CBI must file FIR in Rafale case: Bhushan, Shourie, Yashwant Sinha | WeForNews | Latest News, Blogs CBI must file FIR in Rafale case: Bhushan, Shourie, Yashwant Sinha – WeForNews | Latest News, Blogs
Connect with us

India

CBI must file FIR in Rafale case: Bhushan, Shourie, Yashwant Sinha

If the CBI fails to do so, it will again approach the Supreme Court, Bhushan told reporters at a press conference also addressed by Shourie.

Published

on

Arun Shourie
File Picture of Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha

The CBI must register an FIR in the Rafale deal, lawyer Prashant Bhushan and former BJP leader Arun Shourie said on Friday, a day after the Supreme Court gave the government a clean chit in the fighter-jet agreement.

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected pleas, including one by Bhushan, Shourie and former BJP leader Yashwant Sinha, for a review of its judgement that gave a clean chit to the Modi government on the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France. It also said there is no ground to order an FIR by the CBI or a roving inquiry into allegations of irregularities in the controversial deal.

Bhushan said it is binding on the Central Bureau of Investigation to probe their complaint despite the ruling by the three-judge apex court bench.

If the CBI fails to do so, it will again approach the Supreme Court, Bhushan told reporters at a press conference also addressed by Shourie. Sinha was not there.

To buttress his point, Bhushan referred to the judgment of Justice K M Joseph, one of the three judges of the bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that gave the verdict.

In his separate but concurring judgement on Wednesday, Joseph said the CBI, the country’s premier probe agency, is expected to act “completely independent” of the government of the day and professionalism of “highest quality”, uncompromising independence and neutrality is expected of it.

“The CBI has to seek the permission of the government for probing the case and it has three months to do so,” Bhushan said.

If the CBI does not do so, it has to cite reasons for not probing the case.

In October last year, Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan had moved the Supreme Court, seeking registration of an FIR into Rafale fighter jet deal.

In its December 14, 2018 verdict, the top court had said that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets.

In January, the three moved the apex court seeking review of its December 14 judgement.

India

Rohingyas will never be accepted as Indian citizens: Shah

Published

on

By

Rohingya

New Delhi, Dec 9 (IANS) Union Home Minister Amit Shah said in the Lok Sabha on Monday that the Centre will never touch Article 371 and that Rohingyas will never be accepted as citizens of India.

Shah made the remarks while speaking in the debate over the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, which was tabled in the Lower House on Monday.

“Rohingyas will never be accepted as citizens of India. They infiltrated India through Bangldesh. The came from Myanmar,” Shah said.

“There is a difference between Article 370 and Article 371. Article 371 does not give flag to anyone. We will never touch Article 371. I am assuring this to the whole northeast region,” the Home Minister said.

After the government abrogated Article 370 that granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, Article 371, which has special provisions for other states, primarily from the northeast region, has gained attention.

Continue Reading

Business

Bothered by big businesses killing another company: Ratan Tata

Published

on

Ratan-Tata

New Delhi, Dec 9 : Ratan Naval Tata, the Chairman Emeritus of Tata Sons and Chairman of Tata Trusts, has said that he has always been bothered by big businesses and corporations killing another organisation.

In an interview with YourStory, Tata said that it is important to work for the benefit of others and buying other companies just to bury them has bothered him. Tata added that one should be happy about another company or person’s prosperity which he called, “the closest definition of happiness.”

“Big businesses and corporations think nothing of killing another organisation because it’s competing with their business. Companies are known to buy out other companies just to bury them in a drawer. That has always bothered me. So, if you can live with feeling happy about another company or another person’s prosperity, then that would be the closest definition of happiness,” he said.

Elaborating on the point, Tata said that while some people are good at causing misery, he feels happy by seeing someone else’s happiness.

“Some people excel in seeing or causing misery. I get euphoric in seeing somebody’s happiness. Even if it’s a person selling vegetables on the side of the road, if there’s humour or happiness on their faces, that makes me happy,” he said.

Tata’s advice to the young is that they do the right thing against all odds. “Doing the right thing may be the more difficult option, but it’s still the better option,” he said.

Tata also added in the interview with YourStory that he is worried about the disappointment he might cause by shutting the door on people.

“I just have a problem shutting the door on people. I would like to see them happy. So, to say that I don’t have the time to see someone and think about the disappointment that that might cause, bothers me,” he said.

Tata also gave himself low scores on treating employees fairly because sometimes compromises were required for the organsiation.

On his legacy, Tata said, “It’s been more than a job. It’s been a lifetime because the job has many attributes. One is the job itself and the performance you have for your shareholders and others, and the other is how you treat your employees. How fair (you’ve been).

“I would have a lower score than I would like to have on how fair you’ve been with your employees consciously because there are so many times you have to compromise something in the broader interest of the organisation. It would have been harder, but it would have been the right thing,” he said.

