Congress had separated an integral part of Pakistan, says Kapil Sibal | WeForNews | Latest News, Blogs Congress had separated an integral part of Pakistan, says Kapil Sibal – WeForNews | Latest News, Blogs
Connect with us


Congress had separated an integral part of Pakistan, says Kapil Sibal

Article 370 was an internal matter of India but we separated their integral part. Why don’t you tell the people of Haryana that Congress had separated Pakistan?”



Kapil Sibal PC On Economy

New Delhi, Oct 19 : In a clear reference to the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan, Senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal on Saturday said that his party had also taken action against the neighbouring country.

“Modi doesn’t remember when Pakistan was separated and who was responsible for it. Article 370 was an internal matter of India but we separated their integral part. Why don’t you tell the people of Haryana that Congress had separated Pakistan?” Sibal said at a press conference here.
The Congress leader also slammed the Central government over the economic slowdown.

“Why do you make fun of the poor? Our economy is in such a condition that people don’t have food. Doctors and postgraduates are looking for jobs as peons,” Sibal said.

Citing data from international forums like World Bank and International Monetary Fund, Sibal accused Union Ministers of refusing to believe that there is an economic slowdown in the country.

“Piyush Goyal says there is no economic crisis. He says Abhijit Banerjee has left-leaning views. I want to ask them, are IMF, World Bank, Fitch Ratings, UN Conference on trade development also left-leaning?” he asked.

Sibal also cited Senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy’s comments and said: “Swamy had said that the economy is headed for a serious crisis. Does he also have left-leaning views?”

He also mentioned the country’s tumbling ranks in several international comparative indices including hunger index and world happiness index. However, he also admitted that India has moved upwards in ‘Ease of Doing Business’.

“You (Modi) remember Article 370 but not Article 47, which dictates the duty of the government to raise the level of nutrition for the welfare of the public,” he said.

He also touched upon the 311 people being deported from Mexico and the PMC Bank crisis saying Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not talked about any of these issues.


LJP Chief Chirag Paswan slams BJP over President’s rule in Maharashtra




New Delhi, Nov 12 After deciding to go solo in the Jharkhand assembly polls by ditching BJP, LJP Chief Chirag Paswan on Tuesday described the imposition of President’s Rule in Maharashtra as “unfortunate” and said that it was sad that BJP-Shiv Sena did not form government for their “own ambitions”.

“Imposition of President’s Rule in Maharashtra is unfortunate. People gave their mandate to the NDA. It is sad that the parties did not form the government for their own ambitions,” Chirag Paswan tweeted.

His remarks came hours after his party decided to go solo in Jharkhand.

Chirag Paswan, who took over the reins of the party from his father and Union Minister Ram Vilas Paswan last week, has been “critical” of the BJP in the last few days.

On Monday, while speaking to reporters in Patna, the LJP chief had said that the party will not accept seats given to it as “tokens”.

According to the LJP leader, the party was demanding six seats in the state, where the five phased elections are scheduled from November 30 to December 20.

Earlier in the day, Chirag made clear that his party will go solo in the state and contest on 50 seats. The party also released the list of five candidates for the seats going to polls in the first phase.

The BJP, which is seeking re-election in the state has been facing alliance trouble in the state as Nitish Kumar-led Janata Dal-United has also decided to contest alone in the state, while the alliance with the All Jharkhand Students Union (AJSU) is in limbo.

AJSU, in response to BJP’s list of 52 candidates, has announced 12 candidates, at least four of them on the seats already announced by the BJP.

Continue Reading


Naga militant son, bride flaunt assault rifle, case filed




Dimapur, Nov 12 Nagaland police has registered a suo-moto case against the newlywed son of a top militant leader of National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Unification (NSCN-U) and his wife for brandishing sophisticated assault rifles at their wedding reception in this commercial town of this State.

The photographs and a video of the son of Kilo Kilonser of the NSCN-U Bohoto Kiba and the bride brandishing assault rifles – M16 and AK 56 – at their wedding reception went viral on WhatsApp groups besides social and digital media.

The couple got married on November 9 at 5th Mile in Dimapur.

“We have registered a suo-moto case into the incident. Investigation is on,” Commissioner of Police (Dimapur), Rothihu Tetseo told IANS.

Tetseo said no one has been arrested.

Senior police officials said that the bride and groom should be arrested for displaying illegal arms which is prohibited under Arms Act 1959.

The guests, who attended the wedding feast were stunned when they saw the newly-wed couple displaying the shiny rifles.

Kiba is a powerful Naga rebel leader, who had courted controversy by threatening journalists in Nagaland in 2012. The top militant leader had threatened to shoot members of the press.

The NSCN-U was formed by breakaway leaders of the Socialist Council of Nagalim – Isak-Muivah and the Myanmar-based Socialist Council of Nagaland-Khaplang.

The NSCN-U faction is also one of the seven Naga groups holding peace talks with the government.

Continue Reading


CJI under RTI: CJI being on bench is no issue, say experts




delhi high court

New Delhi, Nov 12 Legal experts say the Chief Justice pronouncing the judgement on bringing the office of Chief Justice under the RTI Act is not an issue, and that it is, instead, a process connected with adjudication.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said, “The Chief Justice can certainly be on the bench pronouncing the judgement on the petitions challenging the Delhi High Court verdict bringing the office of the Chief Justice of India within the ambit of RTI. The verdict is connected to the office and not to an individual.”

When queried on any issue of conflict of interest, Dwivedi said there is absolutely no conflict of interest.

The apex court had observed that the judiciary cannot be destroyed for the sake of transparency, though insisting that nobody wants a system of opaqueness.

The apext court bench had said, “Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the same…but, the question which is before us is that in the name of transparency, you can’t destroy the institution.”

Dwivedi cited an example, if somebody finds issue with the apex court Collegium and then challenges it before the top court. “It would have to be heard by the judges”, added Dwivedi.

Recently, Justice Arun Mishra, a senior judge of the apex court, had refused to recuse from hearing a batch of petitions connected with the Land Acquisition Act. According to the judgment, Justice Mishra decided not to recuse in the “interest of the judiciary and the system”.

Justice Mishra was part of the verdict in February last year, which held that acquisition of the land by a government agency cannot be overturned, if there was a delay by land owners who fail to accept compensation within five years citing pending court cases.

In 2014, another verdict had ruled the land acquisition can be overturned if there is a delay in accepting the compensation awarded against the acquisition.

In March 2018, the top court had said a larger bench would look into the verdicts. On a query, comparing the two scenarios, Dwivedi said Justice Mishra was part of the judgement whereas the RTI judgement pertains to the office of Chief Justice.

Senior advocate Narendra Hooda said there is no conflict of interest in Chief Justice being part of the bench, which is scheduled to pronounce the judgement tomorrow.

“The Chief Justice being part of the bench is the process of legal adjudication of the matter”, said Hooda. He cited an example, if a district judge is removed by a full High Court bench, then to seek relief, the judge would have to go before the same High Court.

“Therefore, the current case is related to the office of Chief Justice of India and not to an individual”, said Hooda.

Continue Reading

Most Popular