Constitution of India sidelined and dumped by Congress....

We, the citizens of India take pride in being the offspring’s of the biggest Democracy of the world. The constitution enacted by the eminent panel holds extremely imperative role in creating our political outlook.
But,
Recently, the Congress party has left behind the so called virtues that have been symbols of Democracy as prescribed by our Constitution. The Congress on the all time low ranking, though in power in the center, has stooped down to the lowest ebb and the mushrooming of scams on daily basis has urged the Congressmen to sail in the filthy and polluted water and resort to unethical tactics. When the country was brawling on the scuffle against impeding corruption, Congress resorted to unconstitutional practice to nullify the blot it has received due to their lack of aspiration and inclination to create amendments that would effectively restrain the sleaze.
Article 75, in Constitution of this country permits appointment of Lokayukt, by the Hon. President, only when Hon. President has consulted the Council of Ministers.
And,
In the same manner, Under Article 163-[subsection 1] the Hon. Governor of any state can enact and amend the law regarding appointment of Lokayukt, Commissioner etc. after consulting the Councils of Ministers.
Thus appointment of Lokayukt suddenly, [of course it was not a sudden decision by the Hon. Governor of Gujarat, the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, who is on the verge of being transferred to the Supreme Court and thus wants to remain in good books of Congress mai-baap and the leader of opposition in Gujarat who has performed the devout job of transporting his party on the death bed in the state but a planned malicious arrangement ] portrays their malevolent characteristics.
It is argued that the BJP, demonstrated double standards by denying appointment of Lokayukt in Gujarat.
But,
On the Contarary.
In fact, Gujarat, which is accused of not appointing Lokayukta since last 7 years, has attempted to appoint one, for number of times.
The following will provide the date wise details.
Following is the state information department release on facts related to
the entire Lokayukta controversy in the state. While it is fact that Gujarat
had no Lokayukta for last 7.5 years, the details given below throw light on
who was responsible for that – then Governor and the leader of opposition
can not escape from being responsible for the delay.
Unconstitutional appointment of Lokayukta in Gujarat
Chronology of dates and events
S. No.
Date
Events
7.8.2006
Hon’ble Chief Minister held a meeting with the Leader of Opposition in the Gujarat
Legislative Assembly, to consult him on the subject of appointment of a suitable person
as Lokayukta, Gujarat State.Hon’ble Chief Minister had suggested the name of Justice
(Retired) Shri Kshitij R. Vyas and the Leader of Opposition suggested some other names.
At the end of discussions, Hon’ble Chief Minister asked whether the Leader of Opposition
had any specific objection against the name suggested by him. The Leader of Opposition
specifically mentioned that he had no objection to the name suggested by the Hon’ble
Chief Minister but he wanted that the names suggested by him should also be taken into
consideration.
7.8.2006
A letter was sent to Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court as a part of consultation
process to know his views on the name suggested by the Hon’ble Chief Minister for
appointment as Lokayukta, Gujarat State.
8.8.2006
Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court conveyed his consent to the name suggested by the
Hon’ble Chief Minister for appointment as Lokayukta, Gujarat State.
10.8.2006
The file was sent to H.E. the Governor for appointment of Justice (Retired) Shri Kshitij
R. Vyas as Lokayukta, Gujarat State.
25.8.2006
H.E. the Governor desired that a copy of the minutes/ record of proceedings of the
meeting held with the Leader of Opposition by the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 7.8.2006
may be furnished.
13.9.2006
A letter was received from the Raj Bhavan wherein, it was mentioned that H.E. the
Governor desired to know the procedure adopted to fulfill the requirement of
consultation with the Leader of Opposition and Hon’ble Chief Justice, etc. in the
different States like Maharashtra, West Bengal, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh,
Orissa and Tamil Nadu.
27.2.2007
The information as called for by H.E. the Governor vide his letter dated 13.9.2006 was
sent. Such information was to be obtained from different States and hence it took some
time in gathering the information.
6.2.2009
H.E. the Governor returned the file with some observations.
2.7.2009
The file was resubmitted to H.E. the Governor explaining as to how the provisions of
section 24(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 do not come in the way of
appointment of the person suggested by the Government for appointment as Lokayukta,
Gujarat State.
10.
