WHO HAS NOT APPLIED MIND …?

The elections of Karnataka state Assembly are over.

The election result produced a hung assembly

BJP got 104 Seats,

Indian Nehruvian Congress got 78 seats,

JDS+ got 38 seats

And

Others got 2 seats

Somehow it appears that there is a flaw somewhere in the process of calling for proving the majority.

Who are the parties?

(1) Governor of Karnataka

(2) Nehruvian Congress and JDS

(3) BJP

(4) Supreme Court Judges

(1) Governor of Karnataka what was his role?

(1.1) to invite the leader of the First Single largest party, to take an oath as CM,

(1.2) to ask the CM to appoint the provisional temporary speaker from the elected members to swear in,   

(1.3) to ask the CM to prove his majority on the floor of the house

(1.4) the CM should prove the majority support within 15 days on the floor of the house, not elsewhere,

(1.5) the CM to form the government after proving the majority support on the floor

Is there any flaw at the end of the Governor?

No. There is no flaw in inviting the leader of the First Single largest party to take an oath as CM, because it was as per the guide line prescribed by the Sarkaria Commission in its report and it has been approved by the SC.   

Was there any flaw in the appointment of Mr. Bopiah as provisional speaker of the house?

No. There was no flaw in his appointment because he was the senior most under the criteria of length of service in a cadre. Allegation against him of being bias was set aside by the SC long back in some other case. He had also worked as provisional speaker previously too.

Is there any flaw in asking the CM to prove the majority on the floor of the house?

No. There was no any flaw in asking him to prove the majority on the floor of the house. This was in accordance to the Supreme Court ruling in some other case that the majority has to be proved on the floor of the house, not elsewhere.

Is there any flaw in asking to prove the said majority support within 15 days.

No. There was no flaw in giving a maximum period up to 15 days for the job entrusted to the leader of the First largest single party. 15 days period is the legal period.

Why 15 days period is termed as the legal period?

Something related with multiple subjects and objects to be dealt with, a time limit of minimum 15 days has to be given, to avoid injustice to person/persons/party/parties. If the time period has the relation with a single person with no gathering, searching the matter related document/documents i.e. documental studies, then 72 hours’ time limit is justified. Here in our subject matter, this was not the case. Here it is a policy matter where the whole party’s members have some SAY. These SAYs are to be compiled and needed to arrive to several decisions related with alliance including the alliance to me made or not, through discussion within the party and then through consensus an amicable solution with or without some terms and condition. The leader of a party cannot take decisions at his whims in a democratic country. Hence the 15 days’ time limit given was a well justified limit.

Therefore the decisions of the Governor was foul-less and flawless.

The further details on this justified time limit we would see later.

(2) Nehruvian Congress and JDS

These are the petitioners. We do not know whether Nehruvian Congress is the First Part of the petitioner or the Second Part. Similarly about the JDS. Irrespective of the First Part or Second Part, the BJP lawyer should have asked to clarify. Leave this aside, it is the right of any person/organization to submit a petition. It is up to the discretion of the SC to get convinced or not. We would examine this point further  under the actions of the SC.

(3) BJP, is off course the opposite party. Action of BJP and SC we would discuss together.

(4) Supreme Court:

Who has issued instructions?

Governor has issued the instructions.

If the governor’s instructions are challenged then the Governor becomes the defendant. BJP cannot become either an opposite party or a defending party. But here, BJP being the first largest single party, its interest is affected if the SC does not hear BJP.

As for the Governor, the Governor cannot be called before any court. When this is the position of the Governor, then, it implies that the Governor must have an unchallengeable power, to take the decision. But no authority is allowed to take arbitrary decision in a democratic country. The decision should be taken with discretion.  Discretion means reasonable and justifiable.

The task before SC was to decide whether the instructions issued by the Governor contained any flaw and to rule on:

(1) To entertain the petition or not, when the Governor has discretionary power.

(2) If yes, then whether any instruction of the Governor was discretionary or arbitrary? If the SC finds prima-facie in the petition that any instruction of the Governor contains flaw, then the SC can entertain the petition.

The SC has ruled that the 4^th instruction of the Governor was arbitrary.  That is the time limit given for proving the majority within 15 days contains a flaw.

On this point, the SC has a flaw in its order.  SC changed the time limit from 15 days to two days.

