SC upholds constitutional validity of SC/ST Amendment Act-2018

Agencies
February 10, 2020

New delhi, Feb 10: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutional validity of the SC/ST Amendment Act, 2018, and said a court can grant anticipatory bail only in cases where a prima facie case is not made out.

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said a preliminary inquiry is not essential before lodging an FIR under the act and the approval of senior police officials is not needed.

Justice Ravindra Bhat, the other member of the bench, said in a concurring verdict that every citizen needs to treat fellow citizens equally and foster the concept of fraternity.

Justice Bhat said a court can quash the FIR if a prima facie case is not made out under the SC/ST Act and the liberal use of anticipatory bail will defeat the intention of Parliament.

The top court's verdict came on a batch of PILs challenging the validity of the SC/ST Amendment Act of 2018, which was brought to nullify the effect of the apex court's 2018 ruling, which had diluted the provisions of the stringent Act.

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
May 31,2020

Mumbai, May 31: Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut on Sunday alleged that the event held in Ahmedabad to welcome US President Donald Trump in February was responsible for the spread of coronavirus in Gujarat and later in Mumbai and Delhi, which some of his delegates had visited.

Raut also hit out at the Centre saying that the lockdown was implemented without any planning, but now the responsibility of lifting the curbs was left to the states.

The Sena MP said that despite the opposition BJP's attempts to pull down the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government, there was no threat to it as its survival is the 'majboori' (compulsion) of all the three ruling allies- Sena, NCP and Congress.

"It can't be denied that the spread of coronavirus in Gujarat was because of the massive public gathering held to welcome US President Donald Trump. Some of the delegates, who accompanied Trump, also visited Mumbai, Delhi, which led to the spread of the virus," Raut said in his weekly column in Shiv Sena mouthpiece 'Saamana'.

On February 24, Trump along with Prime Minister Narendra Modi had taken part in a road-show in Ahmedabad, which was attended by thousands of people. After the road- show, the two leaders had addressed a gathering of over one lakh people at Motera cricket stadium, run by Gujarat Cricket Association (GCA).

Gujarat had reported its first coronavirus cases on March 20, when samples of a man from Rajkot and a woman from Surat tested positive for the disease.

Raut said that any move to pull down the Uddhav Thackeray-led MVA government and impose President's rule in the state citing its failure to curb the coronavirus pandemic would be suicidal.

"The state had witnessed how President's rule was imposed and lifted as per will six months ago," he said.

"If the handling of coronavirus cases is the basis of imposing President's rule, then it should be done in at least 17 states, including the BJP-ruled ones. Even the central government has failed to curb the pandemic as it had no planning to fight the virus," he said.

"The lockdown was imposed without any planning and now without any plan, the responsibility of lifting it has been left to the states. This chaos will further worsen the crisis," he said.

The Sena MP said that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has made an excellent analysis of how the lockdown has failed.

"It is shocking that people can indulge in politics by demanding President's rule in Maharashtra for the rise in the coronavirus cases," he said.

BJP MP Narayan Rane had recently met Maharashtra Governor B S Koshyari and demanded imposition of President's rule in view of the the Shiv Sena-led state government's "failure" in tackling the coronavirus pandemic. However, the BJP had later said that it was not trying to destabilise the government.

Speaking about the stability of the government, Raut said that the survival of the MVA government was the 'majboori' (compulsion) of each of the three alliance partners.

"Even if there are internal conflicts among the ruling partners, there is no threat to the government as the allies know that its survival is the 'majboori' of each one of them," Raut said.

He said that the Devendra Fadnavis-led government, in which the BJP and Shiv Sena shared power, saw internal conflicts between the ruling allies, but it completed its full five-year term.

Slamming Fadnavis, who is now the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, for predicting downfall of the MVA government saying it will fall on its own due to its internal bickering.

"If the Fadnavis government, which witnessed deep internal conflicts between BJP and Sena, didn't fall, how can this one collapse? The Fadnavis government survived despite the (Sena) ministers carrying their resignation letters in their pockets," Raut wrote.

Fadnavis, in an online media interaction held earlier recently, said he had no intention to destabilise the MVA government and said it would collapse on its own.

"What Fadnavis means is that all attempts (of the BJP) to create discord among the three allies and break the MLAs has failed. Now the opposition hopes that something would happen among the allies and the government would be fall apart," he said.

Raut said NCP president Sharad Pawar is the prominent leader, who laid the foundation stone of the "Thackeray sarkar", and only he can predict the future of the government.