10.9.2009
H.E. the Governor returned the file with the following observation:“In view of subsection
(3) of section 6 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, since the person
recommended by the Government has held the office of the Chairman of the Human
Rights Commission of Maharashtra, the Government’s proposal for his appointment as
Lokayukta, Gujarat State cannot be agreed to.”
11.
10.9.2009
The then H.E. the Governor sent a letter to Hon’ble Chief Minister mentioning that it
was not possible to appoint Shri Kshitij R. Vyas as Lokayukta, Gujarat State in view of
the clear provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.He also requested the
Chief Minister to send a fresh proposal for appointment of Lokayukta after due
consultation with the Chief Justice of the Gujarat high Court and the Leader of
Opposition in the State Assembly as per the provisions of section 3(1) of the Gujarat
Lokayukta Act, 1986.
12.
8.2.2010
A confidential letter was sent by Hon’ble Chief Minister to the Chief Justice of the
Gujarat High Court requesting him to suggest a panel of three Retired Judges of the High
Court of Gujarat as Lokayukta, Gujarat State.
13.
24.2.2010
Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court sent the panel of four Retired Judges of High
Court of Gujarat for consideration for appointment of Lokayukta, Gujarat State.
14.
2.3.2010
A letter was sent by Hon’ble Chief Minister to the Leader of Opposition in the State
Assembly to participate in the meeting at 11 am on 4.3.2010 as a part of consultation
process for appointment of Lokayukta, Gujarat State.
15.
3.3.2010
The Leader of Opposition objected to such process of consultation being initiated by the
Hon’ble Chief Minister. He also refused to join the consultation process with Hon’ble
Chief Minister.
16.
3.3.2010
Hon’ble Chief Minister sent a letter to the Leader of Opposition explaining the legal and
Constitutional position obtaining in the matter and once again requested to remain
present in the meeting of 4.3.2010.
17.
3.3.2010
A confidential letter dated 3.3.2010 was received from H.E. the Governor, wherein
she inter alia mentioned that she had deemed it appropriate to initiate the matter of
appointment of Lokayukta and had decided to hold consultation with the Leader of
Opposition on 4.3.2010 at 10.30 a.m. in her office in Raj Bhavan, Gandhinagar.
18.
4.3.2010
The Leader of Opposition sent a letter saying that in the matter of appointment of a
Lokayukta, the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers should not have any say. He
also requested the Hon’ble Chief Minister to forthwith terminate the process of
consultation initiated by him in the matter.The Leader of Opposition also informed that
H.E. the Governor had already initiated the process of consultation with the Leader of
Opposition and a meeting for the purpose was to take place at 10.30 a.m. on 4.3.2010.
19.
4.3.2010
Hon’ble Chief Minister sent a letter to the Leader of Opposition once again requesting
him to participate in the consultation process and to remain present in the meeting at 1
pm on 5.3.2010.
20.
4.3.2010
Hon’ble Chief Minister sent a letter to H.E. the Governor wherein, he mentioned that
since certain legal and Constitutional issues have been raised in her letter dated
3.3.2010, he considers it necessary to have a discussion on the subject with her. Hon’ble
Chief Minister sought suitable date and time for such discussion/ meeting with H.E. the
Governor.
21.
4.3.2010
Hon’ble Chief Minister held a meeting as per the schedule at 11 am on 4.3.2010 as a part
of consultation process. However, the Leader of Opposition did not remain present in the
meeting.
22.
5.3.2010
A letter dated 4.3.2010 was received from the Leader of Opposition intimating that he
had already participated in the consultation process at 10.30 am on 4.3.2010 with H.E.
the Governor of Gujarat and in view of the consultation already held by H.E. the
Governor of Gujarat, he regretted his inability and unwillingness to be present in the
meeting to be held by Hon’ble Chief Minister at 1 pm on 5.3.2010.
23.
5.3.2010
Hon’ble Chief Minister held a meeting as per the schedule at 1 pm on 5.3.2010.
However, the Leader of Opposition did not remain present.
24.
5.3.2010
A letter was received from the Principal Secretary to H.E. the Governor conveying that
H.E. the Governor had given the time for the meeting with Hon’ble Chief Minister at
16.00 hrs. on 8.3.2010.
25.
8.3.2010
Hon’ble Chief Minister along with the Hon’ble MoS (Law) called on H.E. the Governor
and discussed the point at issue at length. Hon’ble Chief Minister also gave a folder
containing all the relevant details pertaining to the issue and requested to resolve the
issue at the earliest.