The petitioner parties, viz. the  Nehruvian Congress and the  JDS or vice versa, can come with dirty hand, is understandable, through their record of history. But the legal matters are heard, point to point with its relevance.

e.g. Indira Gandhi had spoken fourteen lies on oath, before the Allahabad HC, when her election was challenged by Rajnarain. But at that time, the HC had not ruled, that all of her, rest of the statements were also false. Similarly here, if the petitioners have come with the dirty hands, then this was required to be proved in the court. If the Opposite party proves this, then the petitioners are liable to be punished.

How and why the matter was so urgent that it should be heard at mid night?

It is said that the appointment of Protem speaker, by the leader of the BJP, can play a foul game. But SC can say that this is hypothetical ground. Court cannot give its verdict on hypothetical assumption. Hence SC should have rejected the petition and could have asked the petitioners to come after the appointment of the Protem Speaker.

The pray for the reduction of time limit for the reason of horse trading.

This point is also hypothetical. Horse Trading applies to every party, and if the factor of horse trading is to be considered, then it is to be applied to all.

Otherwise also, the point of preventing Horse Trading cannot be entertained. Because the petitioner One and the petitioner 2 gets full liberty for Horse Trading and that to for indefinite period. They can do the horse trading during the forming of government and after word also while negotiating on terms and conditions of common minimum program.

The point of petitioner coming before the Court with dirty hands lies here:

To have an alliance among two or multiple parties is a policy matter of each party.

To have an alliance, there needs to have terms and conditions which are supposed to be in concurrence with the party principles. Whether these terms and conditions are in concurrence with party principles or not, there needs an expert opinion and the members of the party must have a SAY to it. All these things can be decided only by the General body meeting of the party. Even the Central Working Committee is not authorized to change the policy of the party without the concurrence of the general body.

What should be or what is the procedure to decide such “policy issue” in a democratic set up?

The party president can call for an emergency general body meeting. But political parties are having members in lakhs. Therefore there are state committees. State committees further dependent on district, tehsil and city committees. They have to give suggestions and to elect delegates for the general conference. These delegates will submit the SAYs of members in the general conference. Then the central working committee would compile the SAYs and take the decision as per the delegated power under the constitution of the party. If any member of any Committee inclusive of MLA, if does not agree with the decision/s of the central working committee, he/she has the right to leave the party if he is in minority. No question arises of he being in majority because in that case the proposal gets rejected.

If the alliance has been done before the declaration of the Assembly elections, all these procedure can be followed. And a member against any terms and conditions of alliance or even against the alliance itself, would not file his candidature in assembly election and even he could resign from the party.

If the alliance is proposed after the poll, how to follow the line of democratic spirit to have the alliance?      

It is mandatory to follow the aforesaid procedure to maintain the spirit of the democracy. On the plea of an urgency no party can overlook the basic characteristic of democracy. Further there is no urgency because if the matter is delayed even beyond 15 days, there was no scope of breakdown of the constitution.

Generally for calling any meeting, a notice of 15 days in advance is required for committee of any level with an agenda. In case of an urgency and a known single agenda, a notice of 72 hours is OK at lower level. But when the higher level committee is dependent on the suggestions of the lower level committees, inclusive of electing and sending delegates to the general body meeting at the Head Quarter, 72 days’ notice is not feasible. That is why 15 days’ time period was ok.

Democratic spirit is the transparency and accommodating every body’s SAY so that it can reflects the opinion of general members to the central working committee. Now, in case of post poll alliance even if all the above procedure is followed and accordingly the alliance to a party is approved by a party, an elected member of a party may not agree to the alliance. It is the liberty and the right of that elected member/s to disagree with the post-poll alliance.

Now it is matter of controversy, that in such a case the elected member/s should resign from the MLA-ship or not?

If he/she resigns from the party is understandable. The party can dismiss the member that can also be understandable.

But whether the MLA is the representative of the people of the constituency or the representative of the party? This point is controversial for some people.

Whether the party is superimposing on MLA or people of the constituency are superimposing on MLA?

In democracy the people are the supreme. Thereby in democracy, the MLA should act according to the desire of the people of the constituency.

If while canvassing the contestant of a party has not made mention about a could be alliance to a party, but on the contrary the contestant had abused and derogated the opponent party/parties and its contestant, in that case if that contestant wins the elections the contestant becomes the MLA, and that MLA is not supposed to resign from MLA-ship, because he has not lost the faith of his people.

