*But Rasheed, Is not the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA)- a Bourgieous enactment to save its crass compardor public leaders. * *I think by the way you were arguing about the necessity of CPs in neo-liberal context in previous mails, you should've argued that CP leaders should be above the bourgiuoes law of PCA....... clean and uncontaminated*..
Governors, of course are pawns in the hands of the central governemnt and the CBI is no great independent instituion. But is it not desirable that Communist Party leader and the CP institution as such should be above such posts? I am afraid that the way CPM has managed Lavalin, since the formation of this Govt., has in turn helped the reactionary forces. The stubborn stance of CPM has enabled the bourgeous parties reap the dividends of its mis-managed strategy. ( I referrred to "formation of this Govt" bocz when Lavalin issue came up last time, Com. secy has boldly said that he is ready to face any inquiry. The boldness was missing later, :-) :-) :-) only to be found in the words of English Desabhimani, I mean the Hindu editorial.) CPM has given an impression that something is severely rotten by the way it handled the issue. The media syndicate must have done its duty but the stance of CPM as regards non-compliance to judicial review only complicated the matter. As an enthusiast of CPM brand politics and observing politics above factional self-ineterests, *you* should be more worrying about the moral- voice of CPM at national level. The red card often held out by the CPM on corrupt practice and tainted ministers will no longer be available. The argument of political fight on legal issues is not only avaliable to CPM. Now this will echoed by anyone.. i mean all the "compradors".. On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Abdul Rasheed <[email protected]> wrote: > > *That does not mean that Governer is impartial. Sure, advocate General > might have party interests. As one who have the right to criticize the AG, > we can criticize the Governer too, since both of them are party nominees. > * > ** > *But here the Governer acted against the advise of ministry and the advise > of AG. He may have the discreetional power to take such a dicision. By doing > this, here he became the part of a political game.* > ** > ** > *regards * > *Rasheed * > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:02 AM, damodar prasad > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Since Advocate General is elected by the people, to think he will take a >> partial decision is against the commonsense. >> But never had I thought a post-modern situation would prevail amidst the >> feudal factional struggle for Leninist Truth. >> What more eveidence needed for a the arrival of political relativism, in >> other words, Most-Modern!! >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Abdul Rasheed <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> *The Governer is the nominee of the ruling party in centre. To think >>> that he will take a completely impartial dicisions will be a stupidity. >>> * >>> ** >>> *regards * >>> *Rasheed * >>> ** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:40 PM, sunil kumar <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Governor can sanction Minister's prosecution, says Supreme Court * >>>> >>>> By Our Legal Correspondent >>>> >>>> NEW DELHI, NOV. 5. The Supreme Court today held that the Governor of a >>>> State could independently accord sanction for prosecution of a Minister in >>>> prevention of corruption cases without the "aid and advice" of the Council >>>> of Ministers. >>>> >>>> A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Justice N. Santosh Hegde, >>>> observed that "if on facts and circumstances of a case, the Governor cannot >>>> act in his own discretion there would be a complete breakdown of the rule >>>> of >>>> law inasmuch as it would then be open for Governments to refuse sanction in >>>> spite of overwhelming material showing that a *prima facie* case is >>>> made out." >>>> >>>> The Bench that included Justice S.N. Variava, Justice B.P. Singh, >>>> Justice H.K. Sema and Justice S.B. Sinha said: "If, in cases where [a] >>>> *prima facie* case is clearly made out, sanction to prosecute high >>>> functionaries is refused or withheld, democracy itself will be at stake. It >>>> would then lead to a situation where people in power may break the law with >>>> impunity safe in the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted as the >>>> requisite sanction will not be granted." >>>> >>>> The Bench gave this ruling while upholding sanction for prosecution >>>> accorded by the then Madhya Pradesh Governor against two former Ministers, >>>> Rajender Kumar Singh and Hisahu Ram Yadav. A case under the Prevention of >>>> Corruption Act was registered against them in March 1998 on the basis of a >>>> report from the Lok Ayukta. >>>> >>>> Sanction sought from the Council of Ministers for prosecuting the two >>>> was rejected. The Council of Ministers held that there was not an iota of >>>> material available against them for proceeding with the case. The Governor >>>> then considered the matter and opined that a *prima facie* case was >>>> made out for granting sanction and gave it under Section 197 of the >>>> Criminal >>>> Procedure Code. >>>> >>>> The two Ministers challenged the Governor's decision in the High Court >>>> and both a single Judge and then a Division Bench quashed the Governor's >>>> order. The special leave petition by the Madhya Pradesh Special Police >>>> Establishment was directed against this judgment. >>>> >>>> ** >>>> >>>> © Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
