Rajasthan Congress issues whip to MLAs ahead of legislature party meeting

Agencies
July 13, 2020

Jaipur, July 13: Amid deepening political crisis in Rajasthan, a crucial meeting of the Congress Legislature Party (CLP) will be held at the chief minister's residence here on Monday.  

The Congress has issued a whip to all party legislators mandating their presence during the meeting which will be convened at 10.30 am by Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot.

Deputy Chief Minister Sachin Pilot has made it clear that he is not going to attend the meeting.

In a statement issued on Sunday night, Pilot had claimed that the Ashok Gehlot government was in minority and more than 30 Congress and some independent legislators have pledged support to him.  

By doing so, he has openly displayed rebellion against the leadership of Gehlot.

However, All India Congress Committee (AICC) general secretary Avinash Pande has said that 109 MLAs have expressed confidence in the Ashok Gehlot-led Congress government in the state and have signed a letter in support.

Pande said a whip had been issued asking all the MLAs to attend the CLP meeting and that action will be taken against those who skip it.

In the 200-member Rajasthan Assembly, the Congress has 107 MLAs and the BJP 72.

The Congress has the support of 10 out of 13 independents, and other party MLAs like Rashtriya Lok Dal (1), which is its ally. The Congress also considers Bhartiya Tribal Party (2) and CPI(M) (2) MLAs as their supporters.

BJP ally Rashtriya Loktantrik Party (RLP) has three MLAs in the assembly.

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
September 19,2020

parliament.jpg

New Delhi, Sept 19: The Rajya Sabha on Saturday passed a legislation that provides for up to five years in jail for those attacking doctors and healthcare workers fighting the COVID-19 outbreak or during any situation akin to the current pandemic.

The Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Bill, 2020 was introduced by Health Minister Dr Harsh Vardhan in the Upper House on Saturday to replace an ordinance issued by the government in April.

The Union Cabinet had promulgated The Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 to amend the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, to protect healthcare service personnel and property, including their living/working premises against violence during epidemics.

The Bill intends to ensure that during any situation akin to the current pandemic, there is zero-tolerance to any form of violence against healthcare service personnel and damage to property.

The healthcare service personnel include public and clinical healthcare service providers such as doctors, nurses, paramedical workers and community health workers; any other persons empowered under the act to take measures to prevent the outbreak of the disease or spread thereof; and any persons declared as such by the state government, by notification in the official gazette.

The penal provisions can be invoked in instances of damage to property including a clinical establishment, any facility identified for quarantine and isolation of patients, mobile medical units and any other property in which the healthcare service personnel have a direct interest in relation to the epidemic.

Offences will be investigated by an officer of the rank of inspector within a period of 30 days, and trial has to be completed in one year, unless extended by the court for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Bill proposes.

As per the its provisions, the commission or abetment of such acts of violence will be punishable with an imprisonment for a term of three months to five years, and with a fine of Rs 50,000 to Rs 2,00,000.

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
September 27,2020

01142147.jpg

Chandigarh, Sept 27: The Shiromani Akali Dal has quit the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) over the farm Bills issue, SAD chief Sukhbir Singh Badal announced Saturday night.

He made the announcement after holding a core committee meeting of the party in Chandigarh.

The highest decision-making body of the Shiromani Akali Dal core committee at its emergency meeting here tonight decided unanimously to pull out of the BJP -led NDA alliance, he said.

According to a party statement issued here, he said the decision to quit the NDA was taken because of the Centre's stubborn refusal to give statutory legislative guarantees to protect assured marketing of farmers crops on MSP and its continued insensitivity to Punjabi and Sikh issues like excluding Punjabi language as official language in Jammu and Kashmir.

The SAD becomes the third major NDA ally to pull out of the grouping after the Shiv Sena and the TDP.

Badal said the SAD will continue to stand by its core principles of peace, communal harmony and guard the interest of Punjab and Punjabi in general, and Sikhs and farmers in particular.

