Its simple meaning is nothing, but Communist leaders are above all 'bourgeois laws'. Because they are fighting against Bourgeoisie! What a great revolutionary idea! Long live revolution! Long live Lavlin model.
On 09/06/2009, damodar prasad <[email protected]> wrote: > > *Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA)- a Bourgieous enactment to save its > crass compardor public leaders*I........... > mean the clause clause in PCA invoked on need for the governor's sanction > for prosecution. > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:31 AM, damodar prasad > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> *But Rasheed, Is not the . * >> *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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
