Rahul Gandhi to contest from Amethi, Sonia from Rae Bareli in LS polls

Agencies

March 8, 2019

New Delhi, Mar 8: Congress President Rahul Gandhi will contest the 2019 Lok Sabha elections from his traditional Amethi seat and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi from her Rae Bareli, according to Congress's first list of candidates released on Thursday.

The list of 15 candidates includes four candidates from Gujarat and 11 from Uttar Pradesh.

The list includes some young faces who have contested elections earlier as also from the old guard and reflects Rahul Gandhi's desire to field well-known names to brighten the party's prospects in the triangular fight.

In Uttar Pradesh, the party has again fielded former Union ministers Salman Khurshid from Farrukhabad, Jitin Prasad from Dhaurahra and RPN Singh from Kushi Nagar.

The three leaders have been fielded from their traditional seats which they lost in 2014 when the BJP swept the polls in the state.

The party has fielded former MPs Annu Tandon from Unnao, Nirmal Khatri from Faizabad, Saleem Iqbal Shervani from Badaun, Rajaram Pal from Abkarpur and Brij Lal Khabri from Jalaun. The last two had joined the Congress after leaving Mayawati's Bahujan Samaj Party.

Imran Masood, who had made controversial remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi ahead of 2014 Lok Sabha polls, has been fielded again from Saharanpur. He was censured by the Congress leadership for his "chop Narendra Modi into pieces" remark and was asked to issue a public clarification.

Both Khurshid and Shervani are seen as the old guard while Prasad and Singh are among the generation next leaders in the Congress.

In Gujarat, the party has fielded former Rajya Sabha MP, Raju Parmar from Ahmedabad West, former Union Minister and former state unit chief Bharatsinh M Solanki from Anand, Prashant Patel from Vadodara and Ranjit Mohansinh Rathwa from Chhota Udaipur.

The first Congress list has come even as the schedule of Lok Sabha elections has not been declared. The party has taken a lead over the ruling BJP which is yet to declare its first list of candidates.

With both Rahul Gandhi and his mother Sonia Gandhi contesting, there is still speculation if Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, who is General Secretary of eastern Uttar Pradesh, will enter the poll fray too. There has been demand from sections in the party that she should be fielded from Varanasi against Modi.

The Congress, which is not part of Samajwadi Party-Bahujan Samaj Party-Rashtriya Lok Dal alliance in Uttar Pradesh, is fighting the elections on its own in all the 80 parliamentary seats though it has not ruled out possibility of alliance with smaller parties. Both the SP, the BSP and the RLD are yet to formally declare their candidates though the alliance has announced they will not field candidates in Amethi and Rae Bareli.

Congress leaders said the list shows that the party will contest the elections "on the front foot" and strongly.

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