Udit Raj hits out at BJP, says it wants Dalit votes but not Dalit leader

Agencies
April 24, 2019

New Delhi, Apr 24: Udit Raj, the BJP MP who on Wednesday jumped ship to the Congress, hit out at the saffron party, claiming that he was denied a ticket because he took stand on many issues against the party lines. He slammed the BJP saying that the party wanted Dalit votes but noa Dalit leader.

The sitting MP from North West Delhi was denied a ticket for the Lok Sabha elections by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which fielded singer Hans Raj Hans from the reserved seat.

"Congress President Rahul Gandhi welcomes Udit Raj into the Congress party," the Congress tweeted.

Addressing a press conference at the party office after joining the Congress, Raj said: "The BJP carried out internal surveys by various agencies of all the seven seats in Delhi. And out of the seven Lok Sabha constituencies, the only positive feedback came from my seat.

"But I was denied a ticket as I took stand on issues against the party lines and because I was not deaf and dumb. I took a stand on the SC/ST Act and supported the Bharat Band called last year."

Raj also expressed his gratitude to Rahul Gandhi for allowing him to join the Congress.

Taking a potshot at the BJP, Raj said, "On May 20, 2014, (President) Ram Nath Kovind came to me with his bio-data. BJP's SC/ST Morcha leader Vivek Sonkar is a witness to that meeting. He (Kovind) had asked me to help him get a proper position in the party.

"The BJP did not think him fit though Kovind was planning to contest the 2014 Lok Sabha polls. However, he was made the President as he remained silent. If I too remained silent, they (BJP) would have made me the Prime Minister some day."

Delhi Congress chief and three-time Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit said that Raj joining the party would help the Congress in the elections on all the seven seats of the national capital.

Earlier in the day, in a series of tweets, Raj said: "It was nice to speak to senior BJP leader Kalraj Mishra. He was saddened over denial of ticket to me."

Raj said he would not have felt so bad had he been informed about being denied the ticket. "Why did the party declare the name on the last day of filing nomination," he asked.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 30,2020

Kochi, Jul 30: The Kerala High Court on Thursday refused to grant the extension for the stay of a 74-year-old US citizen, Johnny Paul Pierce, who had earlier said that he felt safer to remain in India than in the United States amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The single-judge bench of Justice CS Dias, which considered the writ petition, observed that the grant or extension of visa to foreign nationals fall exclusively within the domain of the Government of India (GoI) and that judicial review in such matters is minimal.

The power of the GoI to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited, the bench said.

"In view of the categoric declaration of law by the Supreme Court, the plea of the petitioner to permit him to stay back in India cannot be accepted, as it falls within the purview of the guidelines and the discretion of the Government of India," the order said.

"The petitioner cannot be heard that the guidelines/policies/regulations formulated by the Government of India, that an American national though has been granted a visa having validity of five years has to leave India within 180 days, is irrational or unreasonable," it added.

The High Court, which was hearing a plea to permit the US citizen to stay in India for a further period of six months, said that the petitioner does not have a case that there is an infraction of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

"The petitioner was well aware of the visa conditions when he arrived in India, and it is too late in the day for him to raise a grievance on the visa conditions," the bench said noting that the petitioner's love for India was heartening.

The High Court also directed the Foreigners Registration Officer to consider the petitioner's representation within a period of two weeks in accordance with the applicable guidelines and policies.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 27,2020

New Delhi, Jun 27: Fuel prices were hiked by the oil marketing companies for the 21st day in a row on Saturday. Petrol and diesel will now cost Rs 80.38/litre and Rs 80.40/litre respectively in the national capital.

The price of petrol is increased by Rs 0.25 per litre while that of diesel by Rs 0.21 per litre.
Rates differ from state to state depending on the incidence of value-added tax (VAT).

Notably, oil marketing companies have been adjusting retail rates in line with costs after an 82-day break from rate revision amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. These firms on June 7 restarted revising prices in line with costs.

The Congress party had called the increase in the price of petrol and diesel 'unjust', 'thoughtless' and demanded from the Central government to roll back increase with immediate effect and pass on the benefit of low oil prices directly to the citizens of this country.
In an official statement, the Congress Working Committee (CWC) had said that no government should levy and impose such unacceptable strain on its people.

Before the nation entered the lockdown, the average price of petrol and diesel in Delhi was Rs 69.60 per litre and Rs 62.30 per litre respectively.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 3,2020

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.