Congress's delay to stake claim to form government in '04 stunned Kalam

July 1, 2012

Rocketry

New Delhi, July 1: Former President A P J Abdul Kalam has expressed surprise that Congress did not stake claim to form the government for three days after its stunning victory over NDA in the 2004 elections.

In an account of his innings in Rashtrapati Bhavan in his latest book 'Turning Points", Kalam said that while the Congress emerged the largest party, it did not come forward to stake claim. "In spite of that (being largest party), three days had passed and no party or coalition came forward to form the government. It was a cause of concern for me and I asked my secretaries and rushed a letter to the leader of the the Congress to come forward and stake claim," he has written.

Congress chief Sonia Gandhi met Kalam on May 18 and nominated Manmohan Singh to the PM's post. Kalam said he breathed a sigh of relief after Singh was sworn in on May 22, but he continued to be puzzled that three days went by without any claim. Congress sources said the delay was procedural since the parliamentary party had to meet and elect its leader.

Kalam has recalled the government formation in 2004 as a key event, noting that the task to appoint a PM was very tricky as there was no party with clear majority.

"In this context, the 2004 election was an interesting event. The elections were over, the results had been announced and none of the political parties had the strength to form the government on their own," he recounted.


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
January 11,2020

New Delhi, Jan 11: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the curative petition of two death row convicts in 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape case on January 14.

A five-judge Bench of Justices N V Ramana, Arun Mishra, R F Nariman, R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan will hear the petition filed by Vinay Sharma and Mukesh.

The duo had moved a curative petition in the top court after a Delhi court issued a death warrant in their name and announced January 22 as the date of their execution.

Besides them, two other convicts named Pawan and Akshay are also slated to be executed on the same day at 7 am in Delhi's Tihar Jail premises.

They were convicted and sentenced to death for raping a 23-year-old woman on a moving bus in the national capital on the night of December 16, 2012.

The victim, who was later given the name Nirbhaya, died at a hospital in Singapore where she had been airlifted for medical treatment.

A curative petition is the last judicial resort available for redressal of grievances. It is decided by the judges in-chamber.

If it is rejected, they are legally bound to move a mercy petition. It is filed before the President who has the power to commute it to life imprisonment.

The court after issuing a black warrant in their name gave them two weeks' time to file both the curative and mercy petition.

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
August 6,2020

New Delhi Aug 6: In a new twist in the Vijay Mallya case, a certain document connected with the case in the Supreme Court has gone missing from the apex court files. 

A bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and Ashok Bhushan adjourned the hearing to August 20.

It was hearing the review plea filed by Mallya against a July 14, 2017 judgment wherein he was found guilty of contempt for not paying Rs 9,000 crore dues to banks despite repeated directions, although he had transferred $40 million to his children.

The bench was looking for a reply on an intervention application, which it seemed has gone missing from the case papers.Parties involved in the case sought more time to file fresh copies.

On June 19, the Supreme Court sought explanation from its registry regarding Mallya's appeal against the May 2017 conviction in the contempt case for not repaying Rs 9,000 crore dues to banks not listed for the last 3 years.

A bench comprising Justices Lalit and Bhushan had asked the Registry to furnish all the details including names of the officials who had dealt with the file concerning the Review Petition for last three years.

The bench said according to the record, placed before it, the review petition was not listed before the court for last three years. "Before we deal with the submissions raised in the Review Petition, we direct the Registry to explain why the Review Petition was not listed before the concerned Court for last three years," said the bench.In May 2017, the apex court held him guilty of contempt of court for transferring $40 million to his children, and ordered him to appear on July 10 to argue on the quantum of punishment.

The bench said let the explanation be furnished within two weeks. "The Review Petition shall, thereafter, be considered on merits," it added.In 2017, the apex court passed the order on a contempt petition against Mallya by a consortium of banks led by the SBI. 

The banks claimed Mallya transferred $40 million from Daigeo to his children's accounts, and did not use this money to clear his debt. Banks cited this as violation of judicial orders.

stm88 info live rtp slot

slot auto scatter hitam

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 13,2020

New Delhi, Jul 13: The Land & Development Office, which comes under the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, has sent a notice to news agency PTI, demanding it to cough up more than Rs 84 crore as penalty. The notice dated July 7 says that the penalty has been imposed due to "breaches" at its office in Delhi.

The notice that sought Rs 84,48,23,281 argues that "the less will be pleased to regularise the breaches in the premises temporarily up to 14.07.2020 and withdraw the right of re-entry of the premises subject to the following conditions being fulfilled by you within 30 days from the date of issue of this letter."

The notice also stipulates that the news agency needs to give an undertaking on non-judicial stamp paper stating that it will pay the difference of "misuse/damage charges" if the land rates are revised with effect from 01.04.2016 by the government and will also remove the "breaches" by 14.07.2020 or get them regularised by paying charges.

The notice also warns that further action to execute the deed has to be subject to complete payment and putting the premise to use according to the masterplan.

The Land & Development Office so warned that an additional 10 per cent interest may need to be coughed out by PTI if it fails to furnish the concerned amount within the stipulated time period.

Additionally, if the news agency fails to comply with the terms within the said period, the concession will be withdrawn. In other words, they will have to pay the penalty up to the actual date of payment then and will also be subject to actions.

This stern notice for alleged violations by PTI comes closely on the heels of national broadcaster Prasar Bharati locking horns with PTI over its reportage that it called "anti national".

Prasar Bharti had recently sent a letter threatening to end its "relationship" with PTI after it carried an interview of Chinese Ambassador Sun Weidong, where he blamed India for the India-China violent standoff that saw 20 Indian bravehearts getting martyred.

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.