It is on record that SC has ruled that the people are supreme even above the constitution in democratic countries, then a party cannot terminate any MLA on the ground of the MLA has lost the faith of the party. People are supreme not the party, not the SC, not the house and not the constitution. The burden of proof that the MLA has lost the faith  of the people, lies with party. If any law is not in concurrence with the aforesaid burden of proof, the law is null and void.  

The Supreme Court has not considered the characteristic of the democracy. The party leaders have no arbitrary power for having an alliance. The SC appears to have been taken for granted that the central working or its president enjoys the arbitrary power.  They cannot have such arbitrary power in democracy.

Further the SC has not cared to see or the SC appears to have been overlooked the mandatory procedure to be followed by the petitioner parties to have an alliance reflecting the approval of general body. This is the big flaw in the decision of SC.

The SC has not examined and it has overlooked the mandatory characteristic of parties in a democratic country in passing the order of curtailed time limit of to 72 hours.

We can conclude that it appears;

SC has not taken “ an alliance with another party” is a policy related matter.

SC over ruled that a party should maintain transparency in a democratic country,

SC has approved that non-democratic parties are allowed to function in politics of a democratic country.

SC found on hypothetical ground that there could be horse trading at the end of opposite party (BJP) without examining any past records of it.

SC found no scope for horse trading between two petitioning parties even though they have unlimited scope for indefinite period.

or the SC has not applied mind

As for the BJP, we do not know as to why it has not represented its own case in view of the democratic principles of transparency and mandatory procedures to compile the members’ voice.

If the party is already having its pre-planned strategy of dealing with the matter, it is ok.

Amit Shah is considered to be the modern Chanakya who followed the philosophy of Lord Krishna who had said “ShaTham Prati ShaThyam Samacharet” शठं प्रति शाठ्यम्‌ समाचरेत्‌”.

Shirish M. Dave

 

 

Read Full Post »

WOW !!! WHAT A CULTURE … of Nehruvian Congress … !!!

The elections of Karnataka state Assembly are over.

The election result produced a hung assembly

BJP got 104 Ssats, Nehruvian Congress got 78 seats, JDS+ got 38 seats and others got 2

Now as per the guide line prescribed under Sarkaria Commission report, the Governor is supposed to invite the leader of the first single largest party to form a government provided it has submitted the claim.

Supreme Court Approval:

It is specifically mentioned in the report, this first single largest party should be invited to form the government. Any alliance formed, after the poll results, would be over looked. Supreme Court too, had approved this criteria.

The BJP leader had submitted his claim.

The Governor of Karnataka state, invited the leader of the First Single largest party viz. BJP who had secured 104 seats.

What is the view of INC (Indian Nehruvian Congress)?

When the vote counting was in progress, and the Nehruvian Congress realized that it has no scope of getting sufficient seats to qualify as the first single largest party, and it has also realized that BJP is to get qualified as a first single largest party, Nehruvian Congress announced that it would support the 3^rd single largest party to form the government. i.e. the leader of 3^rd single largest party must submit its claim to form the government.

This looks very much funny

Nehruvian Congress is well known for its corruption, fraud, lies and scandals. It was also known to the Nehruvian Congress leaders that if it submits its claim to form the government, then JDS (Janata Dal Secular) would not support the Nehruvian Congress. That is why Nehruvian Congress tempted JDS to submit its claim to form the government. Nehruvian Congress propagated heavily its opinion under its so-called democratic understanding that the BJP should not submit its claim. BJP which is the First Single Largest Party if submits its claim it would be immoral, undemocratic and murder of democracy. If the Governor invites the 3^rd Single largest Party viz. JDS, it would be full of moral values, democratic and constitutional.

That is according to Nehruvian Congress, the Governor of Karnataka state must reject the claim of 1^st Single Largest party. 2^nd largest party is not willing to submit its claim hence the governor must invites 3^rd single largest party to form its government.

Does this not look ridiculous?

It may look ridiculous, but Nehruvian Congress has its own “Humpty Dumpty Dictionary” to define political terminologies.

WHY THE SARKARIA COMMISSION AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS IGNORED THE ALLIANCE FORMED AFTER ELECTIONS?

The governor has to use his/her discretion as to who can form the stable government.

More the number of parties more to be prone to unstable.