26.
18.3.2010
With a view to ensuring that the consultation process with the Leader of Opposition in
the State Assembly takes place, Hon’ble Chief Minister sent one more letter to the
Leader of Opposition intimating him that he (Hon’ble CM) proposed to hold meeting for
consultation process at 11 am on 22.3.2010 (Monday). He also inter alia made it clear
that it was for the last time that he was making a request to attend the meeting for
consultation process in the matter. Hon’ble Chief Minister had also quoted all the
relevant judgments of High Courts/ Supreme Court including the relevant and operative
portion to emphasize the factual, legal and constitutional position obtaining in the
matter.
27.
22.3.2010
A letter dated 22.3.2010 received from the Leader of Opposition wherein, he inter
aliamentioned that he had already been called for the consultation process by H.E. the
Governor on 4.3.2010; the said process was already over; there can never be
consultation twice: once by Her Excellency the Governor and second by the Chief
Minister and/ or the Council of Ministers.At the end of the letter, the Leader of
Opposition mentioned that Hon’ble Chief Minister should not persist in undertaking an
exercise of consultation by him which lacks legal, moral and constitutional authority.
28.
22.3.2010
Hon’ble Chief Minister held the meeting as per the schedule at 11 am on 22.3.2010 in his
office in Vidhan Sabha Complex. However, the Leader of Opposition did not remain
present.
29.
31.3.2010
The name which was decided by the Hon’ble Chief Minister was placed before the
Council of Ministers in the meeting of 31.3.2010. The Council of Ministers gave approval
to the name.
30.
1.4.2010
The name which was approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers
was sent to H.E. the Governor for obtaining approval.
31.
5.5.2010
The file was returned by H.E. the Governor with the observation that in terms of the
recent judgment of the Apex court, the Chief Justice of the High Court is not required to
send a panel of the names but he has to send only one name. Accordingly, H.E. the
Governor has referred the whole matter back to the Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court
requesting him to re-examine the matter once again.
32.
31.12.2010
The Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court sent the fresh proposal to the State
Government recommending only one name for appointment as Lokayukta, Gujarat State.
33.
21.2.2011
The Hon’ble Chief Minister sent a letter to the Chief Justice of the Gujarat high Court
explaining as to how the process of appointment of Lokayukta could be expedited by
appointing the person whose name was recommended earlier by the Government to H.E.
the Governor instead of considering a new name.
34.
22.3.2011
The Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court sent a letter to Hon’ble Chief Minister saying
that he would again request the Government to consider the name recommended by him
vide his letter dated 31.12.2010.
35.
1.5.2011
The person whose name was recommended by the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High
Court vide his letter dated 31.12.2010 sent a Fax Message to H.E. the Governor
requesting her to recall his nomination.
36.
4.5.2011
Hon’ble Chief Minister sent a letter to the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court
requesting him to recommend the name of the person in whose case the whole process
of consideration had been gone through by the State Government for appointment as
Lokayukta, Gujarat State. The matter is pending with the Chief Justice of the Gujarat
High Court.
37.
7.6.2011
The Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court recommended another name.
38.
16.6.2011
Hon’ble Chief Minister wrote to the Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court quoting detailed
reasons as to why the name recommended by the CJ was not acceptable.
39.
2.8.2011
Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court has sent a letter which was received by the State
Government and the State Government, in turn, has addressed a letter dated 18.8.2011
to the Chief Justice reiterating its earlier stand and this letter is still under
consideration of the Chief Justice.
40.
25.8.2011
Despite the aforesaid developments, to the utter shock and surprise of the State
Government, the H.E. the Governor issued the warrant dated 25.8.2011 appointing
Justice (Retd.) Mr. R. A. Mehta as Lokayukta, Gujarat State, the copy of which has been
received along with a letter dated 25.8.2011 addressed to the Principal Secretary to the
Hon’ble Chief Minister on 26.8.2011.
This is an attempt to jolt and shove Gujarat’s “Vijaypath”.
And,
What else do you expect from spiteful and vengenceful Congressmen?
What say, Hon. Governor.. Old lady, Mrs. Kamla Beniwal? Is it not your gesture non-ethical???
But,
What to anticipate??? After all, Congressyyyyy!!!