Sena attack on Kulkarni widely condemned, cause for concern: Advani

October 12, 2015

New Delhi, Oct 12: The paint attack on BJP's former strategist Sudheendra Kulkarni was today roundly condemned by political parties with its stalwart L K Advani saying it reflected "growing intolerance" in the country that is cause for concern and Congress dubbing Shiv Sena as "Desi Taliban."

attack

As condemnation of the attack by Sena activists poured in from across the country including from the civil society, the Centre voiced its disapproval calling it "unjust."

"I strongly condemn whosoever has done it.... In the last few days, there are these signs...where any person or any point of view is not acceptable, then you resort to violence or turn intolerant towards them.

"This is a matter of concern for the nation. Democracy must ensure tolerance for a different point of view," Advani said, shortly after Sena activists smeared black paint on Kulkarni over his refusal to cancel the book launch function of former Pakistan foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri in Mumbai. Kulkarni is a former close aide of Advani.

In a veiled message to Shiv Sena, a key ally of BJP, the former deputy prime minister said, "at least those who are involved with us should work to strengthen democracy and not encourage such acts of violence and disown them."

"But whosoever has done it, has besmirched the good name of the country."

In a series of tweets, Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh said Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray must control his "goons."

"Such Intolerance in India can't be tolerated. First Ghulam Ali concert and now Kasuri's book launch. We don't want a Desi Taliban in India," he said.

Congress spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi claimed incidents of "intolerance" have risen over the last 18 months after the BJP came to power.

Another party spokesman Sanjay Jha said, "Black paint is not on @SudheenKulkarni's face, but a dark blot on Indian democracy. The forces of fascism are flying high."

Union Minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said in a democracy everyone has a right to agree or disagree but this type of protest is not justified as it is against the very core of our democratic values.

Another Union Minister Kiren Rijiju said everyone has the freedom to protest but not physically harm anyone.

"Sabhya samaj main virodh karne ka tarika hote hain (There are ways to protest in a civilised society). Our Constitution allows us to hold protest in a proper manner...One should only lodge protest under the law and this will act to strengthen our democracy," he said.

CPI (M) targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the incident, saying the top BJP leader's 'Make in India' initiative is nothing but 'Breaking India' campaign.

"Modi model is not #MakeInIndia but breaking in India & pillars r competitive communalism, intolerance & misogyny and Casteism," tweeted CPI (M) leader Brinda Karat.

CPI leader D Raja said that Sena's actions were "highly deplorable".

Former Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao asked, "Where is my India? Anguished and ashamed. I am sure Gandhiji is weeping. Tears in Heaven."

"Let us be a grown-up nation. Let us put away intolerance. Cry, the beloved country," she added.

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 19,2024

ramadev.jpg

New Delhi, Mar 19: The Supreme Court today came down heavily on Patanjali Ayurved for failing to respond to a contempt notice for issuing misleading advertisements and ordered yoga guru Ramdev to appear before it.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah also summoned Patanjali managing director Acharya Balkrishna.

The Supreme Court last month pulled up Patanjali for prima facie violation of its assurances about its products and statements claiming their medicinal efficacy. The court had issued a notice to Patanjali and Balkrishna, asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.

It noted today that Patanjali did not file a response even though it had held a press conference after its previous order. "Why haven't you filed your response yet? We will ask the managing director to appear in the court during the next hearing," the court said.

The order states both Ramdev and Balakrishna were prima facie in violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Remedies Act, which deal with misleading ads of medicines.

The court also issued a contempt notice to Ramdev, co-founder of Patanjali, and asked him to explain why he should not face action for contempt of court.

Senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Patanjali Ayurved, opposed the move and sought to know, "How Ramdev comes into the picture?"

"You are appearing. We will see on the next date. Enough," the court replied.

"We had our hands tied earlier but not now. As an officer of the court, you (Mr Rohatgi) should know your position," said Justice Amanullah.

The court was hearing a petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) alleging a smear campaign by Ramdev against the vaccination drive and modern medicines.

On February 27, it had issued a contempt notice to Patanjali and cautioned them against from making any statements against any system of medicine in the media. It had also pulled up the centre for not taking action and said they were sitting with their eyes closed.

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 22,2024

The Enforcement Directorate on Friday produced Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal before the Rouse Avenue court and sought a 10-day custody in the excise policy-linked money laundering case. "Kejriwal was the kingpin of the scam," the ED reportedly told the court after the AAP chief was produced before Special Judge Kaveri Baweja around 2 pm amid tight security. 

ASG S V Raju was appearing for the agency, while Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi is representing Kejriwal. 

Raju in his argument said Kejriwal was "directly involved in formulation of the (liquor) policy... he was involved in handling of proceeds of crime as well in the Goa election campaign."

"The expert committee was constituted but it was a sham committee. The policy was made in such a manner that it would enable the taking of bribes and recoupment of people who gave the bribes," the ED counsel said. 

Kejriwal was produced in the trial court shortly after he withdrew from the Supreme Court his plea against arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the excise policy-linked money laundering case. Kejriwal's counsel said he would contest the remand proceedings before the trial court and then come back to the apex court with another 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
March 15,2024

SCSBI.jpg

New Delhi, Mar 13: The Supreme Court on Friday took exception to the State Bank of India (SBI) for not disclosing complete details of Electoral Bonds, including unique alfa numeric numbers, furnished to the Election Commission for uploading on the website.

A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the SBI seeking its response on Monday after the court was informed that the issuing bank for the Electoral Bonds has not disclosed unique alfa numeric number of each bond.

"They have not disclosed the bond numbers. It has to be disclosed by the State Bank of India. All details have to be provided by the SBI," the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, noted.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said as per the Constitution bench judgment of February 15, 2024, all details were to be disclosed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted since the SBI was a party to the judgment, notice may be issued to it.

The court said the counsel for SBI should have been here.

"If you see the judgment, we have specified that bond numbers have to be provided," the bench said.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the main petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).

On an application by the EC, the bench said the details of Electoral Bonds furnished by the poll panel before the top court should be scanned and returned to it for the purpose of uploading on the website.

The Election Commission through advocate Amit Sharma filed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to release data on electoral bonds furnished to the top court in terms of previous orders of April 12, 2019 and November 2, 2023.

As per March 11, 2024 order, the Election Commission on Thursday uploaded the data on electoral bonds furnished to it by the SBI.

However, in an application, the poll panel said it had furnished to the Supreme Court a number of sealed envelopes, containing details on EBs encashed by the political parties, during the course of hearing in the matter.

It sought a direction for the return of those sealed envelopes to comply with the directions to upload it on the website as per order of March 11.

On Monday, the Supreme Court had told the SBI to furnish details of purchasers of Electoral Bonds and names of political parties redeemed those instruments by March 12 to the Election Commission, rejecting its plea for extension of time until June 30 for the purpose.

It had then directed the Election Commission to publish the information provided by the SBI on its website on March 15.

In its February 15, 2024 judgment, the SC had declared the Electoral Bonds scheme, introduced in 2018 for donation to political parties, as "unconstitutional" for being violative of the right to information.

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.