Parties having less number of seats can form an unstable government. A well-known evidence is available in Indian political history. To keep the first single largest party away from forming the government, 2^nd and 3^rd and 4^th single largest parties supported the  fifth single largest party to form the government and the leader of the fifth single largest party was having the strength of one seat. It was the leader himself.

Here, in the case of the Karnataka election, the situation is not exactly the same. But if the two post-election allied parties where the party having small seat strength becomes the leading party then they are more prone to give unstable government. Otherwise also they have no well thought out, program, discussion, mutual understanding of the issues and policy matters. They are more prone to get collapsed. Had they been pre-poll alliance they could have settled, issues and policy and could have prepared common minimum program. There could be a differences among elected members and can have serious problem in post poll alliances.

 Nehruvian Congress had never clear concepts about democracy. It is beyond their brain. JL Nehru was self-recognized socialist. “Socialist” means traditional communist. However there is little difference between the ideology of JL Nehru and Communist. By virtue of vicinity of MK Gandhi and his struggle for independence from British through the non-violence and democratic way, JL Nehru was not in position to talk of autocracy. Let us keep this topic away, but inherently Nehruvian Congress believes in autocracy. It appears like that.

POST-POLL ALLIANCE AND DEMOCRACY

If you have a say, if you are heard, if you are honored, if you are replied then you are living in a party honoring the democratic values.

But in a post-poll alliance, there is no scope for a member to submit his SAY, no chance to be heard, no scope to be replied. Leave aside the point of being honored.

IS IT THAT POLITICAL PARTY IS A HERD?

Nehruvian Congress does not understand the meaning of Pre-poll alliance and post-poll alliance.

Party is formed by its principles and policy. Like minded persons form a party. Give a name to the party. An alliance with some other party, is a policy matter. Before taking a decision on any matter, related with policy, it is mandatory in democracy, to discuss the matter in a general body meeting, so that the members can submit their SAY. Then a resolution is to be passed.

What to talk of general body? A resolution approved by the then Nehruvian Congress ministry in power, was torn out by Rahul Gandhi the prince of Sonia. Sonia is the wife of Rajiv Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi was the son of Indira Gandhi, Indira Gandhi was the daughter of Jawahar Lal Nehru and Jawahar Lal Nehru was failed in ICS competitive examination of British, the father of Jawahar Lal Nehru Moti Lal Nehru. Moti Lal Nehru was one of the founder member of Indian National Congress. This Moti Lal Nehru asked Mahatma Gandhi to settle JL Nehru in politics.

When India was on verge to get independence, the central working Committee had called for the proposals for the post of Prime Minister. No provincial Committee had put forward the name of Jawaharlal Nehru for PM-Ship in 1946, despite of this, Jawahar Lal Nehru did not withdraw his candidature for PM-Ship, despite of Mahatma Gandhi brought this point to his notice. Jawaharlal Nehru ignored the verdict of his party and gave an indirect message that if he would not be made leader of the party he would generate a split in the party. At that time India was facing crucial issue  of maintaining united India after independence. At that crucial time JL Nehru indicated symptoms of breaking of the party. This became the basic culture which was put forward by Nehru. The daughter of JL Nehru, viz Indira Gandhi, not only degraded heavily, but murdered not only the political values but also the social values of the Indian politics.

Despite of serial defeats Nehruvian Congress is not ready to improve its culture. The leaders of Nehruvian Congress feel that they have all liberty to blame anybody on any issue and can abuse anybody by any name.

The governor of Karnataka invited the leader of 1^st single largest party to form the government. The Nehruvian Congress party went to the Supreme Court at midnight and challenged the governor’s decision, as being undemocratic and unconstitutional. Nehruvian Congress asked the SC to put a stay on the governor’s decision. The Supreme Court did not give any stay on the decision of the governor, and it also rejected demand. Further the court asked the governor of Karnataka to appoint a provisional Speaker of the house to conduct voting of the elected members to see if the invited leader possesses the clear majority or not on the floor of the Assembly.

The Governor appointed Mr. Bopaiah as the speaker from the elected members of house.  

Nehruvian Congress started agitation against the order of Supreme Court. Called the governor by abusive words and further threaten the country that there would be blood shed on the roads.

Nehruvian Congress also challenged the appointment of provisional speaker viz. Mr. Bopaiah stating that the provisional speaker is a bias one on the record and not even he is the senior most.

As for allegation “Bias” it had been already decided by the SC and the allegation was set aside by the Supreme Court long back in some other case.