He said the decision has been taken in consultation with the people of Punjab, especially party workers and farmers.

Badal said the Bills on agricultural marketing brought by the BJP-led government are lethal and disastrous for the already beleaguered farmers.

He said the SAD was the oldest ally of the BJP, but the government did not listen to it in honouring the sentiments of farmers.

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
September 28,2020

srikrishna.jpg

Lucknow, Sep 28: Two days after a civil suit was filed in a Mathura court, seeking ownership of the entire 13.37 acres of Krishna Janambhoomi land in the temple town and removal of the Shahi Idgah Masjid, politics has begun in right earnest on the issue.

Former BJP MP and founder of Bajrang Dal, Vinay Katiyar, welcomed the civil suit and said that a massive movement like the one for Ayodhya should be built to ‘liberate’ the Krishna Janambhoomi.

“It has been our resolve to free the three shrines at Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi. Now that the way for Ram temple has been cleared, we will work towards liberating the Krishna Janambhoomi. It would be better if Muslims voluntarily give up their claim on the land which is the birthplace of Lord Krishna,” he said.

BJP MP Harnath Singh Yadav echoed similar sentiments and said that Muslim should give up their claim on the Krishna Janambhoomi because Islam does not permit worship on any land that has been forcibly occupied.

Iqbal Ansari, the plaintiff in the Babri title suit case, meanwhile, said, that there should be an end to this kind of politics and Hindus and Muslims should now be allowed to live together in peace and harmony.

“There are some with vested interest who want to keep fueling the Hindu-Muslim feud but this is not in the interest of the nation. The Ayodhya dispute is over and Muslims have gracefully accepted the court verdict. There is no need to rake up other issues,” he said.

Senior counsel for the Sunni Waqf Board in the Ayodhya dispute, Zafaryab Jilani said that such issues were being deliberately raked up for political gains.

“A compromise had already been made on the issue in 1951 but a fresh suit has been filed in court to revive the dispute. If this is not politics, then what is?” he asked.

It may be recalled that the suit was filed by the ‘Bhagwan Sri Krishna Virajman at Katra Keshav Dev Khewat, Mauja Mathura Bazaar City’ through the ‘next friend’ Ranjana Agnihotri and six other devotees.

Agnihotri, a Lucknow-based lawyer, had represented the Hindu Mahasabha in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit in various courts, including the Supreme Court.

Despite the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, being in place, the civil suit was filed in the Mathura court.

The Act bars courts from entertaining litigation that would alter the status quo of a religious place as it existed in 1947. However, the Act had exempted the litigation over the ownership of the disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land.

It may be noted that when the Supreme Court, in November 2019, had pronounced its verdict for the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya, one of the parties was Sri Ram Lalla Virajman, who had filed a civil suit in Ayodhya in 1989 through his ‘next friend’ Triloki Nath Pandey.

The fresh suit filed by Sri Krishna Virajman through Agnihotri said, “UP Sunni Waqf Board, Trust Masjid Idgah or any member of Muslim community have no interest or right in the property of Katra Keshav Dev over an area measuring 13.37 acres and entire land vests in the deity Bhagwan Sri Krishna Virajman.”

“This suit is being filed for removal of encroachment and superstructure illegally raised by committee of management of alleged Trust Masjid Idgah with the consent of Sunni Central Board of Waqf on land Khewat No.255 at Katra Keshav Dev, city Mathura belonging to deity Srikrishna Virajman,” said Agnihotri.

The site in Mathura is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna. Along with Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya and Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi, it’s one of the three sites which Hindu outfits, including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) want to be restored to Hindus.

The main litigant, advocate Ranjana Agnihotri, told reporters that her petition had already been admitted by the Mathura court.

Over the provisions of Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which may be a stumbling block in the adjudication of the suit, Agnihotri said she was confident that the said Act would not be a problem in the adjudication of the suit filed by her.

“I have drafted the suit after studying the provisions of the 1991 Act and it will not hamper my case. As it is, my petition has already been admitted by the court,” 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.