogation of Article 370, new criminal act and CAA. Similarly, it can bring about the 'One Nation-One Vote'. But, there is a need to sensitise people about the need and bring pressure on political parties for the same for the sake of the future generations,' he said. National convenor for the campaign Anil Antony claimed that an overwhelming majority have already supported the initiative already as it helps in the economic progress of the country. If any State government falls during the five-year period, the next government formed in a mid-term poll will be in power for rest of the period only, he said. BJP national general secretary Sunil Bansal, state convenor N. Ramchander Rao, MP Konda Viveswara Reddy, Bar Council of Telangana president A. Narasimha Reddy and others participated.
United News of India
18-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
Stalin seeks support of 8 CMs in legal battle against Prez reference to SC
Chennai, May 18 (UNI) Tamil Nadu Chief Minister on Sunday wrote to eight CMs of non-BJP ruled States seeking their support in the legal battle against the questions raised by the President before the Supreme Court fixing time limit for Governors and President to give assent to the Bills adopted in State Assemblies. In a Demi-Official letter to them, copies of which were released to the media here, he urged them to oppose it strongly to preserve federalism and state autonomy and unite in the upcoming legal battle. Mr Stalin also called for evolving a coordinated legal strategy before the Court and present a united front to preserve and protect the basic structure of the Constitution as upheld by the Supreme Court in the case filed by TN against Governor R N Ravi over the inordinate delay in giving assent to the Bills passed in the State Assembly. He said the President under the advice of the Union Government, has invoked the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution on May 13, 2025 and raised 14 questions before the Court. Though the reference does not specifically refer to any State or judgement, its intent is to question the findings on law and interpretation of the Constitution given by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, he noted. "Yet, the BJP Government has pressed ahead with seeking a reference, which points to their sinister intent", Mr Stalin said. "At this crucial juncture, I had called upon all State Governments and leaders of regional parties, who are opposed to the BJP and committed to preserving our federal structure and state autonomy, to unite in the upcoming legal battle", the Chief Minister said. "I am now writing to you to personally request your goodself to oppose this reference sought by the President before the Supreme Court. We must evolve a coordinated legal strategy before the Court and present a united front to preserve and protect the basic structure of the Constitution, as upheld by our Supreme Court in its historic judgement", he added. "I look forward to your immediate and personal intervention in this vital issue", he added. MORE UNI GV 1645
Daily Express
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Daily Express
Addendum - Constitutional Justification for Sabah's Legislative Competence
Published on: Sunday, April 27, 2025 Published on: Sun, Apr 27, 2025 By: Datuk Roger Chin Text Size: While it is true that 'elections' fall within the Federal List under the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution—thus placing general elections for Parliament and State Assemblies under Federal jurisdiction—this does not mean that Sabah is entirely prohibited from legislating on electoral matters within its own constitutional sphere. First, under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), the Federal Constitution was amended to accommodate special autonomy for Sabah and Sarawak. These include greater legislative and administrative powers, particularly over matters considered to have local significance. Among these are state elections and the conduct of election campaigns within Sabah itself. The Election Commission (EC) under Article 113 is responsible for conducting elections, but nothing prevents a state legislature from enacting complementary laws aimed at ensuring fairness, transparency, and integrity in the campaigning process—so long as these laws do not regulate the mechanics of voting or counting, which are federally regulated. Moreover, Article 95B(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution expressly provides that Parliament may confer on the Legislature of Sabah the power to make laws with respect to matters enumerated in the Federal List, to the extent that they apply to Sabah. Even without direct Parliamentary delegation, Sabah retains competence over public order, morality, and state government affairs—categories broad enough to encompass laws against electoral disinformation, fake news, and digital manipulation during campaigns. In short - Sabah is not legislating on the conduct of the election itself (which remains federal), It is legislating to protect the integrity of election campaigns within Sabah, This falls under public morality, order, and the right of the State to safeguard its democratic processes, Such legislation supplements, not supplants, federal electoral laws. Given the unique vulnerabilities of Sabah, as outlined earlier, and its distinct constitutional status, it is both lawful and necessary for the State to enact targeted laws like the proposed Sabah Electoral Integrity and Digital Truthfulness Ordinance to address digital threats to its electoral system. Failure to act would leave a constitutional vacuum—and potentially allow Federal neglect to endanger Sabah's democracy. The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express. If you have something to share, write to us at: [email protected]