As for the seniority it is difficult to understand the logic of the Nehruvian Congress leaders. According to the Nehruvian Congress, the definition of the seniority is the oldest member among all the other members in the house.

Funny part is that nowhere such definition existed. Even in Government services the seniority is based upon length of service in the same cadre. Mr. Bopaiah had completed more than two terms as MLA and he was the speaker twice.     

NEHRUVIAN CONGRESS LEADERS CALLED THE GOVERNOR AS A DOG OF BJP.

Nehruvian Congress leaders are heavily active on calling by names the person they dislike, irrespective of the post occupied by the targeted person. The targeted person could be an ordinary MLA, a MP, a Minister, a Chief Minister, the Prime Minister, a Governor or even a Supreme Court Judge too. Nehruvian Congress leaders belong to a dynastic party where a person belonged to the Nehruvian dynasty, is only honorable, none else unless he/she is faithful to the dynasty.

RaGa says our party possesses a school of thoughts, we believe in love, we believe in uniting the nation, we have sacrificed for nation, we care for democratic rights of people, we care for poor, whereas the BJP leaders have no principles, they hates others, they divide the nation, none of them have fought for independence, they are autocrat, they do not care for the poor mass.

Actually all these statements very well applies to themselves. We do not need to go into the proof. The very recent approach of its one of the leaders under a discussion on TV channels, proves that how much hypocrisy they possessed. E.g. A leader calls Narendra Modi a murderer of democracy because he attended the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Nawaz Sharif and gave a saree in gift to his wife in Pakistan. Recall, Indira Gandhi had gifted a portion of POK (which was captured by Indian military in the Indo-Pak war 1971) to Bhutto under Shimla Pact. The same Nehruvian Congress woman had put 66000+  persons inclusive of veteran Mahatma Gandhians, behind the bars for indefinite period without any existence of the offence at their end and without any prosecution.

Nehruvian Congress men are calling the Governor of Karnataka a dog. When this was opposed in a TV Channel under a discussion, the leader was not found apologetic, but he defended “I love dogs” and then diverted the matter. Means if you love dogs, there is nothing wrong, you have permit to call a dog to anybody. This is the logic of leaders of Nehruvian Congress.

What is the fault with other animals? We love every animal. All the animals are innocent, thankful and lovely. It may be cow, horse, donkey, pig, or a fox too. Should we call these leaders of Nehruvian Congress a fox or a donkey? But I think that would the insult of these animals.

Further, look at this …

Nehruvian Congi leaders called him NIKKAMMAA in 1997 then toppled him

Nikkammaa means USELESS. ” निकम्मा”

Now they want to oblige him by tempting his son to become the Prime Minister. This is the level of their words.

Congress has to wait for the full process of JDS is invited and proves its majority on the floor of house. Failure of Yadurappa is not enough.

Shirish M. Dave

There is poem in Gujarati, where a Camel says: “Here in this world no body is straight;

Parrot’s beak is not straight, crane’s neck is not straight, Dogs tail is not straight, Elephant’s trunk is not straight, Buffalo’s horns are not straight, Tiger’s nails are not straight … “ On hearing this,  the fox said to the camel, that as for other animals only one limb is not straight, but as for you, all your eighteen limbs are not straight.

Nehruvian Congress is like Camel.  

Read Full Post »

CAN THE JUDICIARY POKE ITS NOSE IN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS?

Either the Indian media hides the meaningful words of the remarks passed by the judiciary, with a view to give a negative message against the BJP lead government or the judiciary pokes its nose in administrative matters and passes uncalled remarks on the action taken by the government.

Yes. This has been observed twice on some major actions of the government.

Demonetization:

Somebody had filed a PIL before SC against the demonetization of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes, on the plea that the Government had not followed legally prescribed procedure and had not taken sufficient precautionary measures. The action taken by the government was in haste.

The media had given head line that SC had asked the Central Government to clarify its position. Besides this, the SC had also feared whether the government had examined the law and order situation likely to take place in the states, like agitations and riots, before taking the decision. It appears that the SC was of the opinion or the SC was to show its wisdom that the demonetization could be a reason that can burst riots or can deteriorate the law and order situation in the states.

