Azharuddin keen to contest 2019 polls from Secunderabad

Agencies

July 15, 2018

New Delhi, Jul 15: After contesting the last two Lok Sabha elections from Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, Congress leader and former Indian cricket captain Mohammad Azharuddin is keen to fight the 2019 polls from his home state Telangana's Secunderabad constituency.

Azhar, who won the Lok Sabha election from Moradabad (Uttar Pradesh) in 2009 but lost in 2014 from Tonk-Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan), said the final decision from where he would contest would be taken by the Congress high command, but he has conveyed his desire to fight from Secunderabad to the party.

In an interview to PTI, Azhar said he contested from Moradabad and then moved to Tonk as he was "not the sort of person who likes to play safe".

Azhar said he is keen to contest from Secunderabad as a lot of people have told him that he should fight from his own state this time.

"I have visited so many places and villages in the constituency and spoken with farmers and other people, they all welcomed me to contest from there," he said.

"I have conveyed my feelings (to the party and the leaders in-charge of the state). At the end of the day, the party is the supreme power. I am not the captain (here), if I were the captain, I would have chosen the constituency right away," the 55-year-old cricketer-turned-politician said.

On his chances of winning from Secunderabad, Azhar said he does not think of winning and losing as he was motivated by the opinion of the people.

"I want to work for the people there (Secunderabad). I have worked very hard in the constituency, but I don't believe in publicity," said Azhar, who hails from Hyderabad, whose twin city is Secunderabad.

"What I gathered from my party is that, they are also keen that I go there (Secunderabad)," he said.

The Congress' Telangana unit last year had urged Azhar to contest either the state assembly polls or the Lok Sabha elections in 2019, from the state.

Asked if contesting from Tonk in the 2014 Lok Sabha polls was a mistake, he answered in the negative.

Azhar said that what happened with Moradabad was that in the assembly elections in 2012, there was an issue with ticket distribution and a lot of workers went away to different parties, so that was the reason for not contesting from there.

He said he gave a good fight from the Rajasthan seat and so it was not a mistake.

"You can't play safe all the time. I am not the sort of person who likes to play safe," he said.

Asked what made him choose Congress when he took the plunge into politics, Azhar said, "I wanted to join the Congress as it is a secular party. Also, I had great respect for Mr Rajiv Gandhi."

Azhar said the farmers' problems and difficulties caused by GST and demonetisation were the most important issues that needed to be addressed and claimed that there was resentment against the central government in rural areas over these issues.

Bandaru Dattatreya of the BJP is the sitting MP from Secunderabad.

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.

‘Pay the worker before his sweat dries’: Madras High Court cites Prophet Muhammad’s teaching while ordering settlement of dues

News Network

December 21,2025

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.

Comments