Continue Reading

India

Lok Sabha burns midnight oil to pass Citizenship Amendment Bill

Published

on

By

Amit Shah

New Delhi, Dec 10 : The controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019, which seeks to give Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, was passed in the Lok Sabha on Monday midnight though it was vehemently opposed by the major opposition parties which described it as “anti-Muslim”.

However, the government rejected the opposition’s claims, saying the Bill does not affect the Muslim community residing in the country.

The draft legislation was passed after division of votes with 311 in its favour and 80 against it, following a marathon debate which continued till 12.06 a.m. on Tuesday after beginning at about 4 p.m. on Monday. A total of 48 Parliamentarians took part in the debate.

The Bill would now be moved in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday to cross its final hurdle before becoming a law to provide Indian nationality to Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains and Buddhists fleeing persecution in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

The Treasury benches called it a historical Bill while the opposition dubbed the move as one to “kill secularism and Constitution of India” and “another attempt of partition” in the country in the name of religion and “violation of Article 14 of the Constitution”.

Major opposition parties, including Congress, Trinamool Congress, Revolutionary Socialist Party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhgam (DMK), All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM), Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), AIUDF, Bahujan Samaj Party, Samajwadi Party, Aam Aadmi Party and YSR Congress Party opposed the Bill citing various articles of the Constitution.

In his concluding reply, Union Home Minister Amit Shah rejected the allegations of opposition members, saying the Bill is a move to “end the atrocities against crores of migrants”.

“I assure that the Bill does not violate any article of the Constitution and that no citizen will be deprived of one’s rights. An attempt is being made to keep the Bill in bad light.”

“Every citizen has been given a place in the Bill on the basis of reasonable
classification,” he added.

Shah said the Bill seeks to provide Indian nationality to Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains and Buddhists fleeing persecution in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

The Home Minister said that the Bill has been taken after analysing the Constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

Referring to the Nehru-Liaquat Ali Khan agreement signed in 1950 after the Partition of India, Shah said it was agreed to protect the rights of minorities, but only India followed it. Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains and Buddhists faced atrocities in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, he said.

Shah clarified that the Muslim community was not persecuted in the three Islamic countries, and the Bill specifically mentions to provide citizenship to six religious persecuted minorities.

“The people of the six minority communities who migrated to India following religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan will be given Indian citizenship as per this Bill. They are being given citizenship on the basis of reasonable classification. The Bill does not violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution,” Shah said.

He also said the Bill is not against the Muslim community and that if any Muslim seeks citizenship in India based on rules, he will be entertained as per the Article of the Bill.

“The Bill does not affect the Muslims residing in this country. The Muslims residing here will not face any problem. They live with dignity and will live with the same dignity,” Shah said.

He declared that Manipur would be brought under the Inner Line Permit (ILP) regime and with that the problems of all the northeastern states would be taken care of as mentioned in the Citizenship Bill.

He said that Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland, leaving few parts, are ILP protected.

The Home Minister reassured that no provision of Article 371 would be violated by this Bill and the Article will never be touched.

The linguistic, cultural and social identity of the people of the northeast would be preserved and this Bill contains the solution to the problems of the people of these states, as the provisions of the amendment have been incorporated after marathon deliberations with various stakeholders from the northeast for the last one month.

Shah said the provisions of the amendments to the Citizenship Act, 1955, which was enacted to provide for the acquisition and determination of Indian citizenship, would not apply to tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram or Tripura as included in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and the area covered under “The Inner Line” notified under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.

The Bill, he said, also seeks to amend the Third Schedule to the Act to make applicants belonging to the six minority communities from the three countries eligible for citizenship by naturalisation if they can establish their residency in India for five years instead of the existing eleven years.

Shah said the Bill no where targets India’s minority community, but illegal immigrants and Rohingyas would not be allowed to stay in the country at any cost.

The Home Minister said that there is no merit in the questions raised by members on the competence of the Parliament to discuss this Bill on the ground that it is against the basic structure and ethos of the Constitution. “I want to assure the nation that this Bill is not against any provision of the Constitution of India,” he said.

Shah also accused Congress of dividing the country on the basis of religion during Partition, saying “if the Congress had not done the Partition of the country based on religion, the government would not have brought the Citizenship Bill”.

Initiating the debate over the Bill, senior Congress leader Manish Tewari hit back at Shah for accusing the Congress for the Partition of the country on the basis of religion.

“I want to remind them that the idea of Partition on the basis of religion was first floated in 1935 in Ahmedabad by (Veer) Savarkar at a Hindu Mahasabha session, and not (by the) Congress,” he said.

Tewari said the Bill was against Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and against the basic right of equality. The Bill was also against the principles of B.R. Amedkar, he added.

AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi tore a copy of the draft legislation in the Lok Sabh calling it “arbitrary in nature” and “against the Muslim community”.

“Another Partition is going to happen in the country. This Bill is against the Constitution of India and a disrespect to our freedom fighters. I tear the Bill, it is trying to divide our country,” Owaisi said.

(Rajnish Singh can be contacted at [email protected])

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Most Popular