Surprisingly such remarks were made after several weeks of demonetization. There was not a single news, showing occurrence of such incidents where the bad law and order situation was noticed on account of demonetization. People used to stand in queue calmly. Some stray incidents occurred due to mismanagement in distribution of new currency notes. But ultimately such cases did not result into riots. Despite of this, the well-read SC passed a remark as to what precautions and preventive measures were taken by the government against riots in the states.

It is possible that the antisocial elements had to suffer a lot due to the demonetization. As per the report of a government appointed committee of early nineties of the last century, the anti-social elements have the nexus with political parties and local police. The Nehruvian Congress cannot be ruled out from the nexus, what to talk about its allied parties? The allied parties have the same culture.

Who had made big noise against demonetization?

The people knew very well.

The remark of SC can have genuine fear of breaking up riots provided the nexus gangs plans out quickly. But the nexus had two fight out at three fronts.

First front was to replace their currency notes by new ones as much as possible and as soon as possible.

Second front was to create an atmosphere of large scale dissatisfaction and anarchy.

Third front was to plan out to create riots.

But to plan out for riots, the nexus had a fear that their activities were being monitored by the government intelligence. The nexus knew that they cannot take Narendra Modi for granted, on his intelligence performance. They feared a big risk in planning out for riots. However we cannot ruled out that the nexus had dropped the idea of planning of generating riots. That is why they incorporated the fear of bursting riots. And it is possible that for that reason, the SC might have put up the remark related with possible likely hood of riots.

However, so far SC is concern, it was supposed to put a cross question against the petitioners, that the matter of law and orders pertains to the state. Why have you not made the state governments as the opposite parties? Or the SC could have sent of its own the notice of the petition to the state governments. This is because the SC had entertained the point of “law and order” viz. Riot as a factor.

The second incident is of HC of U.P. on the litigation related to ban of illegally running slaughter houses.

The remarks of HC for the U.P. Government;

• Renew the licenses which are pending for approval, by such and such date.

If the media has published this remark of the HC in its true literary sense and spirit, both the remarks of HC are uncalled.

The HC has instructed the U.P. Government to renew the licenses pending for renewal by such and such date. This remark is uncalled. Not only this, but the remark of HC gives a message that, the HC has examined the renewal applications of the owners of the slaughter houses and found them in order. Thereby HC has taken the status “Pending” of the applications, as a fraud on the part of the U.P. Government.

There is no information that HC has visited the places of slaughter houses whose applications for renewal of the license, were pending. There is no information as to a committee has submitted a report before the HC on the fulfillment of all the stipulated conditions required for the renewal of the license.

Is it not a matter of surprise as to how the HC can issue a blanket administrative instructions without going through the details in each case?

In case the finding of the HC is, that the previous government had kept the approval of the renewals of the licenses ready, but the succeeding  government (i.e. present government) has withhold the licenses. Then in such situation the HC can issue orders to take disciplinary actions against the officers concern. If HC is active even on passing a hypothetical remarks (discussed below) against the Government, it was more desirable to make the government active on preventive measures against the lethargy of officers, by proposing/ordering disciplinary actions.

The second remark of HC is most astonishing.

• The government cannot enforce its idea upon the people to change their food habit, and ask the people to be vegetarian.

This remark is absolutely hypothetical. One cannot abuse anybody on hypothetical basis. The media has not furnished any details as to on what ground the HC has passed such remark. Such remark of the HC gives a message that the U.P. Government has the willful tendency to not renew the licenses of the slaughter houses though they have fulfilled all stipulated conditions for the renewal of the licenses.

It is possible that the petitioner might have narrated a point that the U.P. Government machinery wanted to please the new CM and thereby it has shown its reluctance in renewing the licenses.

This looks funny if the HC takes such points of petitioners for granted and pass abusive remark against the U.P. Government.

It is a well-known fact that the Indian Constitution is not against non-vegetarian food. A state Government is capable enough to understand this provisions of the Indian Constitution, at least through its learned officers how are presenting their case before HC.

Can we ruled out the possible influence of Media on the judiciary? Yes the media has a habit to emotionalize every matter. Thereby it diverts the discussion to suit to its agenda. By linking the action taken by Adityanath Yogi on illegal slaughter houses, as his approach towards to change the eating habit of people of India, the action can be sensationalize. But we expect the judiciary to apply its mind before spelling out some remarks.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tag: Uncalled remark, SC, HC, Vegetarian food, slaughter houses, renewal of license, CM of U.P., Narendra Modi, Adityanath Yogi

Read Full Post »