"He continues to say the government is stable and even the Congress is not going anywhere. MVA legislators are not up for sale in horse-trading. Hence, if the opposition says that the government will fall, it is wrong," he 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.
coastaldigest.com web desk
June 16,2020

New Delhi, Jun 16: Despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi led government’s attempt to downplay the border dispute with China, matters have heated up unprecedentedly along the Line of Actual Control (LAC)- the effective Sino-India border in Eastern Ladakh. 

The country has lost three precious lives – an army officer and two soldiers. The last time blood was spilled on the LAC, before the latest episode, was 45 years ago when the Chinese ambushed an Assam Rifles patrol in Tulung La.

India had lost four soldiers on October 20, 1975 in Tulung La, the last time bullets were fired on the India-China border though both the countries witnessed bitter stand-offs later at Sumdorong Chu valley in 1987, Depsang in 2013, Chumar in 2014 and Doklam in 2017.

Between 1962 and 1975, the biggest clash between India and China took place in Nathu La pass in 1967 when reports suggest that around 80 Indian soldiers were killed and many more Chinese personnel.

While three soldiers, including a Commanding Officer, were killed in the latest episode in Galwan Valley, the government describes it as a "violent clash" and does not mention opening fire.

New Delhi described the locality where the 1975 incident took place as "well within" its territory only to be rebuffed by Beijing as "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong".

The Ministry of External Affairs had then said that the Chinese had crossed the LAC and ambushed the soldiers while Beijing claimed the Indians entered their territory and did not return despite warnings.

The Indian government maintained that the ambush on the Assam Rifles' patrol in 1975 took place "500 metres south of Tulung" on the border between India and Tibet and "therefore in Indian territory". It said Chinese soldiers "penetrating" Indian territory implied a "change in China's position" on the border question but the Chinese denied this and blamed India for the incident.

The US diplomatic cables quoted an Indian military intelligence officer saying that the Chinese had erected stone walls on the Indian side of Tulung La and from these positions fired several hundred rounds at the Indian patrol.

"Four of the Indians had gone into a leading position while two (the ones who escaped) remained behind. The senior military intelligence officer emphasised that the soldiers on the Indian patrol were from the area and had patrolled that same region many times before," the cable said.

One of the US cables showed that former US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger sought details of the October 1975 clash "without approaching the host governments on actual location of October 20 incident". He also wanted to know what ground rules were followed regarding the proximity of LAC by border patrols.

A cable sent from the US mission in India on November 4, 1975 appeared to have doubts about the Chinese account saying it was "highly defensive".

"Given the unsettled situation on the sub-continent, particularly in Bangladesh, both Chinese and Indian authorities have authorised stepped up patrols along the disputed border. The clash may well have ensued when two such patrols unexpectedly encountered each other," it said.

Another cable from China on the same day quoted another October 1974 cable, which spoke about Chinese officials being concerned for long that "some hotheaded person on the PRC (People's Republic of China) might provoke an incident that could lead to renewed Sino-Indian hostilities. It went on to say that this clash suggested that "such concerns and apprehensions are not unwarranted".

According to the United States diplomatic cables, Chinese Foreign Ministry on November 3, 1975 disputed the statement of the MEA spokesperson, who said the incident took place inside Indian territory.

The Chinese had said "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong". In its version of the 1975 incident, they said Indian troops crossed the LAC at 1:30 PM at Tulung Pass on the Eastern Sector and "intruded" into their territory when personnel at the Civilian Checkpost at Chuna in Tibet warned them to withdraw.

Ignoring this, they claimed, Indian soldiers made "continual provocation and even opened fire at the Chinese civilian checkpost personnel, posing a grave threat to the life of the latter. The Chinese civilian checkpost personnel were obliged to fire back in self defence."

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson had also said they told the Indian side that they could collect the bodies "anytime" and on October 28, collected the bodies, weapons and ammunition and "signed a receipt".

The US cables from the then USSR suggested that the official media carried reports from Delhi on the October 1975 incident and they cited only Indian accounts of the incident "ridiculing alleged Chinese claims that the Indians crossed the line and opened fire first".

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
May 22,2020

Mumbai, May 22: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Friday reduced repo rate by 40 basis points to 4 per cent in an effort to further boost liquidity in the economy which has been reeling under the impact of COVID-19 induced countrywide lockdown.

As a result, the reverse repo rate stands at 3.35 per cent, said RBI Governor Shaktikanta Das. The six-member monetary policy committee (MPC) voted 5:1 in favour of the decision.

Repo rate is the rate at which a country's central bank lends money to commercial banks, and the reverse repo rate is the rate at which it borrows from them. 

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.